Similarities And Differences Between Neorealism And Neoliberalism Debate

Neoliberalism according to Ritzer is the, “Liberal commitment to individual liberty, a belief in the free market, and opposition to state intervention” (37). Neoliberalism emerged in the 1930s and it is based on the ideas of classical economics (Ritzer, 37). Neoliberalism is harmful to human rights and does not improve the lives of others. On the universal declaration of human rights we can see thirty rights that humans are all entitled to (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). Human rights under articles twenty-two, twenty-three, and twenty-five are all rights that neoliberalism violates.

One interesting feature of Neoliberalism is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In this two-players game “it is assumed that the only concern of each individual player is to maximize their own advantage, with no concern for the well-being of the other player” (Dunne et all. p.356). States are self-interested actors. Each player make a choice without knowing what the other will do. That is why each player is acting to avoid the worst outcome that could result from the other player’s action. There is no best strategy in the Prisoner’s Dilemma because the strategy that works best depends on what strategy the other player is using. There is uncertainty, states can never be sure about the intentions of other states. This dilemma fashion illustrates

Neo-liberalism is associated with economic liberalism whose campaign support provides economic liberations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation and promoting the role of private institutions present in new society. Classic liberalism criticizes the neo-liberalism objective of introducing liberalization to bring about gradual increase of wealth and freedom among nations, however, classic liberalism explains that instead of realization of wealth and freedom, liberalization resulted to constant fight proposals that threatened the progress of achieving wealth and freedom among nations. Neo-liberalism aimed to prevent and control monopoly situations such that if there are no bodies

Neoclassical realism is not a reassertion of the primacy of human nature as a causal factor in explaining the aggression of states over and above the structural account of the conditions of anarchy. Rather, it attempts to synthesize elements of classical realism and neorealism by combining structure under conditions of anarchy with relevant factors arising from the internal dynamics of states, including ideology, personalities, perceptions, misperceptions and other factors which feed into foreign policy. It is, in effect, the joining of foreign policy analysis, which, by definition, accounts for domestic factors, with structural realism. In reviewing a collection of works described as neoclassical, Gideon Rose explains that they incorporate

The world gradually entered its modern state after the English Revolution and largely abandoned the old political systems of monarchy. Economic achievement made due to the Industrial Revolution strengthened the connection between the economy and politics, and thus the emergence of classical liberalism and its future derivatives are inseparably tied to both economic and political components. Classical liberalism, New deal liberalism and neoliberalism are similar in that they all put much emphasis on the economy. They derived from the same basic ideology that individuals should be free and have their own properties protected. However, under the so-called freedom and democracy is the fact that they do not apply to every member of the society.

The concept behind Neoliberalism is that the global market and its resources are shared equally, in other words becoming a free market economy where government does not intervene, creating more innovation consequently affecting trade and globalisation (Styhre 2014, p. 270). The reality of the story today is far from what is was set out to be,

Neoliberalism’s world order was established during the 1980s under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan and his British counterpart Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and appears to be ever expanding, or so is perceived by large swaths of the global population. The world that these visionaries saw was meant to unite all nations into one system, and yet, despite the Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991, there has been an increased sense of nationalism throughout the world; no other entity exemplifies this more so than the European Union. Since the end of the Second World War, there has been a continued effort to create a more interdependent and united Europe. Starting out as the European Economic Community in 1958, then revitalizing the

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

Realism and Liberalism is one of the most important theoretical approaches to the study of international studies. As for realism, it has been argue that realism is not just a simple perspective, as it is actually a complex area of debate rather than just single specific of point. In Realism, we can identify such classic and specific versions, some realist who call themselves as neo-realist or structural realist, and so on. As for Liberalism, its history goes back to when the scholars tried to come up with a new theory that could end the despair of the First World War. Liberalism starts to take up the world politics after the fall of Idealism after the Second World War as they have more pessimistic view of the world politics. Both of these theories

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

Though both theories provide similar solutions in how to gain what they want, their ultimate goals are truly distinct. Neo-realist see themselves as unitary actors, disregarding first or second images. They believe that since states are anarchic the only means of interaction is at the international level dealing with “high politics” and not the domestic determinants or “low politics”(Keohane. PI. 24). Focusing on what to them is the most important issue, security. Liberals are not unitary actors placing greater emphasis on expanding the means of interactions between states by discussing such issues as the economy, culture, capital system, and the individual. The interdependence amongst

As a result, institutions assume an important role in facilitating and structuring cooperation, thereby reshaping the role of anarchy in the international system by imposing some form of order (Jervis 1999, 53). Both neoliberals and defensive realists believe that conflict is not always necessary for states to achieve their goals. However, defensive realists argue that institutions are established only when states believe that participation confers direct benefits to the state itself (Jervis 1999, 63). Therefore, institutions are merely tools of statecraft and a reflection of self-interest (Jervis 1999,63). In contrast, neoliberal institutionalists argue that institutions can be greater than the sum of their parts (i.e., member states) and can confer benefits to a wider number of states or even the international system, as a whole. Consequently, institutions are not instruments of statecraft but international players in and of themselves. When analyzing a power transition neoliberals stress the importance of the nature of the rising state’s regime and the degree of dissatisfaction with the existent world order (Ikenberry 2008, 26). Arguably, even more important is the state of the international order itself, as conditions could either entice a rising state to

According to Jackson and Sorensen (2003), the leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). His starting point is taken from some elements of classical and neoclassical, such as independent state existing and performing in an anarchical international system. Waltz’s Theory of international Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. A scientific theory of international relations leads us to expect the certain pattern that states to behave in predictable ways. In Waltz’s view the

This assignment will be discussed about two theories of international relations ‎which are Realism the most important in international relations. Liberalism is the ‎second theory will be considered. The aim of this essay to compare between these ‎two theories. ‎

That is not to say, however, that they are entirely devoid of the former. Indeed, this essay has acknowledged the extent to which both theories overlap, citing their shared beliefs that an anarchical system is at play and international cooperation between states can be difficult, particularly in the face of a lack of knowledge about the motives of other states, for example. However, this essay has also touched upon fundamental points of contention, namely the idea that neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views of anarchy: the latter assert that it can be weak or strong, unlike neo-realists who state that, by its very nature anarchy is all-encompassing. Moreover, Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism are at odds over the possibilities for cooperation between states: whereas neo-realists consider it virtually impossible, neoliberals argue that, difficult though it may be to overcome the obstacles to cooperation, it is achievable. Thus, it is plain to see from the evidence presented throughout this essay that although neo-realists and neoliberals share common ground, taken together there are far more differences in their underlying assumptions than there are similarities, from which the conclusion can be drawn that it is wrong to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than