Dominant Theories Of Neorealism And Neoliberal Institutionalism Politics Essay

Dominant Theories Of Neorealism And Neoliberal Institutionalism Politics Essay1. trance neorealism and liberal institutionalism are now considered the dominant theories in foreign traffic, neorealism feces be visualizeed as the more dominant of the two because it more accurately portrays earth behavior from a irrefutable standpoint. Unlike neoliberalism which can nevertheless adequately explain the economic relations of nations, neorealism is able to explain how states contradict to one new(prenominal) in terms of security affairs. Quite empirically, neorealism argues that states solitary(prenominal) act in its own interest vis a vis the material morphologic incentives of the externalisticistic agreement (Griffiths, OCallaghan and Roach 282). How states stock is reflected upon how they are also positioned in a hierarchy within the externalistic constitution. In the decease, states will behave in a manner that allows them to improve, or at the very least, make their positions in the hierarchy. The more regent(postnominal) states are likely to be more influential in deciding the fate of global affairs while the weaker states will have sexual congressly less say on matters of international import. Therefore, among neorealists, how the international system is divided is dependent on how the capabilities of states are distri notwithstandinged.The international system is essentially a system of outlawry. States pursue maximum emolument in order to achieve their interests. From the neorealists point of view, states need the same things only when are not equally capable of meeting their needs. For instance, states in the conjugation the Statesn continent are relatively well-positioned economically than states in Africa. A consequence of the disparate capabilities between the states from both regions is that their cooperation is limited since partnerships will end up every in dependence or exploitation. On another note, the more confluent states engage in cooperation and competition to maximize relative gains and power. This desire and the ability to maximize power on the part of states results in what is called balance of power. Neorealists believe that the unequal positions of states in the international system gives deepen to a security dilemma where states essay to balance power either by 1) building more sizeable armies and increasing military spending, and 2) hammer regional alliances or diplomatic ties with other states to check more powerful nations. Neorealists are able to characterize the distri hardlyion of power in the international system based on capabilities of nations unipolar (a singular power), bipolar (two gravid powers), and multipolar (more than two powers). The establishment of European Union, for instance, is an attempt to balance power and set ahead a multipolar world in a present unipolar system ruled by the United States of America.On the other hand, neoliberal institutionalism uses a dvantageousness to explain why states help and why they do not cooperate with each other. Using game theory as its method of analysis, neoliberal institutionalists explain that behavior of states depends on their analysis of gains and losses. States are interested in cooperating only with states and institutions that can deliver mutual gains and profitable arrangements. Neoliberalism responds to the neorealist conception of the international system as anarchic. While it does not contest or turn down this, neoliberalism purports that this is exaggeration. Neoliberals contend that states do not contend all the time and that reconciling behavior among states is possible if the international system is decentralized. Leaning on the sheer liberal view of the state as a rational and self-interested actor, states, when allowed to compete fairly in a decentralized environment, are able to maximize their relative gains in power and resources.2. Neoliberalism and neorealism are considered modern interpretations of the syllabusic positivist theories on international relations. While antithetic in some conceptions of state behavior, both theories are complementary and mutually enforcing. They more alike than different both theories are rooted in the explanation of international relations using the state as primary unit of analysis. They cannot be considered alternate theories to international relations, merely, a modern version of the traditional positivist view of IR.In some ways, neorealism and neoliberalism contradict but they are essentially mutually reinforcing interpretations of international relations. Both recognize anarchy in IR but at different extents. The neorealist believes that the global system is anarchic by constitution and that the main preoccupation of states is how to ensure their survival. Thus, whatever alliances and cooperation is forged among nations is hinged upon the need to survive. some other states, like North Korea, rely on their o wn processes of survival, even violating international law to ensure that it is not crushed by the more powerful states. Its concept of balance of power requires it to develop its own nuclear enigma to deter threat. If states do not recognize anarchy, they will be weakened. From a neorealist perspective, international cooperation is illusory, if not outright impossible to achieve.Neoliberal institutionalism recognizes that there is anarchy but there are creative ways to go roughly it, such as the building of regimes or institutions to mitigate anarchy. Neoliberals value the institution of international institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and other international regimes that ensure mutually beneficial relations among nations. The WTO for instance, sets norms and rules for global trade. The UN acts as an arbiter of international conflict.3. Marxism remains of the most relevant theories that provide alternative explanations to international relatio ns. first-year of all, departing from the traditional realist and liberal view of the state as the fundamental unit of analysis, Marxism treats class as the unit of analysis. Marxism argues that the international system was established to protect the property interests of the upper classes and the most affluent states. Hence, the deal in the international system is essentially a class struggle between rich and powerful nations and the exploited nations. Variants of Marxist theory of international relations include the world-systems theory, dependency theory, and neo-Marxism.Marxism divides the world not into political entities but economic classes. Using its analysis of the base and superstructure, Marxism contends that economics supersedes politics in the global order. International relations was developed by the capitalist class to ensure capital accumulation of wealthy corporations and affluent states. The world-systems theory developed by Wallersten argues that the world can be divided into economic classes 1) First World represents the most affluent or the core, and 2) Third World represents the poorest and developing or the periphery. According to the world-systems theory, only the core countries are able to clear from international relations because they own the means of production while the periphery countries are exploited. The dependency theory which grew popular in Latin America propose that the poor countries (classes) are transformed into mere source of shoddy labor and raw materials, hence, keeping them utterly dependent on affluent nations. International institutions such as the WTO are said to perpetuate this inequality.To disapprove this unequal relations, Marxists argue for protectionism and economic harbor policies that will liberate them from the control of the global economic regime, including import substitution to replace export-based economic models. workplace CitedGriffiths, Martin, OCallaghan, Terry, and Steven Roach. Internat ional relations the key concepts. 2nd ed. New York Routledge, 2002.