Neo-realism vs Neo-liberalism

Neo-realism vs Neoliberalism The acknowledged authority of “neo-realism” or “new realism” (sometimes also referred to as modern day “realism”, “structural realism”) is Kenneth Waltz, who in his work “The Theory of International Politics,” published in 1979, rethought the standard theories of “realism” . Walts far more clearly described the effect of the international system on the behavior of states, basically taking into consideration them as elements of the international technique.The theoretical direction of “neo-realism” was also developed by R. Gilpeng, S. Krasner, J. Greco. The work “Neo-realism and its critics” published in 1986 in the publishing property of Columbia University under the editorship of Robert Keiohan was widely known among international experts. Back in 1972, R. Keiokhan and J. Nye published a collective perform “Transnational relations and globe politics”. Five years later R. Keiokhan published the book “Power and interdependence of globe politics in a transitional state”. In these works, whose names speak for themselves, the growing part of non-state actors, in distinct, international organizations, was regarded.

In essence, they developed a neoliberal path, even though R. Keiokhan himself calls his theoretical method “institutionalism.” What are the coincidences and differences in the views of the neo-realists and neo-liberals? In the currently described collective operate of American neo-realists and neo-liberals, published in 1993 by Columbia University Press, its editor David Baldwin, acting as an arbitrator, discovered six crucial points characterizing the positions of both directions:

1) neo-liberals recognize that the international system is characterized by some “anarchy”, but, unlike the neo-realists, emphasizing its fundamental value, they think that certain models of interaction amongst states have been developed (R.Akselrod, R.Keyohan).

2) the neo-realists agree with the neo-liberals that international cooperation is possible, but unlike them they say that cooperation is difficult and a lot more dependent on state authorities.

3) neorealists insist that cooperation brings relative positive aspects) and neo-liberals – that it is totally helpful for its participants.

4) supporters of both approaches agree with such priorities of states as national energy and economic well-becoming, but neo-realists attach higher value to the very first priority, and neo-liberals to the second.

five) in contrast to the neoliberals, the neo-realists emphasize the significance of the true possibilities, the resources of states, than their political intentions.

six) Ultimately, the neo-realists recognize the influence and influence of international organizations on international relations, but believe that neo-liberals exaggerate their significance. Some American authors, such as J. Hertz, I. Claud, D. Nay, consider the theoretical differences between neo-liberalism and neo-realism as unimportant and even express the view that they express the identical views of “realistic liberalism.”

One of their determined representatives, Professor George Gricko, formulated the distinction amongst “liberal institutionalists” (to whom he integrated all the different opponents of the “realists” of the past from I. Kant and W. Wilson to behaviorists and style rnistov 60-70-ies.), “neoliberal institutionalism” (neo-liberalism) and “realism”, that is, neorealism.

On the complete, it seems that the neo-liberals, whose views have largely reflected the trends in the improvement of international relations in recent decades, are much more inclined to compromise with their opponents than neo-realists.One way or another, it is tough not to agree “with the withdrawal of one particular of the leaders of neoliberal institutionalism”: “The finish of the cold war took the participants of academic disputes between institutionalists and realists by surprise …”.