Neo-Neo Debate

The main features of the neo-realist/neo-liberal debate

1. Both agree that the international system is anarchic. Neo-realists say that
anarchy puts more constraints on foreign policy and that neo-liberals minimize the
importance of survival as the goal of each state. Neorealists argue that anarchy does not
matter much and in fact may be preferable to the restraints of world government. Neoliberals claim that neo-realists minimize the importance of international
interdependence, globalization, and the regimes created to manage these interactions.
Neoliberals see anarchy as a big problem that can be reformed through the creation of
strong global institutions.
2. Neo-realists believe that international cooperation will not happen unless states
make it happen. They feel that it is hard to achieve, difficult to maintain, and dependent
on state power. Neo-liberals believe that cooperation is easy to achieve in areas where
states have mutual interests. Neoliberals believe cooperation can be expected because
collaboration produces rewards that reduce the temptation to selfishly compete.
3. Neo-liberals think that actors with common interests try to maximize absolute gains.
Neorealists claim that neo-liberals overlook the importance of relative gains. Neoliberals want to maximize the total amount of gains for all parties involved and believe
that states are motivated by the search for opportunities to cooperate that will produce
absolute gains for all parties to the cooperative exchange., whereas the neorealists
believe that the fundamental goal of states in cooperative relationships is to prevent
others from gaining more. Neorealists believe that the desire to get ahead of their
competitor by obtaining relative gains is the primary motive
4. Neo-realists state that anarchy requires states to be preoccupied with relative
power, security, and survival in a competitive international system. Neo-liberals are
more concerned with economic welfare or international political economy issues and
other non-military issue-areas such as international environmental concerns.
5. Neo-realists emphasize the capabilities (power) of state over the intentions and
interests of states. Capabilities are essential for security and independence.
Contemporary neorealists maintain that the distribution of states capabilities is the
primary determinant of their behavior and international outcomes Neo-realists claim that
uncertainty about the intentions of other states forces states to focus on their
capabilities. Neo-liberals emphasize intentions and preferences. Neoliberals maintain
that states intentions, interests, information, and ideals are more influential than is the
distribution of capabilities.
6. Both neorealists and neoliberals recognize that states have created a variety of new
international regimes and institutions to regulate their relations since World War II. Neoliberals see institutions and regimes as significant forces in international relations.
Neoliberals believe that institutions such as the World Trade Organization create norms
that are binding on their members and that change patterns of international politics Neorealists state that neo-liberals exaggerate the impact of regimes and institutions on state
behaviour. Neo-liberals claim that they facilitate cooperation, and neo-realists say that
they do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on cooperation. By contrast,
neorealists emphasize that organizations such as the United Nations are arenas where
states carry out their traditional competition and political rivalry for influence.

Globalisation
Neo-realists think that states are still the principal actors in international politics.
Globalization challenges some areas of state authority and control, but politics is still
international. Globalization provides opportunities and resources for transnational social
movements that challenge the authority of states in various policy areas. Neo-realists
are not supportive of any movement that seeks to open critical security issues to public
debate.
Neo-realists are concerned about new security challenges resulting from uneven
globalization, namely, inequality and conflict.
Free market neo-liberals believe globalization is a positive force. Eventually, all states
will benefit from the economic growth promoted by the forces of globalization. They
believe that states should not fight globalization or attempt to control it with unwanted
political interventions.
Some neo-liberals believe that states should intervene to promote capitalism with a
human face or a market that is more sensitive to the needs and interests of all the
people. New institutions can be created and older ones reformed to prevent the uneven
flow of capital, promote environmental sustainability, and protect the rights of citizens
Critiques of Neo-liberalism
From a Neo-Liberal perspective, the level of complex economic interdependence
between China, as a producer, and the Western world, as consumers, negates the
likelihood of a great power conflict. Mearsheimer tries to refute this by using the
example of Germany, who, despite a strongly growing economy, began a second war in
1939. Thus, using economic interdependence as an example to show the absolute
interpretation of Chinas rise is vulnerable. It undermines and oversimplifies the frictions
that economic interdependence causes between nations. High levels of economic
interdependence has the ability, as Samuel Huntington notes in The Clash of Civilisations
and the Remaking of World Order, to act as war-inducing and not peace-inducing as
Liberalists would argue. For example, it fails to account for the deterioration in Sino
Japanese relations which has undermined economic interdependence.
Critiques of Neo-realism
While there may be vested interests at stake for China, the level of cooperation and
integration exhibited by its increasing role in UN peacekeeping missionswhich seek
global peace and securitysuggests states are not only self-interested, as Realist
theory would advocate. Hence, to use only Realist interpretations of Chinas rise provides
too narrow a view, as it does not explain the full extent of Chinas rise through military
aspirations. While Chinas increased military assertiveness has been highlighted, it is
also important to note its diverse role in the international community
It can be argued that Mearsheimers arguments, based on historical analogies, are too
weak to hold merit in this discussion. How can historical analogies from an American
experience predict what China, a country with a contrasting and unique history and
culture, will do today? Analogical arguments are not causes or explanations; they

tend to haphazardly pick and choose the similarities to focus on, while ignoring
potentially important differences.