The Impact Of Neoliberal Institutionalism On The United States Of International Relations Theory

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.

The discipline of international relations (IR) is one that has witnessed a multitude of variations and shifts. It has produced a fair amount of debate between academics within the international relations scholarship. Due to a plethora of circumstances scholars have subjected the traditional rationalist theories of neorealism and neoliberalism to critical re-evaluations. As a result, constructivism is a concept that has emerged as an alternative approach to dominant IR theories. It focuses on the importance of state identities in defining and gaining knowledge of state interests, actions and goals. There are theorists who purport that the rise of constructivism allows for a further understanding of another international theory, feminism.

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

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,

The end of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Unions was a start for a new Western order. Many expected that it would be peaceful, free trade and expanding markets and cooperation among states (Hawthorn, 1999). However, some scholars might argue that neoliberalism preserved the dominance of wealthy states. A variety of different arguments have been raised taking into consideration democracy and international order. This essay will consider three different theoretical perspectives on the topic through summarising the key points and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of these perspectives. Firstly, American hegemony will be considered, secondly, civic identity of the Western political order will be discussed and finally, economic openness liberal order will be taken into account.

On contrary, Neoliberalism is a form of liberalism to favor free market capitalism. “The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices” (Harvey, 2007, pg. 2). The state must promise quality of money. According to the theory of neoliberalism, state intervention in markets must be kept minimum because it will create a bias from powerful interests group to distort for their own

Then, in the second half of the 1990s, neoliberalism finally found its long-awaited success story, right in the main source of neoliberalism: the US. The US government has followed neoliberal policies, with varying consistency over time, since the second half of the Carter Administration in the late 1970s. Despite Bill Clinton’s relatively interventionist rhetoric during the

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

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Neoliberalism was seen as legitimate state development logic for two reasons. First, it entails a particular reading of the cause of the debt crises: misguided macroeconomic policies on the part of debtor nations, as opposed to over- lending by banks. (Soederberg, pp. 935-939) Developing countries were blamed for bringing about the debt crises

This relates to embedded liberalism as the Marshall plan could be seen as feature of as it relates to states accepting preconditions from the USA that represent the key principals of embedded liberalism. More of this will be discussed on this the the later parts of this essay. The neoliberal theory on hegemonic stability takes on a different factor as to neorealism, public goods. waltzIn a global market, the provision of public goods will be the responsibility of the hegemon. This is because when power is evenly distributed between states, the incentive to produce public goods is diminished. Free-riding diminishes this incentive as states are unlikely to bear the costs of these public goods. Public goods in this context could be seen as a well organised international system of free trade or possibly the provision of financial aid in the time of crisis. Both of these being features of embedded liberalism. These goods will be provided by the hegemon because the size of the hegemon ensures that benefits provided by the free goods outweighs the costs. Although Waltz theory is the more popular of the two theories of hegemonic stability, Ruggie believes this does not explain enough. He believes that the structure of the internationalisation of political authority is not just dependant on power, but also on 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

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

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

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.