Neo-Neo debate

Download Neo-Neo debate

Post on 30-Oct-2014

155 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

the m

TRANSCRIPT

<p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>Submitted To Ms. Ayesha Rahman (Faculty of Political Science)</p> <p>Date Of Submission 31st August 2012</p> <p>Submitted By Anushree Modi Roll No. 69 Semester V Section A</p> <p>Hidayatullah National Law University</p> <p>Page 1</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>Table of contents</p> <p>Acknowledments</p> <p>03</p> <p>Research Methodology</p> <p>04</p> <p>Hypothesis</p> <p>04</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>05</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>07</p> <p>Neo-Realsim</p> <p>07</p> <p>Neo-Liberalism</p> <p>09</p> <p>Neo-Neo Synthesis</p> <p>11</p> <p>The Neo-Neo Debate</p> <p>12</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>17</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>18</p> <p>Page 2</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Page 3</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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</p> <p>Page 4</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>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</p> <p>1</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.):http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-</p> <p>synthesis-and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/2</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): : http://ipcomp.wikispaces.com/Neo-Neo+debate</p> <p>Page 5</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>The differences and similarities between both the neo ideologies are explained in a more detailed manner in the following research project</p> <p>Page 6</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>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</p> <p>3</p> <p>See: Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international</p> <p>relations. 4th ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.</p> <p>Page 7</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>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</p> <p>4</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-</p> <p>synthesis-and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/5</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://ciu.academia.edu/OlowojoluFrancis/Papers/1616528/neo_neo_debate_in_</p> <p>international_relations</p> <p>Page 8</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>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 relations must be considered transgovernative and transnational relations. The decline of the importance of military power, is increasingly important given the economic interdependence and international institutions.9</p> <p>6</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_in_international_relation URL (last seen 25.08.2012.):http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-</p> <p>7</p> <p>synthesis- and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/8</p> <p>Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international</p> <p>relations. 4th ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.9</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-</p> <p>synthesis-and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/</p> <p>Page 9</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>States are rational actors, always seeking to maximize their interests in all issue areas. States seek to maximize absolute gains through co-operation. The greatest obstacle to successful co-operation is non-compliance or cheating by states.10</p> <p>The neo-liberal theory shares many of its assumptions with the neo-realist theory. Robert Keohane has quoted institutional theory is a half sibling of neo-realism. It seems that the current neo-liberal institutionalism appears to try hard and prove that they are a part of the neorealist/realist family.</p> <p>10</p> <p>URL</p> <p>(last</p> <p>seen</p> <p>25.08.2012.):http://ciu.academia.edu/OlowojoluFrancis/Papers/1616528/neo-neo-debate-in-</p> <p>international-relations</p> <p>Page 10</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>The Neo-Neo SynthesisThe Neo-Neo Synthesis is a phrased used in international relations to refer to the converge of the neorealist and the neoliberal[1]schools of thought since the 1970s. The term is frequently used by scholars who work outside of those two paradigms as a way of derisively lumping the two together.11 Neo-realism is the product of Kenneth Waltzs book Theory of International Politics that was released in 1979 as a response to the widespread acceptance that liberalism had indeed become the dominant paradigm in international relations. He completely reinvented the realist school and gave it a scientific approach, Robert Koehane and Joseph Nyes neo-liberal institutionalism were a reaction to the growing popularity of neo-realist paradigm. Koehane and Nye took assumptions similar to Waltz assumption of the international situation.The neo-neo synthesis is particularly troubling to many scholars who favor more traditional liberal approaches, and fear that, particularly under the influence of</p> <p>Robert12</p> <p>Keohane,</p> <p>modern neoliberalism has little to do with the movement from which it draws its name</p> <p>The convergence of neo-realism and neo-liberalism was inevitable because scholars of the two great schools, in addition to sharing a set of fundamental assumptions, ended up having the same central theme of reflection: how to assess, in a situation of anarchy, the effects that international structure have on the behavior of states.</p> <p>11</p> <p>URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-neo_synthesis Ibid.</p> <p>12</p> <p>Page 11</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>The Neo-Neo DebateDespite the obvious similarities in the assumptions and questions of the two paradigms, there is a huge difference between them considering that they are the neo versions of two radically opposing theories. It cannot be denied that both neo-liberalism and neo-realism draw some ideas from one another they are different enough to be at opposing sides of the neo-neo debate often enough. The key points of the neo-neo debate are: 1. Actors within international relations As far as neo-realists are concerned, state are the primary actors in international relations. Neo-liberals agree that states are the primary actors in international arena, but they are not the only actors that influence the relations. Neo-liberals could be right at this point of divergence. One only has to see the works of United Nations and its subsidiary organizations to understand that united nations is indeed an actor in international relations. One can also add names like WTO, IMF and World Bank to this list.</p> <p>2. The importance of non-state actors: Neo-realists state that neo-liberals exaggerate the impact of regimes and institutions on state behavior. Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as significant forces in international relations. Neo-liberals claim that they facilitate co-operation and neo-realists say that they do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on co-operation. Liberal institutionalism thinkers especially give importance to the institutions created when independent states some together to pool in their resources to create communities centered towards responding to problems that all the member nations would have.</p> <p>Page 12</p> <p>Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics</p> <p>The neo-liberals cite the creation of the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, United Nations, South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, World Trade Organiza...</p>