Neorealist and Neo-Marxist Approaches to Globalization

Neorealism is one of the strongest and most dominate theories of International Relations. The creator of Neorealism, Kenneth Watts, argued that conflict among other nations was inevitable since there was no international leadership. Due to this, neorealism believes that the international system is anarchic. This explanation moves the realist theory away from human nature toward the international arena called the system level. This is where states are the principal actors instead of individuals. These states are characterized as self-interested and rational. The core assumptions of neorealism investigates how the most powerful states operate and collaborate with other governments in the international arena.

I agree with the quote that “Wars between states can be explained by the distribution of power and capabilities in the international system.” Power distribution among all the great powers plays an important role for the stability and economy of the state. I believe that war determines who will govern the international system, and whose interests will be primarily served by the new international order.

In the article, author John J. Mearsheimer highlights that a state’s main objective in their actions were meant to survive and take any measure to ensure their safety. The state will focus on surviving and will plan around that objective. However, the safest possible position is to be the hegemon of their region. States aim to achieve this whilst still maintaining a secured surviving status. A state that has potential and holds a respected status may be safe now but is still exposed to downfall corresponds to the idea that states will search for opportunities to gain power over rivals. The author supports the notion of creating alliances and absolute power. In reality, states are not seeking equilibrium, rather they seek hegemony. With a regional hegemony

Neorealist concentrate on both absolute and relative gains that come from cooperative hard work between states and international agreements entered into. They go further ahead to claim that enemies can become friends in the search of relative gains. Neorealist ponders conflict to be inevitable when states interact with each other and their goals are the short-term gains. A lot of weight is put on the issues of security and how power can be maximized as opposed to putting a lot of consideration on economic issues. On the other hand, relative gains are of very little concern to the neoliberals. Neoliberals believe that every state should profit from the absolute gains of cooperation and international agreements between states. If states purpose to only pursue absolute gains, then it will be very easy for them to cooperate with each other and uphold the international principle. Working together will also be a great way of avoiding conflict (Samuel 153)

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

History has shown us that dramatic changes to international power rarely unfold smoothly or peacefully. The danger of states undergoing rapid rises and declines in relative power, where one state seeks the status of a hegemon and another seeks to maintain it, is less valid than it once was. While the most destructive and influential conflicts in history have been situations where competing powers seek superiority over a rival power, the nuclear age makes power transition by means of war incredibly unlikely. As the cost of conflict between nuclear armed states would be unreasonably costly, the cycle of hegemonic-war has been broken. That leaves the question as to whether the existing international order will facilitate a smooth transition that incorporates emerging powers or one that excludes them and creates greater potential for conflict. The United States has shaped world politics with ideas such as "capitalism is better than socialism" and "democracy is better than dictatorship." However, recently, emerging non-Western powers have let it be known that they do not share the United States ' views on these issues. Bruce Jentleson and Steven Weber argue, "Outside the United States, people no longer believe that the alternative to Washington led order is chaos…. the rest of the world has no fear about experimenting with alternatives." Emerging powers such as China are willing to challenge the U.S., but largely within existing institutions rather than outside them.

Finally, Waltz depicts the international-system level of international institutions, principles, and systems as perpetually anarchic, or without a central enforcement mechanism (Waltz, 1988, pg. 618). Waltz contends multilateralism is a root of conflict because international systems are comprised of states at their core level, thus the response to wayward actors depends upon another state’s desire/need to confront the actor.

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

Moreover, this paper recognizes that polarity does not mean the same as hegemony. To elaborate, hegemon states are the actors and polarity is the structure of the international

The Neoliberalism phase of globalization that has been going on from the 1970s until present day took place after the Imperialism juncture and the Keynesian stage; which lasted from the 1820s through the 1920s and the 1930s through the 1960s, respectively. The stage of globalization that is taking place in our daily lives now, is mainly to benefit from economies of scale, exploit cheap labor, respond to the increasingly global competition, benefit from low wages, and take advantage from reduced taxes and regulations by moving into developing countries where there are cheap subcontractors rather than manufacturing in developed countries where the cost of production is very high and costly, in other words they went global to find financial gain. Unlike, the Imperialism and the Keynesian phases which were mainly to benefit from declining transport costs, gain access to new and foreign markets, and to compensate for inadequate domestic demand (selling their product in a nation where the demand for a certain product is higher than the demand in the origin country).

International relations have been one of the most interesting and at the same time controversial areas of study since the Cold War. The world silent conflagration determined a reconsideration of the way in which politics was conducted and the relations between states at the level of the balance of power and the importance of international actors.

Kenneth Waltz, a well-known figure in the domain of the International relations was born on June 8, 1924, in Ann Arbor, Mich. He was American political scientist and a member of the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University. He was a foremost neorealist thinker and a proponent of structural realism. His theory of structural realism broke away from the traditional understandings of classical realism which focused more on the individuals rather than the state structure. Classical and neo classical realists emphasized the normative aspects of realism as well as the empirical aspects while many contemporary realists pursued a social scientific analysis of the structures and processes of world politics and in the process they tend to ignore norms and values.

     Ideas are the corner-stones of International Relations and Diplomacy. These ideas are often titled theories, a term that grants the ideas a certain degree of credibility in application, though they remain theories; they cannot be proved., only applied intelligently in hopes of arriving at the correct conclusion. One theory concerning the Balance of Power (BOP) falls under the Neo-Realist analysis of conflict within the International system. This Essay will attempt to apply this theory, somewhat retroactively to the situation in

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.

Second best option for any state is to reach a balancing position against strong rival which means to rely upon external resources. It may include arms aid from friendly states against a common threat. Alliances with other friendly states can strengthen weaker state’s defence. That’s why states reach alliances with other states to balance against a common threat. Advocates of ‘Balance of Power theory’ put forward that peace is generally preserved when equilibrium of power exists among great powers. Power parity among states helps preventing war because no actor can expect victory (Kenneth N W, 1979).