Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism in Global Politics: Towards Assessing the Intellectual Siblings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KIU Journal of Social Sciences KIU Journal of Social Sciences Copyright©2021 Kampala International University ISSN: 2413-9580; 7(2): 57- 76 Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism in Global Politics: Towards Assessing the Intellectual Siblings M.’BIMBO OGUNBANJO Adonai University, Cotonou, Republic of Benin Abstract. In international relations (IR) there are international order. This paper discusses the various many perspectives or ways of looking at a versions of neo-liberalism and neo-realism and asks phenomenon. Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, the reader to consider how theory shapes our image Behaviouralism are some of the major perspectives in of the world. Each theory represents an attempt by international relations (IR). And in this perspective it scholars to offer a better explanation for the also has derivatives that can be said to perfect behaviour of states and describe the nature of previous perspectives. This is because the international politics. Similarly, the more policy- phenomenon of international relations (IR) is relevant versions of these theories prescribe increasingly diverse and needs new perspectives that competing policy agendas. This paper reviews three are able to provide choices for scholars to view the versions of neo-realism: Waltz’s structural Realism; phenomenon. Perspectives that experience these Grieco’s neo-realism or modern Realism, with its derivatives are neo-realism which is a derivative of focus on absolute and relative gains; and what realism and neo-liberalism derived from liberalism. security scholars call offensive and defensive This paper reviews the core assumptions of neo- Realism or neo-realism. It considers Waltz’s realism and neo-liberalism and explores the debate argument that neo-realism is not only different from between these intellectual siblings that have realism but an advance upon it. It compares neo- dominated mainstream academic scholarship in realist arguments about the stability of the bipolar international relations (IR). It emphasizes that in light world with some recent analyses of the changing of the demise of the Soviet Union and the subsequent nature of state structures and emerging patterns of withdrawal of Soviet forces from Central Europe, the closer co-operation. The argument of this paper is debate between neo-realism and neo-liberal that neo-realism underestimates the extent to which institutionalism has taken on a new relevance. state structures are changing in the industrialized Realism and neo-realism, and to some extent neo- parts of the world. It further highlights three respects liberalism, have also had a profound impact on US in which neo-realism is being superseded by critical foreign policy. Neo-realists dominate the world of theories of international relations (IR) which, it is security studies and neo-liberals focus on political argued, contain a superior account of the relationship economy and more recently on issues like human between the units and the international system, a rights and the environment. These theories do not deeper grasp of the significance of the cultural offer starkly contrasting images of the world. Neo- dimensions of world politics and a clearer recognition realists state that they are concerned with issues of that the main challenge of the post-bipolar world is to survival. They claim that neo-liberals are too create new forms of political community This paper optimistic about the possibilities for cooperation also reviews the assumptions of neo-liberal and neo- among states. Neo-liberals counter with claims that liberal institutionalist perspectives. It later focuses on all states have mutual interests and can gain from the ‘neo-neo-debate’. This is a debate that many US cooperation. Both are normative theories of a sort, scholars think is the most important intellectual issue biased towards the state, the capitalist market, and the in international relations (IR) today. Many other status quo. The processes of globalization have scholars see it as not much of a debate at all. It is a forced neo-realists and neo-liberals to consider debate about refining common assumptions and similar issues and address new challenges to about the future role and effectiveness of 57 KIU Journal of Social Sciences international institutions and the possibilities of cooperation. However, it is not a debate between For most academics, neo-realism refers to Kenneth mainstream and critical perspectives. It is a debate Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979). between ‘rule-makers’ and it leaves out the voices on Waltz’s theory emphasizes the importance of the the margins or the ‘rule-takers’. This paper structure of the international system and its role as undertakes a review on how neo-realists and neo- the primary determinant of state behaviour. Yet, most liberal thinkers react to the processes of scholars and policy-makers use neo-realism to globalization. It concludes with a suggestion that we describe a recent or updated version of Realism. are only seeing part of the world if we limit our Recently, in the area of security studies, some studies to the neo perspectives and the neo-neo scholars use the terms offensive and defensive debate. realism when discussing the current version of Realism; or neo-realism. Keywords: Neo-Realism, Neo-Liberalism, Critical Theory, Global Politics, Globalization, Neo-Neo In the academic world, neo-liberal generally refers to Debate, International Relations, Bipolarity, Political neo-liberal Institutionalism or what is now called Community Institutional theory by those writing in this theoretical domain. However, in the policy world, neo-liberalism 1. Introduction means something different. A neo-liberal foreign policy promotes free trade or open markets and The argument that neo-realism and neo-liberalism are Western democratic values and institutions. Most of flawed in theory and stultifying in practice has been the leading Western states have joined the US-led explored at length in critical circles in recent years. chorus, calling for the ‘enlargement’ of the Scholars have argued that global political structures community of democratic and capitalist nation-states. are mutable, and the future need not be like the past. There is no other game in town, the financial and Two claims which are robustly defended by Kenneth political institutions created after the Second World Waltz have been challenged as a result. The first is War have survived and these provide the foundation that the international system, which has been for current political and economic power remarkably similar across whole millennia, will arrangements. endure indefinitely. The second is that the anarchic system will thwart projects of reform as in the past. In reality, neo-liberal foreign policies tend not to be The neo-realist riposte has been that advancing the as wedded to the ideals of democratic peace, free moral case for a different world order will not trade, and open borders. National interests take prevent the recurrence of old patterns of inter-state precedence over morality and universal ideals and, rivalry and war. much to the dismay of traditional Realists, economic interests are given priority over geopolitical ones. With the demise of the Cold War era, the differences between neo-realist and neo-liberal theories of For students beginning their study of International international politics should acquire even greater Relations (IR), these labels and contending importance. The debate between neo-realists and neo- definitions can be confusing and frustrating. Yet, liberals had dominated mainstream international understanding these perspectives and theories is the relations (IR) scholarship since the mid-1980s. Two only way you can hope to understand and explain of the major US journals in the field, International how leaders and citizens alike see the world and Organization and International Security are respond to issues and events. This understanding may dominated by articles that address the relative merits be more important when discussing neo-realism and of each theory and its value in explaining the world neo-liberalism because they represent dominant of international politics. Neo-realism and neo- perspectives in the policy world and in the US liberalism are the progeny of Realism and Liberalism academic community. respectively. They are more than theories; they are paradigms or conceptual frameworks that define a There are clear differences between neo-realism and field of study, and define an agenda for research and neo-liberalism; however, these differences should not policy making. There are many versions and be exaggerated. Robert Keohane (in Baldwin 2003), a interpretations of each paradigm or theory. Some neo-liberal institutionalist, has stated that neo-liberal Realists are more ‘hard-line’ on issues such as Institutionalism borrows equally from Realism and defence or participation in international agreements, Liberalism. Both theories represent status-quo while other Realists take more accommodating perspectives and are what Robert Cox (1999) calls positions on these same issues. problem-solving theories. This means that both neo- 58 KIU Journal of Social Sciences realism and neo-liberalism address issues and that there is no differentiation of function between problems that could disrupt the status quo, namely different units. the issues of security, conflict, and cooperation. The structure of the international system shapes all Neither theory advances prescriptions for major foreign policy choices. For