In what ways, if any, does Neo-Realism represent an

improvement on Hans Morgenthaus theory of international

politics?

Student name: Robert Butoi Radoslav

ID number: 1421712
Word count: 745

According to classical realist lineage, the features of international politics have their roots in
the nature of man i.e. the people that comprise the state. Hans J. Morgenthau, like Hobbes,
considered that human beings are deeply flawed. As he has put it, human nature, in which
the laws of politics have their roots, has not changed since the classical philosophies of
China, India, and Greece endeavored to discover these laws and politics, like society in
general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature (Magstadt,
2012: 402). Yet, the more recent version of realism derives to some extent from this
perspective. The purpose of this assignment in to examine whether neo-realism represents a
major improvement from Morgenthaus theory of international politics. This will be done by
comparing and contrasting their main distinctive characteristics.
There are more versions of neo-realism. Kenneth Waltzs theory of structural realism has
been interbedded by Joseph Grieco with the ideas of traditional realists, in our case, Hans
Morgenthau to create a modern realist profile (Baylis et al., 2011: 117). Waltzs neo-realism
is distinctive from traditional realism in a number of ways. To begin with, classical realism is
primarily an inductive theory. Baylis et al. (2011:11) claim that Morgenthau would explain
international arena by analyzing states actions and interactions. These unit-level
explanations, receive a lower credit from neo-realists which consider that the effect of the
structure must be taken into consideration. For Waltz (1979: 81-4) the concept of structure is
based on the fact that units differently juxtaposed and combined behave differently and in
interacting produce different outcomes. As he has put it, structure is defined by the ordering
principle of the international system and the distribution of capabilities across units i.e.
states. On the whole, neo-realism is an improvement of Morgenthaus theory because it
identifies the existence of external factors that shape foreign policy choices.
Another difference between the two theories can be found in terms of power view. While for
classical realists, power is an end in itself for neo-realists, power is the combined capabilities
of the state. Baylis et al. (2011:11) argue that Waltz would not agree that military force is as
important as it used to be. In other words, power is more than the accumulation of military
resources and the capacity to use it in relation with other states. Power is the determinant of
states position and behavior in the international system. In essence, neo-realists believe that
states will seek to maintain their position in the system rather than maximizing their military
power (Dunne et al., 2013). Grieco (cited in Gilpin et al.) argues that states are more
concerned about relative gains than absolute gains. Similarly, Mearsheimer (2001), an
offensive realist, in accordance with John Hertz stresses that power advantage is the best
means to survival in a dangerous world. However, there is common ground provided that
neo-realists subscribe to the idea that the central mechanism for order in the system is the
balance of power (Baylis et al., 2011: 117-8).
A third discrepancy between traditional realism and neo-realism is in the view of how states
react to the condition of anarchy. While for the former anarchy is a condition of the system,
and states react to it according to their characteristics, for the latter anarchy defines the
system which means that all states are functionally similar units that seek to maintain their
position in the system (Baylis et al., 2011: 118). Neo-realists believe that the foreign policy of
a state is made in concordance with its power or capabilities. For instance, small countries
with limited resources facing a security dilemma would join alliances and take an activist role
in international organizations. In contrast, a major power would most likely pursue a
unilateral strategy to secure its interests (Baylis et al., 2011).

In summary, classical realism differs from neo-realism in terms of power view, states reaction
to the condition of anarchy and through the fact that it is primarily a bottom-up explanation
which does not take into account the concept of structure. Important to realize, the spectrum
is not completely clear and no one theory can explain every phenomenon in world history.
Therefore, both structural and classical realism must be incorporated into a plurality of
theories in order to accurately analyze contemporary international relations. A conclusion
could be made that classical realists and neo-realists are cut from the same cloth. From my
point of view, neo-realism is a natural progression of the classical model as its need to adapt
to a much more complex system of international relations.

References
Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization Of World
Politics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International Relations Theories.
3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Gilpin, Robert, and Jean M Gilpin. Global Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 2001.
Magstadt, Thomas M. Understanding Politics. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning, 2012.
Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W.
Norton & Compan, 2001.
Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory Of International Politics. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill,
1979.