Neo-Liberalism for solving problems facing the world community,

Neo-Liberalism

 

In the 1980s, a school of neoliberalism
or structural liberalism emerged that continues classical liberalism, but takes
into account the new realities of the world political process: complex of
interdependence, developing interstate cooperation, integration, the creation
of a global community. Neoliberalism pays special attention to the
interconnection of politics and the economy. Due to the interdependence of
states, the opportunities for their cooperation through international
organizations should increase, and the influence of anarchy on the
international environment should be weaken. Within the framework of neo-liberalism, several trends and
concepts have emerged, which are sometimes viewed as independent concept schools.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Among them is, the concept of complex interdependence. According to the theory
of interdependence, all political actors have a greater or lesser impact in
international politics. They are interested not only in economic cooperation,
but also in uniting efforts to solve common, global problems, for example,
environmental protection, arms limitation, non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons, etc. The situation of any country depends on its relations with other
states and on the international system in whole. Due to the growing
interdependence of different countries, the delimitation of the state’s
domestic and foreign policy becomes more and more relative: not only does
foreign policy depend on the internal, but also internal from the external, and
increasingly. The multilateral dependence of states makes the conflict resolution
of power unprofitable, while cooperation is to create conditions for peace and
prosperity, the trans nationalists assert.1
The difference between neo-liberals lies in the fact that, they do not only
strengthen this position, but also make it the starting point for a new,
understanding of security. The post-Cold War opportunities for communication,
the spread of democracy, new scientific achievements are accompanied by
increased threats due to the loss of the former and the absence of new levers
for regulating the world order. Disorder and disasters, poverty of a huge mass
of people, ethnic conflicts, environmental degradation all this and much more,
in their opinion, forms the beginning of “future anarchy”, requires
an immediate response from the world community and highlights the problem of
creating a new security system. The concept of cooperative security is most
suitable for solving problems facing the world community, in the opinion of
neo-liberals.2

 

 

 

 

Neo-Realism

 

Neorealism is often called “structural realism,” which signifies
that the theory primarily centers on the effects of the structure of the
international system when it seeks to explain outcomes in international
politics. The acknowledged
authority of “neo-realism” or “new realism” sometimes also
referred to as modern “realism” or “structural realism” is
Kenneth Waltz, who in his work “The Theory of International
Politics,” published in 1979, rethought the traditional theories of
“realism”. Waltz more clearly described the impact of the
international system on the behavior of states, essentially considering them as
elements of the international system. The work “Neo-realism and its
critics” published in 1986 in the publishing house of Columbia University
under the editorship of Robert Keohane was widely known among international
experts. Back in 1972, R. Keohane and J. Nye published a collective work
“Transnational relations and world politics”. Five years later R. Keohane
published the book “Power and interdependence of world politics in a
transitional state”. In these works, whose names speak for themselves, the
increasing role of non-state actors, in particular, international
organizations, was considered. In essence, they developed a neoliberal
direction, although R. Keohane himself calls his theoretical approach
“institutionalism.”3Although
the terminology of realism refers to the early twentieth century, realism has
always been present in international relations. J. Donnelly notes that the early
example of realism can be found in Thucydides. At the end of the fifth century
BC in the course of the Peloponnesian wars, Athens, seeking to join Milos, sent
ambassadors to the island who offered to surrender to the people, indicating to
them that it was necessary to discard the “noble words” of good and
evil, and instead consider power and interests “You know as well as we do
that the right in the world can only be among the equal in strength, and the
strong do what they want, and the weak suffer as they should” The Athens
ambassadors urged the inhabitants of Milos that freedom is a consequence of
strength, Milos’s struggle for independence is not a competition of equals,
where the victors get glory, and the losers shame, and the question of
self-preservation: “expediency and safety go together, and follow the
justice and honor is dangerous” . The Athenians stressed that they did not
come up with these rules, and the Mussolians themselves would do the same if
they had the same opportunities (the Myians ignored the arguments of the Athenians
and were destroyed, the island was settled by the colonists from Athens). Donnelly
also points out Machiavelli, who noted that well-organized states are based on
“good laws and good weapons because, without good weapons there are no good
laws, I will avoid discussing laws”.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Realism in International
Relations

 

As the main actors of international
politics, realists consider national states and the world arena this is the field
of their sharp battle. The main driving force of the state’s activities in the
international arena is national interest. Cooperation between different
countries is a result of the similarity of national interests, confrontation is
a consequence of their differences. Over the past two decades, the volume of
theoretical constructions in the field of studying international relations has
grown considerably. Along with the growing analytical rigor of
“orthodox” approaches, other points of view are emerging, generating
new theories, epistemology and even ontology, aimed at studying traditional
problems of state behavior in the domestic and international arenas. Here I
discussed in detail two main “traditional” directions: neo-realism
and neo-liberalism. First of all, to measure how the increased analytical rigor
introduced into the dispute between neorealist and neoliberals by the theory of
games helps to “explain” or to “understand” the behavior of
states and non-state actors in the world system. By approaching this problem
and considering the logic that stimulated of borrowing the terminology and
models of game theory for the analysis of international relations. Next, I note
the weaknesses of this borrowing. Finally, I will conduct a “psychological
experiment”, trying to determine what neo-realism and neoliberalism would
be if they were less eager to become one of the variants of the theory of
rational choice. Thus, we will come to an analysis of the “realism of
concessions”, a simple but transportable set of statements about the
behavior of national states in the modern international system. The research
program proposed by the “realism of concessions” differs sufficiently
from the program formed during the current discussion of the neo-realists and
neo-liberals. It pays much more attention to problems of classification and
definition of national and transnational “interests”, the problem of
“Hobbesian fear” (Butterfield, 1958) and the empirical study led by
the theory, which considers numerous real cases of foreign policy decisions.5

Although Along with the notion of
national interest, the key role in the theory of political realism is played by
the notion of the balance of forces that characterizes the equilibrium
situation between states as a condition for preserving peace and stability.

