Kenneth Waltz first presented neo-realism theory in his book 'Theory of International Relations' in 1979. (Filho and Johnston, 2005, p. 7). According to the theory, force is the most powerful element in international relations. On the other hand, neoliberalism institutionalism holds that governments are, or should be, more concerned with their absolute advantages than with the services they provide to other nations (May, et al., 2010, p. 10). Both views have dominated foreign relations theories, influencing the need for countries to engage in international cooperation. As such, these two standpoints have not only formed a platform for debate but have contributed significantly in defining policies relating to international relations.
An Analysis of How Neorealist and Neo-liberal IR Theories Understand International Cooperation
The Focus Point for each Theory
The realist theory argues that states are positional and not atomistic (Kaufman, 2013, p. 26). As such, they become anxious to engage in cheating to ensure that they benefit greatly from any arrangements with their partners. The countries that benefit the most end up having more power in the cooperation. Therefore, the theory has made nations go into a state of competition between each other where every country is seeking for benefits that outweigh those of the others. As such, the theory has disrupted the essence for international cooperation where countries ought to focus on the mutual interest which in the end leads to equitable development.
The realist approach brings out the idea that those nations that adopt it feel that survival in their anarchic international system in vital (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013, p. 57). Due to this perception, such states become cautious about their intentions when cooperating with other nations. The countries may unite for a particular gain today and use it as a threat the next day. For instance, a country may work with another that is affected by drought and hunger. However, this point of view will lead the assisting country to ask questions such “who will gain more from the cooperation?” or “will both of us gain?” Countries that use this theory are only seeking to balance power in the universe (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013, p. 62). However, it is important to understand that in some instances of international cooperation it 's hard to achieve a balance of power. Moreover, power is not the only factor that matters in international cooperation.
Neo-liberals perspective focuses on the overall benefit of a nation as opposed to comparing it with how other countries gain (Cahill and Konings, 2017, p. 72). Therefore, states that adopt this theory in international cooperation are likely to consider absolute gains in their agreements such as long-term interactions and an increase in opportunities (Daddow, 2013, p. 26). The aim is to take maximum advantage of the possibilities offered by the international cooperation platform. The theory argues that if nations focus on relative gains, then they are misguided as economic interdependence affects the ability of countries to exploit their economic relationship with each other to the fullest (Filho and Johnston, 2005, p. 34). If countries primarily concentrate on the relative gain, then it is destructive as it will lead to the growth of nationalism and protectionism. The theory understands that international cooperation is not always dependent on the need for nations to maintain their power, nationalism or political positions globally.
A Comparison of how Neo-realist and Neo-Liberal Theories Understand International Cooperation
Neo-realist institutionalism focuses on security measures about international cooperation whereas neoliberal institutionalism emphasized environmental and economic issues (Baldwin, 2010, p. 58). Neo-liberal theories argue that world politics influence international cooperation considerably and so does economic interdependence as it is a crucial part of international relations. Therefore, the theories in neo-liberal institutionalism hold the assumption that in international cooperation, various states hold different hierarchies in international politics which is a tool that can be used to influence policies. As such, plans proposed by particular states may be considered supreme due to the political hierarchy of the country.
On the other hand, the realist view on international cooperation is more pessimistic when compared to the neo-liberal perspective (Buzan, et al., 2009, p. 96). The theory suggests that man has a relentless desire for power and self-interest. As such, international cooperation may become difficult to achieve as nations will only strive to make power to promote their status quo. The countries will also feel the need for competition by seeking control of the most relevant industries such as the oil sector, which doesn’t promote international cooperation. Countries may also strive to interact with developed countries and superpowers and avoid the developing ones which may lead to increased underdevelopment. Therefore, the theory held by realists influences the perspective of nations towards international cooperation.
The Role of Institutions
International cooperation is not easy, and it can lead to tension between nations especially when it is based on the neo-realist theory on international cooperation. However, if states could focus on cooperative strategies, then international cooperation can be seen from an optimistic standpoint. Both theories are concerned with cheating in international cooperation (Baldwin, 2010, p. 58). However, unlike the neorealist, neoliberals focus on institutions and appear to have faith in them. The theory by neo-liberals suggests that organizations provide nations with a coordinating mechanism that assists them to gain their target objectives from international cooperation (Filho and Johnston, 2005, p. 74). The institutions prevent nations from cheating by providing appropriate information to the countries involved in international cooperation. As the individual states are seeking to maximize their benefit from the international cooperation, the institutions offer an opportunity for coordination which ends up being beneficial to both nations.
