Neo-Neo debate

  • View
    156

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

the m

Transcript

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

Submitted To Ms. Ayesha Rahman (Faculty of Political Science)

Date Of Submission 31st August 2012

Submitted By Anushree Modi Roll No. 69 Semester V Section A

Hidayatullah National Law University

Page 1

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

Table of contents

Acknowledments

03

Research Methodology

04

Hypothesis

04

Introduction

05

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

07

Neo-Realsim

07

Neo-Liberalism

09

Neo-Neo Synthesis

11

The Neo-Neo Debate

12

Conclusion

17

Bibliography

18

Page 2

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

AcknowledgementI would like to thank the University for providing me with the opportunity to complete this project. Moreover, I would like to thank my teacher, Ms. Ayesha Rahman for providing me with the support which proved essential for the conclusion of the project. I also whole heartedly would like to thank the library and computer lab staff as without their support and help, this project could not have seen the light of the day. I thank my friends and classmates for their valuable suggestions and precious guidance and all the other people who directly or indirectly helped me to complete this project. It is all these people who deserve the credit.

Page 3

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

Research MethodolgyThe research methodology used in this project is analytical and critical in nature as all the data and material has been collected primarily from internet and one book.

Hypothesis1. Neo-Liberal and Neo-Realists schools of thought were founded after the radical change in international relations after the Second World War and formation of United Nations and other such non-governmental organisations. 2. In the neo-neo debate, the clear winner would be neo-realism

Page 4

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

IntroductionLiberalism and Realism are considered as the main theories of International Relations. Although differences between the two paradigms made them incommensurable paradigms, nevertheless they shaped the doctrine and the behaviors of policy makers at least to the 1970s. What happened later, is that both doctrines reacted to the behaviorist revolution and tried to give their assumptions scientific validity, building neo theories that reshaped the old paradigms.1 Both the neo approaches present a systemic perspective, in order to understand the consequences of systemic conditions over the behavior of states, and both acknowledge that such perspective is limited insofar as it fails to understand important variations on state behavior that arise from domestic dynamics. Both approaches understand the world as an anarchical setting, in which states interact without a formal institution that governs them. States are the main actors for both perspectives, although neo-liberalism considers international institutions and regimes to have an impact on state behavior. Both perspectives assume that states have a more or less fixed set of interests, although they differ in terms of whether power or wealth is at the top of the states preferences. Despite the strong similarities between both approaches, discrepancies between neorealism and neo-liberalism revolve around some key issues. The main point of discord between neo-realism and institutional neo-liberalism was presented by Robert Keohanes critique of Waltz theory. According to Keohane, neo-realism explains parsimoniously the behavior of states in an anarchical system, but fails to recognize international economic processes and institutions that can also have strong effects on states' behavior . The basis for Keohanes criticism can be tracked to discrepancies around the consequences of anarchy, the possibility of sustained cooperation and the preponderance of relative vs. absolute gains.2

1

URL (last seen 25.08.2012.):http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-

synthesis-and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/2

URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): : http://ipcomp.wikispaces.com/Neo-Neo+debate

Page 5

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

The differences and similarities between both the neo ideologies are explained in a more detailed manner in the following research project

Page 6

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International PoliticsNeo-RealismFor many academics neo-realism refers to Kenneth Waltzs Theory of International Politics (1979). Waltzs theory emphasizes the importance of the structure of the international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behavior. However, neo-realism school of thought has two other streams of thought, the first one being that of John Grieco and the second one being the one found in security studies. John Grieco combines waltzs structural neo-realism and ideas of the classical realists like Hans Morgenthau, Stanley Hoffman, etc. The third stream of neo-realism is mainly pursued by American scholars, it talk about how a state must act in the face of an intended threat and persevere to be as strong as the opposing state (defensive realism) or a state must be proactive and become relatively stronger than the neighboring or conflicting states. 3 During the 1970s there was also the strong feeling that liberalism, despite its many facets, was becoming the dominant theoretical paradigm of international relations. It was the formulation of realism in structural terms by Kenneth Waltz, with its famous Theory of International Relations (1979) to reaffirm the centrality of the political dimension and restore prestige to the school. Waltzs theory was strongly influenced by the positivistic scientism and labelled as neo-realism, and focused on the structural-systemic within the realist doctrine. He accused previous scholars as Morgenthau, Kaplan, Hoffmann of reductionism: having explored causes placed at the individual or the national level, they highlighted limited aspects of

3

See: Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international

relations. 4th ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Page 7

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

international reality, making realism a theory of politics in general, rather than a theory of International Relations4 Waltz shifted from Morgenthau and classical realism, who relied on human nature, to explain states behaviour (anthropological pessimism). Instead, he concentrated on the character of the anarchic international system (structural pessimism) that causes self-help, conflict and war The following are the core assumptions of neo-realism as Waltz sees it: States and other actors interact in anarchic environment. This means that there is no central authority to enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger global community. The most critical problem presented by this kind of anarchy is survival. States are rational actors selecting strategies to maximize benefits and minimize losses. States are self-interest oriented and the anarchic and competitive system pushes them to favor self-help over co-operative behavior. States see all other states as potential enemies and threats to their national security. This distrust and fear creates a security dilemma and this motivates the policies of most states.5

4

URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-

synthesis-and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/5

URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://ciu.academia.edu/OlowojoluFrancis/Papers/1616528/neo_neo_debate_in_

international_relations

Page 8

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics

Neo-LiberalismNeo-liberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states6 Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered as the founders of the neo-liberal school of thought. This developed this theory as a response to neo-realism and called the theory Complex Interdependence. This represented a fundamental theoretical shift in the liberal tradition: recognizing the importance of states as primary actors and the anarchic character of the international system, they marked the beginning of the transformation of the liberalism theory towards neo-liberal institutionalism.7 Neo-liberal institutionalism or Liberal Institutionalism is considered by many scholars to present the most convincing challenge to realist and neo-realist thinking. The roots of neoliberalism are found in the functional integration scholarship of the 1940s and the 1950s.8 The core assumptions of the neo-liberal school of thought are: States are key actors in international relations, but not the only significant actors. There is an existence of multiple channels, namely the relationships, between states and states, and states and non-state actors. Together with inter-state relat