The neo-neo debate presents the points of differentiation in neoliberal and neorealist schools of thought. Although they both agree that the international system is characterized by anarchy, it appears that their disagreements greatly separate the two theories.
Neorealists believe international cooperation is unlikely to happen, whereas neoliberals believe cooperation will occur if there is mutual interest between states or actors. Absolute gains are emphasized in neorealism and relative gains are stressed in neoliberalism. Neorealists believe a state's concern for power and security are immediate factors affecting the state and neoliberals believe that issues and ideas like economic development, the environment, and the international political economy drives state behavior.
After the class discussion, it was evident that no single theory can provide all the answers. I believe that elements in both are beneficial when trying to grasp the international system and the way in which it operates. In addition, to me, these theories seem to imply a linear/ black and white answer for all issues. I think the all-encompassing nature of the theories may actually be a detriment to them-they do not often acknowledge the values-dilemma or state power-dilemma that states undertake when enacting policies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Quick clarifier: neorealists care about relative gains, and NLI's care about absolute gains.
Post a Comment