Neo-realists on the other hand, feel that although institutions may reflect the distribution of power in the world, they have minimal influence on the behavior of countries. The theory by neo-realists suggests that there exists a weak correlation between economic cooperation between nations, the institutions therein and peace (Spegele, 2016). They feel that the economy of different countries is dependent on the power of a government as vested in its military and national power. The theory suggests that there is a close link between the economic and military might of a country,
The neo-liberal school of thought feels that there is no connection between the economic and security realm in a country (Duménil and Lévy, 2011, p. 36). As such, the neo-realist theory holds that relative gains only apply to the security realms while the absolute benefits are relevant in the economic realm. Therefore, the claim held by neo-liberals leads to uncertainty in international cooperation’s as it even disregards the role of institutions in providing the necessary institutions. The theory focuses mainly on survival and is very sensitive to independence and security as major indicators for the power of any country. The countries that hold this perspective are afraid that international cooperation could lead to the erosion of their capabilities.
The neoliberals just like the realists both show that they feel a common interstate government is absent. Thus, the two theories demonstrate an understanding of international anarchy (Buzan, et al., 2009, p. 25). While the realists were focusing on the structure of global systems regarding the military and economic might of particular countries, neo-liberals were focusing on the economy. Both theories had a common starting point which is the economy of their countries. It can be concluded that both approaches felt that the current anarchy states of different nations are essential in shaping the future of politics both for specific countries and the world in general.
An Evaluation of How Neo-realist and Neo-liberal Theories Understand International Cooperation
Globalization has affected the way countries interact even about the ideas suggested by both neo-liberal and neo-realist institutionalism (Nye, 2005, p. 52). The spread of knowledge, workforce, and businesses has ensured that no nation is entirely dependent. As such, globalization has led to the increase in linkages between countries and their interconnectedness creating a mutual dependence between them. However, globalization can be seen to align more with the neoliberalism theories regarding international relations. Just like the school of thought believes, nations are more concerned with the absolute gains they get from globalization as opposed to what other states benefit from them.
A good example may apply in the case when a developed nation such as the United States feels the need to engage in international cooperation with a developing country such as South Africa. The US may gain benefits such as utilizing available business opportunities, exporting their products to the country or even taking advantage of the mining chances there. However, South Africa will also gain from the international cooperation regarding skilled labor, employment opportunities and an increase in the variety of products in their market. Although the mutual interdependence is still felt, the theory suggested by neo-liberalists holds more for such instances of international cooperation.
The theories suggested by neo-liberals and neo-realists may be seen as two views of a similar approach (Baldwin, 2010, p. 93). Although they may have different perspectives towards international cooperation, they hold similar positions about international relations. For instance, both theories feel that states are the main actors in international relations and that although they act rationally, their behavior is shaped by international anarchy. It is because of this similar perspective that neo-realist theory focuses on power as the neo-liberal concentrates on economic independence. Moreover, the two approaches share a similar epistemology, ontology, and methodology. They both use an analogous method to study the world where they agree that nations are dependent on the liberal notion of power and politics as they seek to acquire knowledge.
The two theories maintain a materialistic approach towards international cooperation (Baldwin, 2010, p. 85). Instead of focusing only on material benefits, nations should understand that international cooperation also touches on the social world. As countries cooperate in different activities, their ideas, values, concepts, cultures, and languages interact. Therefore, international cooperation moves to its basic form of individuals interacting with each other as a social need without any need for economic or political gain. International cooperation taken from this perspective leads the people in different nations to build relationships and even relate to one another politically. The role of international cooperation goes beyond the benefits that countries gain from each other.
Conclusion
The theories of international relations have a similar manifestation on international cooperation. Although neorealist focus primarily on high politics whereas the neoliberal adopts a low focus on politics, they share similar worldviews. The theories brought out by both the neo-liberal and the realist's theories address related questions and purport that there lack a standard authority and inter-state government. Moreover, both approaches fail to focus on the social need of international cooperation between countries and their citizens. Thus, it can be concluded that both theories feel the need for international cooperation just for the sake of the future politics of their countries and the world as a whole. Although they may focus on different things regarding a country’s economic state, benefits gained and the power of the government, the aim is to ensure political anarchy as opposed to interdependence.
References
Baldwin, D., 2010. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Buzan, B., Jones, C. and Little, R., 2009. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cahill, D. and Konings, M., 2017. Neoliberalism. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MA Polity Publications.
Daddow, O., 2013. International Relations Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Duménil, G. and Lévy, D., 2011. The Crisis of Neoliberalism. 1st ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Filho, A. and Johnston, D., 2005. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. 1st ed. London: Pluto Press.
Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G., 2013. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaufman, J., 2013. Introduction to International Relations: Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
May, E., Rosecrance, R. and Steiner, Z., 2010. History and Neorealism. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nye, J., 2005. Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Publications.
Spegele, R., 2016. Emancipatory International Relations: Critical Thinking in International Relations. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Publications.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email