Neorealists adopt a negative, structural view of world politics, while neoliberals take a more positive, cooperative approach. Mearsheimer explains world politics through competition and structure, but institutions and cooperation provide a better explanation of international relations, as argued by Keohane. As a neorealist, John Mearsheimer
Within the study of international relations, neoliberalism is a theory about achieving international cooperation between states in the international system. Neoliberalism can be seen as a response to structural realism. These two theories have in common that their main focus of analysis is the state and its interests. They also have the same interest in studying rationality and utility maximizing. Another assessment that these two theories share is that cooperation is very difficult to accomplish in an anarchic system.
Methodologically, neoliberalism, like neorealism, relies on positivist inquiries built on rational-actor models to construct theory. Neoliberalism’s reliance on scientific rigor and theory-building beyond trade and war further separates it from classical liberalism. Epistemologically, neoliberalism, like neorealism, is a rationalist theory constructed upon assumptions of microeconomic theory. Neoliberals subscribe to the neorealist state-centric perspective which considers states as rational unitary actors who form social relations to maximize their pre-defined interests in a strategic domain. Both theories treat state interests as exogenous to inter-state interactions, thus seeing no need for a theory of interest
Neoliberal institutionalism will help clarify China’s understanding of global and regional cooperation in the pursuit of growth and common interests. Employing constructivism will help elucidate how China’s identity has influenced its behaviour in the international
Moreover, the authors separate the neorealist theory into its elements in order to provide a guide to fellow researchers on how to reassemble and adapt the theory for different research projects. The first Chapter shows such a literature review of structural realism, classical realism and other works of neoclassical realism, outlines the neorealist account of foreign policy and sheds light on the problems attached to it. Under anarchy, according to neorealist, states’ policy choices are constrained by the systemic stimuli. Referring to Kenneth Waltz, faced with similar systemic stimuli, states despite having different regime types behave in a similar way. The authors have pointed out four gaps of the Waltzian idea of external determinism, namely perception and misperception, the clarity of signals, problems of rationality, and the need to mobilize state resources (pp.
Institutionalists also focus on the free riding problem, which assumes that nations will tend to cheat and not do their part in producing public goods. International institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, can help in establishing and sustaining cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, helping with monitoring (free riding problem), and offering third party mediation. Neorealism and institutionalism have their differences, but they share also some common assumptions. Therefore, both perspectives agree that states are the main actors in international relations, act in rational self-interest, and are faced with anarchy as an obstacle to cooperation. However, neorealists view anarchy as a threat to survival, while institutionalists see it as a threat to cooperation.
Realism is also known as political realism where the international politics stresses and emphasizes its competitive and inner-conflicted sides. The founding fathers of classical realism are Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. However, today the classical realism is renamed to neo-realism.
Neoliberalism transfers the control of economic factors from the public sector to the private sector. On the other hand, egalitarianism is about the equality. It is not the accidental that the meaning of the egalitarianism is equalitarianism. In other words, it is a trend of the idea that give the favor of equality for all. Ultimately, we could say that he was against of the ideas of neoliberalism and egalitarianism.
Machiavelli particularly believed that ethics and morals had no position in politics. Statism, self-help and survival are all core ideas of classic realism. These such writings central to the thinking of modern realists like E.H. Carr and Kenneth Waltz, who were often called structural realists, acknowledged that the perception of human nature in the use of power in international relations, placed a bigger importance on the anarchic nature of the international system which “fosters jealousy, insecurity, suspicion and fear” between states (Dunne, Schmidt, 2008 pp. 11-103). Modern realists state that the primary actors in the international system are states, who will act rationally, and along with security and the expansion of power an essential purpose for each state in an anarchical system.
Why do many neorealists liken states in the international system to firms in a capitalist market? How valid is that analogy? Neorealism has emerged as a contemporary theory that attempts to explain the interaction of states on an international level. Oftentimes neorealists compare states in the international system and firms in a capitalist market. There are a number of factors that can be described as similarities or differences between the two and for the sake of brevity, only a few will be discussed below.