Strengths and Weaknesses of Neorealism, Neoliberalism and Constructivism

Throughout the world there are many diverse political cultures. A political culture is the attitudes, beliefs or practices among a group of likeminded individuals. (Giardino pg. 27) There are different categories that embrace a political culture like an Individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic. An individualistic culture is one that prefers less government involvement. The traditionalists’ culture maintains government as the social and economic hierarchy and does not like change. The moralistic culture favors public good and it revolves around social issues. In shaping a political culture demographics such as population size, growth, distribution and diversity are essential to determine how a state is in any of the three categories. Society is strongly affected by decisions of who, what and when does an individual receive any types of goods or services. Government is the structure, buildings and institutions that are held within politics.

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.

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

The Course of human events has once again arrived at a time when consideration must be given by the people to dissolving the political bonds connecting them with another, and to again assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Natural Laws entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the people should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Government structures are imperative to having a manageable state of civilization. However, these structures face several difficulties and conflicts. The complex human activity of resolving these conflicts is called politics. According to Bernard Crick, in his book, “In Defense of Politics” he defends this activity and further defines it as a conflict resolution through the process of deliberation, compromise, and listening for the common welfare of the whole community. It is a unified contribution to government that is not solely based on one interest (21). Also, Crick further defends politics from the practice of technology, nationalism, and democracy. Additionally, although it is often assumed politics is done in all governments from local to foreign, in the contrary, all governments don’t adhere to this activity defined by Crick. In fact, with our current president, Donald Trump, based on the actions he has taken so far, he is anti-political.

However, around the 1970’s, people began to become hostile about this government intervention and started to believe there should be a free market to minimalize government involvement (lecture). Neoliberalism marks a retreat from the liberal social democracy with focus on free trade, opposition to government regulation, refusal of responsibility for social welfare, and resource privatization (Alison Jaggar). The opposition of government regulation focuses specifically on aspects such as production of wages, working conditions, and environmental protections, while also pressing governments to abandon social welfare responsibilities (Alison Jaggar). Neoliberalism supports capitalism and the free flow of goods, resources, and people, while actively seeking to control that flow (Alison Jaggar). Neoliberalism takes advantage of inequalities between countries by increasing the gap between developing and developed nations

Neo-liberalism is the economic belief that free market forces achieved by minimising government limitations on business provide the lone route towards economic growth shifting control from the public sector into the

‘Neo liberalism is responsible for most of the global economic problems we are experiencing today’

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

According to the proponents of Economic Imperialism, neoliberal policies are driven by the logic of private accumilation of capital based on the exploitation of labour throughout the world, which has in turn caused a world-wide system of production and labour exploitation, with extreme levels of inequality and a system of dependency relations as a result. It becomes quickly clear, when defining economic imperialism, that it looks very unfavourably towards both the developed West and neoliberalism. Whether this can be justified however,

promoted a half way approach to liberal ideas while they incorporated parts of a social

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

Global Politics The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature of the current international political environment that the concepts of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation.

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

(B. Kamiński 225). However, the package was met with a flurry of criticism from prominent economists and journalists. Echoing the key principles of neoliberalism, the economist Tomasz Jeziorański argued that the principal weakness of the package consisted in granting the full responsibility for economic performance to the central administration. The free enterprise characterized by responsibility and autonomy, he insisted, was incompatible with economic coercion by the state (B. Kamiński 226). As a consequence of protests of similar nature, the government eventually withdrew the package in question from further consideration.