Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:22:32.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neorealism and Neoliberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access

Abstract

The classic dialectic between Realist and Liberal theories of international politics, as expressed by Robert O. Keohane, ed., in Neorealism and Its Critics and Richard Rosecrance The Rise of the Trading State, can be transcended. Neither paradigm singularly explains international behavior: Realism is the dominant approach, but liberal theories of transnationalism and interdependence help to illuminate how national interests are learned and changed. Keohane and fellow critics argue that Neorealism—articulated definitively in Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979)—elegantly systematizes Realism, but concentrates on international system structure at the expense of system process. Focused tightly on the concept of bipolarity, Waltz's theory tends toward stasis; the unit (state) level unproductively becomes an analytical “dumping ground.” As a Neoliberal counterpoint, Rosecrance's argument does not go far enough. In the tradition of commercial liberalism, he argues that an open trading system offers states maneuverability through economic growth rather than through military conquest. He tempers his argument with Realist considerations of prudence, but fails to clarify Realist-Liberal links in his theory, or to explore fully the connections between power and non-power incentives influencing states' behavior. A synthesis of Neorealism and Neoliberalism is warranted: a systemic theory using the former to analyze at the level of structure, the latter more often at the level of process.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , January 1988 , pp. 235 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kagan, Donald, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

2 Kahn, Herman and Bruce-Briggs, B., Things to Come (New York: Macmillan, 1972)Google Scholar.

3 Morgenthau, Hans J., “The New Diplomacy of Movement,” Encounter 43 (August 1974), 52–57Google Scholar, at 56.

4 Brown, Seyom, New Forces in World Politics (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1974), 186Google Scholar.

5 Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet Security Regimes,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), 371–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985)Google Scholar.

7 Deutsch, Karl et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst, The Uniting of Europe (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Peace in Parts (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)Google Scholar.

8 Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977)Google Scholar.

9 Krasner, Stephen, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

10 , Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar.

11 Bator, Francis M., The State of Macroeconomics (Kennedy School Discussion Paper 1520, Cambridge, MA: 1986), 19Google Scholar.

12 Waltz (fn. 10), 77, 72.

13 Lakatos, Imre, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Waltz (fn. 10), 162.

15 Ibid., 168.

16 Waltz ignored the criticism of narrow definitions of interdependence in terms of vulnerability alone that was published in Power and Interdependence (fn. 8). Had he considered a more complex treatment of interdependence, he might have come to different conclusions about its decline.

17 Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Hoffmann, Stanley, “Liberalism and International Affairs,” in Janus and Minerva (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987)Google Scholar. Hoffmann points out a terminological difficulty: many Realists are liberal in their domestic political preferences.

19 Doyle, Michael, “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80 (December 1986), 1151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Robert O. Keohane, “Economic Limits of Modern Politics: International Liberalism Reconsidered,” unpub., 1986.

21 Cobden, quoted in Waltz, Kenneth, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 104Google Scholar.

22 For alternative explanations, see Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar, and Russett, Bruce, “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony: or Is Mark Twain Really Dead?” International Organization 39 (Spring 1985), 207–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Rosecrance mistakes the argument in Power and Interdependence as being similar to his own. Keohane and I did not establish “dualistic categories: power and interdependence … power is the preeminent goal of a state-centric universe, but interdependence is a characteristic that only applies when states as entities have lost control” (p. 62). On the contrary, we argued the need to see asymmetrical interdependence as a source of power. Rosecrance seems to confuse the ideal type of complex interdependence developed in chapter 2 of our work with our larger argument about interdependence.

24 See Bueno de Mesquita, Bruno, The War Trap (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar, and the special issue of World Politics 38 (October 1985), Cooperation under Anarchy, Oye, Kenneth A., ed. (also published under that title by Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

25 Note the assertion by Duncan Snidal, “The Game Theory of International Politics,” ibid., 25–57.

26 , Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983), 205–35Google Scholar.

27 Hayward R. Alker, Jr. “The Presumption of Anarchy in World Politics,” unpub., 1986. See also Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “Power and Interdependence Revisited,” International Organization 41 (Autumn 1987), 725–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a fuller discussion of the concepts that are introduced here.