Neo-Realism vs Neo-Liberalism

Kayla Ferry Political Science 150 Dr. Byron October 5, 2010 1) Neo-realism, as well known as structural realism see multinational semipolitical sympathies as a power struggle between states. Conflicts between states and aegis competition are due to a lack of an overarching authority supra states and the coition distribution of power in the international clay (Dunne 98). assimilator Kenneth Waltz defined the structure of the international corpse in three elements organizing principle, unalikeiation of units, and distribution of capabilities.To structural realists the distribution of capabilities gives important insight to devouring(a) international outcomes, and the relative distribution of power in the international scheme is the strategic variable to understanding such outcomes. Structural realists argue that the pattern of great powers that exists concludes the structure of the international system. Waltz describes the structure as the edict principle of the internat ional system, which is anarchy and the distribution capabilities across units, which are states (Dunne 127).Neo-realists as well as believe the structure of the international system shapes all foreign form _or_ system of government choices and see power as the collective competences of the states. In other speech communication the to a greater extent power a state has in the international system the more influence they have on world affairs. However the disfigure that accompanies neo-realism, is the increase of the application of self-help, a. k. a. increase of military protective cover. Neo-liberalist agrees more often than not with the positions and beliefs of neo-realists, the anarchic international structure, the centrality of states, and a rationalist approach to social scientific inquiry (Dunne 115).The master(prenominal) difference between the two theories is neo-liberalist believe that anarchy does not pissed the arrangements of cooperation are impossible. Internati onal regimes are the implementer for cooperation. Arguments made by neo-liberalists believe that donnish inquiry is guided by a commitment to a scientific approach to theory building. In other words, personal beliefs and views cannot alter surmise made towards international politics. A separation of fact and values is the further way to insure an accurate theory. According the neo-liberalist, the post-1945 orld order has been successful and persistent beca practice session US hegemony has been of a liberal character (Dunne 117). The downside of the hegemonic power is it has produced unequal gains for the westmost and the rest of the world. It is unresponsive to the needs of weaker states and people, which is seen with how the hegemonic power flexes its authority by the commanding of institutions, markets and resources. In contemporary international system, the application of the neo-liberal theory is apparent passim foreign policy.Even in President Bushs speech on the after m ath of 9/11. 2) Although neo-realism and neo-liberalism theories both agree that the international system is anarchic, they differ on all other accounts. Neo-realists believe that anarchy puts more constraints on foreign policy. Neo-realists also argue that neo-liberals overlook the importance of relative gains, and the most important goal of states in cooperation with each other is to hold others from gaining more.With neo-realism, advocates believe that in the international system, anarchy forces states to be more refer with relative power, security and survival. According to neo-realists, capabilities of states are a necessity for the security and independence of a state, and by not knowing another states intentions or interests forces other states to focus on their capabilities. In regards to institutions and regimes, neo-liberals claim that they facilitate cooperation, and neo-realists dictate that they do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on cooperation (Dunn e 133).The neo-neo debate goes back and forth and many other topics, only because they theater different worlds of international politics. Globalization has raised even more concerns for neo-realists, largely because they are more cautious about cooperation and see the world and its politics as very competitive. It is clear, in my opinion that neo-liberalism is by far the offend theory. It allows the more powerful states to boost their economy, increase a states gains and gives states more influence on foreign policy. 3) Marxism gives a different view of world politics.Marxists believe that the world should be studied as a whole, and that the process of historical change is an effect of the economic development of the society. It is a different view of the world politics since it focuses more on economies of spot states. Constructivists believe that the world is socially constructed, allowing them to investigate global change and transformation. This provides constructivists to u se diffusion, which concerns how particular models, practices, norms, strategies, or beliefs spread within a population (Dunne 168).Institutional isomorphy (an issue that is observed by conservatisms, sees that the organizations that contain similar environments will in conclusion resemble each other), and internalization of norms (the belief that what is considered normal for a society, does not come out of nowhere but evolves through a political process), raise issues of an increasing homogeneity in world politics, a next international community and socialization process. These different theories provide a different grasp and insight on world politics, allowing the liberalism theory to be stop molded and applied to a larger area of the international system.