This theoretical position is based on Hobbes’s interpretation of international
relations as a hostile environment in which states are constantly exposed to
the threat of attack and are compelled to maintain a coercive potential
comparable with their rivals. With the help of foreign policy, some states
strive to gain power over others, expand and strengthen their dominant
position, and secure superiority. Limit the imperious aspiration of one subject
of international politics is possible only with the help of force counteraction
to its other subject. The international balance of power is viewed by realists
as the most effective means of preserving peace. Violation of the power balance
entails wars, so achieving and maintaining a balance of power is an important
goal of international politics.

 

 

 

 

 

Characterizing the
positions of Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Realism

 

The coincidences and differences in the
views of the neo-realists and neo-liberalist are already mentioned collective
work of American neo-realists and neo-liberals, published in 1993 by Columbia
University Press, its editor David Baldwin, acting as an arbitrator, found six
key points characterizing the positions of both directions:

 

1) Neo-liberals recognize that the
international system is characterized by some “anarchy”, but, unlike
the neo-realists, emphasizing its fundamental importance, they believe that
certain models of interactions between states have been developed (R.Akselrod,
R.Keohane).

 

2) The neo-realists agree with the
neo-liberals that international cooperation is possible, but unlike them they
say that cooperation is difficult and more dependent on state authorities.

 

3) Neorealist insist that cooperation
brings relative benefits  and
neo-liberals that it is absolutely beneficial for its participants.

 

4) Supporters of both approaches agree
with such priorities of the states as national power and economic well-being,
but neo-realists attach greater importance to the first priority, and bear
beards to the second.

 

5) Unlike the neoliberals, the
neo-realists emphasize the importance of the real possibilities, the resources
of states, than their political intentions.

 

6) Finally, the neo-realists recognize
the influence and influence of international organizations on international
relations, but believe that neo-liberals exaggerate their significance.

Some American authors, such as J. Hertz,
I. Claud, D. Nye, consider the theoretical differences between neoliberalism
and neo-realism as unimportant and even express the view that they express the
same views of “realistic liberalism”.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Both ‘neo’ theoretical approaches have their differences,
neorealists focus primarily on high politics and neoliberal institutionalists
focus on low politics, but regardless of this, they both share similar
worldviews. They share a comparable epistemology and ontology, focus on similar
questions, and have a number of assumptions about world politics, solidifying
the IR mainstream against reflectivity attacks. The assumptions shared by
neo-neo purport that there is no common authority and states are unitary and
interest-maximizing actors. To conclude, I firmly believe that the evolution of
both neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism has resulted in these theories
falling under one header, and has subsequently together come under fire from
positivist attacks. On the
whole, it seems that the neo-liberals, whose views have largely reflected the
trends in the development of international relations in recent decades, are
more inclined to compromise with their opponents than neo-realists. One way or
another, it is difficult not to agree with the withdrawal of one of the leaders
of neoliberal institutionalism.  The end
of the cold war took the participants of academic disputes between
institutionalists and realists by surprise. Contents of interstate cooperation.

For the neo-realists, these are mainly issues of general military security,
whereas for neo-realist issues of mutual economic benefits. Absolute and
relative benefits of cooperation. Neo-liberals believe that the driving force
of interstate cooperation is the achievement of absolute benefits. From the
point of view of the neo-realists, it is quite difficult to establish
cooperation even when all parties can achieve absolute benefits, since no state
agrees to receive a lesser absolute benefit than any other. Anxiety regarding
relative profits, therefore, is likely to impede cooperation. In the face of
such potential problems as the possibility of deception and devaluation of
benefits, states are striving for “fairness” in the distribution of
benefits from cooperation, which is seen as preserving the balance of opportunities
that existed before cooperation. All in all the alternativeness of neo-realism
and neoliberalism is rather conditional: in a sense, their views on
international politics have more in common than differences, so the dispute
between them affects a limited field of international political science.

1 Liberalism
and neoliberal concepts of international relations, Studwood magazine,
2017-2018, Link:https://studwood.ru/933093/menedzhment/liberalizm_neoliberalnye_kontseptsii_mezhdunarodnyh_otnosheniy
Accessed :05.01.2018

 

2Neorealism,
Neoliberalism, Neomarxism: Their differences from the canonical paradigms,
Megalektsii Journal,  

Link:
https://megalektsii.ru/s51596t3.html Accessed :05.01.2018

 

3 A. Novikov, Theory of International Relations 2009.

4 Steven Walt, What?Would?a?Realist?World?Have?Looked?Like?
Foreign Policy 8 January 2016 year. 

 

 

 

5Neoliberalism and Neorealism, International Affairs,
published: 15.03.2013, Link: http://dbci.ru/neorealizm-i-neoli-beralizm/ Accessed: 05.01.2018

 

6 Neoliberalism and Neorealism, International Affairs,  Published: 15.03.2013, Link: http://dbci.ru/neorealizm-i-neoli-beralizm/ Accessed: 05.01.2018