Baylis, Smith & Owens:
The Globalization of World Politics 5e
Chapter 7
Contemporary mainstream
approaches:
neo-realism and neo-liberalism
Introduction
• Dominant debate in IR for last 20 years
• More than just theories: conceptual
frameworks
– Form people’s views of world
– Shape research priorities
– Influence policy debates
• Integrate rational choice and game
theory to be more rigorous
Introduction
• Both status-quo-oriented, problem-
solving theories
• Share many assumptions about actors,
values, issues and power arrangements
• Study different worlds (mostly)
– Neo-realists: issues of security, power,
survival
– Neo-liberals: political economy, institutions,
co-operation
Neo-realism
• Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism
– Structure of the international system is the
key factor shaping state behaviour
– Minimize importance of national attributes:
all states are functionally similar units
constrained by anarchy
– Accept traditional assumptions
• Force is important and effective
• Balance of power is central mechanism for
order
Neo-realism
• Two versions:
– Offensive neo-realists: states seek power
• Expansionism should be feared
• Relative power is all-important
– Defensive realists: often confused with
neo-liberal institutionalists
• Recognize the costs of war
• Assume that it usually results from irrational
forces in a society
• Co-operation is possible but with friendly states
Neo-liberalism
• Academically: refers most often to neo-
liberal institutionalism
• Policy-wise: identified with capitalism and
Western democratic values and institutions
• Shaped by commercial, republican,
sociological, & institutional liberalism
– Free trade and democracy promotion
• Other roots:
– Functional integration theory from 1950-60s
– Complex interdependence literature of 1970-80s
Neo-liberalism
• Neo-liberal institutionalists
– Institutions can achieve co-operation;
multilateralism can promote national
interest
– Regimes and institutions help govern a
competitive and anarchic international
system
– States cooperate to achieve absolute gains
– Greatest obstacle to cooperation is
cheating, not lack of mutual interest
Neo-neo debate
• Intra-paradigm debate: not polar
opposites
– Share epistemology, some assumptions,
some questions
– Neither can address certain challenges
Neo-neo debate
• Study different worlds
– Neo-realists: “high politics” - security and
military
– Neo-liberal institutionalists: “low politics” -
political economy, environmental issues,
and human rights
• Absolute vs. relative gains
– Neo-realists more cautious about
cooperation; neo-realists believe states
can be persuaded not to cheat to make
absolute gains
Neo-neo debate
• Globalization challenges state power
– Neo-realists: states are still principal actors
• Concern is new security issues from uneven
globalization
– Neo-liberals: most believe globalization is
positive force
• All states benefit from economic growth
• Some believe states should promote
institutions to manage consequences of
globalization to create positive consequences
Case Study
‘The underbelly of globalization’: toxic waste
dumping in the global South

Neo-realism & Neo-liberalism

  • 1.
    Baylis, Smith &Owens: The Globalization of World Politics 5e Chapter 7 Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism
  • 2.
    Introduction • Dominant debatein IR for last 20 years • More than just theories: conceptual frameworks – Form people’s views of world – Shape research priorities – Influence policy debates • Integrate rational choice and game theory to be more rigorous
  • 3.
    Introduction • Both status-quo-oriented,problem- solving theories • Share many assumptions about actors, values, issues and power arrangements • Study different worlds (mostly) – Neo-realists: issues of security, power, survival – Neo-liberals: political economy, institutions, co-operation
  • 4.
    Neo-realism • Kenneth Waltz’sstructural realism – Structure of the international system is the key factor shaping state behaviour – Minimize importance of national attributes: all states are functionally similar units constrained by anarchy – Accept traditional assumptions • Force is important and effective • Balance of power is central mechanism for order
  • 5.
    Neo-realism • Two versions: –Offensive neo-realists: states seek power • Expansionism should be feared • Relative power is all-important – Defensive realists: often confused with neo-liberal institutionalists • Recognize the costs of war • Assume that it usually results from irrational forces in a society • Co-operation is possible but with friendly states
  • 6.
    Neo-liberalism • Academically: refersmost often to neo- liberal institutionalism • Policy-wise: identified with capitalism and Western democratic values and institutions • Shaped by commercial, republican, sociological, & institutional liberalism – Free trade and democracy promotion • Other roots: – Functional integration theory from 1950-60s – Complex interdependence literature of 1970-80s
  • 7.
    Neo-liberalism • Neo-liberal institutionalists –Institutions can achieve co-operation; multilateralism can promote national interest – Regimes and institutions help govern a competitive and anarchic international system – States cooperate to achieve absolute gains – Greatest obstacle to cooperation is cheating, not lack of mutual interest
  • 8.
    Neo-neo debate • Intra-paradigmdebate: not polar opposites – Share epistemology, some assumptions, some questions – Neither can address certain challenges
  • 9.
    Neo-neo debate • Studydifferent worlds – Neo-realists: “high politics” - security and military – Neo-liberal institutionalists: “low politics” - political economy, environmental issues, and human rights • Absolute vs. relative gains – Neo-realists more cautious about cooperation; neo-realists believe states can be persuaded not to cheat to make absolute gains
  • 10.
    Neo-neo debate • Globalizationchallenges state power – Neo-realists: states are still principal actors • Concern is new security issues from uneven globalization – Neo-liberals: most believe globalization is positive force • All states benefit from economic growth • Some believe states should promote institutions to manage consequences of globalization to create positive consequences
  • 11.
    Case Study ‘The underbellyof globalization’: toxic waste dumping in the global South