Cyclic or dynamic - Neorealism versus Neoliberalism

Cyclic or dynamic - Neorealism versus Neoliberalism

Contemporary theory of International Relations is a continuous scholarly battleground for various schools of thought. This paper will scrutinize two prevailing theories of neorealism and neoliberalism, namely Kenneth Waltz’s concept of political structures ¹ juxtaposed with Robert O. Keohane’s neoliberal institutionalism ² . To arrive at a critical conclusion that explains which of the two constructs stand a better chance of successfully explaining the most fundamental workings of the international system of states, a four-part sequence is proposed in this paper. Firstly, this paper will explain how both authors define their assumed principles and how those assumptions are summarised in relation to the international system. Secondly it will demonstrate where the author’s ideas intersect and/or divert from the other. Thirdly, it will examine if it is feasible to classify the ideas as distinct theories or if it is perhaps more accurate to see Keohane’s work as an alteration to neorealist theory. Finally, by equating the logical consequences of the findings in the preceding sections, this paper will conclude with a restrictive formulation of the more convincing idea within the confines of the two texts.

Waltz commences his 1979 chapter on political structures in “Theory of International Politics” by stressing the need for a system theory of international politics, which is set apart from economic, social and other international realms. He adapts the idea of structure predominately used by economists and anthropologists. Waltz is particularly interested in the creation and interaction of the units within the system and amongst each other, as well as the forces and outcomes that the units entail. ³ By setting aside “the characteristics of units, their behaviour, and their interactions” and focusing purely on their position within the structure instead, Waltz argues that an abstract

¹ Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979), page 79-101

² Robert O. Keohane, ‚Neoliberal Institutionalism: A perspective on World Politics’, in International Institutions and State Power (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989), page 1-20

³ Waltz, page 79

1

theory of the system will more precisely explain how the structure of political systems affects the agencies, its units, thereby minimising confusion between system and unit level causalities. 4

As Waltz continues his deductive approach to political systems he constitutes structure and interacting units. ⁵ Waltz defines three basic postulations of units within a structure, firstly their ordering principle (i.e. hierarchically or anarchically), secondly their formal differentiation through specific functions (i.e. President versus parliament) and thirdly shifts of relative capabilities (i.e. military power, size, wealth). ⁶ Furthermore, he identifies that the notion of differentiation is of no relevance in anarchic systems; hence their functions are undifferentiated. 7

While applying the above principles to the international system, Waltz describes the international system as “decentralised and anarchic” in its formal composition. ⁸ Given that structural concepts and anarchy are in semantic opposition, Waltz seeks reasoning by applying a comparison with the structurally similar, though not identical, microeconomic theory. The self-interested profit maximisation motive of individual economic units (persons and firms) results in the creation of market structure (unintentional from the unit perspective), which in return constrains the actions of the units. Waltz assumes that the units in the international system are motivated by self-help (adopted from microeconomics) and survival (as an universal precondition of all states). He refines his argument to say that “the structure selects” units in the international system which successfully follow the rationale that if in an anarchic system then survival is secured by self-help, therefore securing a position in competition with other units. ⁹ It comes as little surprise, given Waltz’s preceding reasoning, that he considers the nature of the international system as “state-centric”. ¹⁰ As

⁴ Waltz, page 79-80

⁵ Waltz, page 79

⁶ Waltz, page 100-101

⁷ Waltz, page 97

⁸ Waltz, page 88

⁹ Waltz, page 89-93

¹⁰ Waltz, page 93

2

a last step, Waltz dissects the units into functionally like units (common survival through self-help motive), being at the same time distinct in their characteristics and means. It is this unequal distribution of capabilities that determines the position of the unit in the structure. Waltz concludes, that the relative power of a unit is estimated by comparing its standing in the order of the structure and that only changes in a unit’s capabilities will reorder the international system. 11

Keohane reacts to Waltz’s concept twenty years later, with the notion that anarchy and a state’s power might still play a major role in world politics, but that the international system has moved ahead and has become increasingly institutionalised. 12 He advocates that to grasp the effects of “cooperation and discord” amongst states, a theory of international politics should also incorporate this additional aspect of institutionalism. ¹³ Keohane labels the new concept “neoliberal institutionalism” - a model which includes inquiry into the forces of institutions on states as well as on the grounds of institutional alteration in the international system. Keohane also takes a statecentric approach through considering both “material forces” along with “subjective self-understanding” of peoples. He recognises that two interdependent conditions of the actors (states) are to be present in the international system: one is mutual interest (profit through cooperation) and the second is institutional variations (dynamic and elastic levels of institutionalisation). 14

Keohane characterises institutions as continuous with linked sets of rules, which recommend behaviour roles, restrict activity and influence expectations. He describes three forms of institutions

- formal intergovernmental or cross-national nongovernmental organizations, International regimes and conventions 15 - though he also raises awareness about the difficulty in distinguishing

¹¹ Waltz, page 96-99

¹² Keohane, page 1

¹³ Keohane, page 2

¹⁴ Keohane, page 2-3

¹⁵ Keohane, page 3-4

3