International Relations Comment Paper

Debate between Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism

IF

GAO XIAOLEI

I34020

There was a fierce debate between neo-realism and neo-liberalism, which are
the progeny of realism and liberalism, dominating mainstream international
relations in US for at least ten years. 1 Neo-realism and neo-liberalism hold
different views on anarchy, problems and gains of cooperation among states
and the effect of institutions and regimes. But they are not two polar opposite
worldviews. Instead, they focus on different study areasNeo-realism focus on
security and military issues while neo-liberalism studies more about political
economy, environment and human rights issues. The first part of this article
will analyze the major points of the debate between these two theories and the
second part will give examples to explain my own opinion on these theories.
Major Points of the Debate
1. Anarchy
Both neo-realists and neo-liberalists agree that international system is in
anarchic order, lacking of common power or central authority to enforce rules
to maintain order in international system. But they disagree on the
consequence of anarchy. Neo-realists claim that states are struggling for
survival in a world full of danger and conflicts. In order to maintain security,
states have to be self-help and the effect of structure must be considered. 2
Waltz argues that because there is a clear hierarchy in domestic political
system, subordinate must comply with the decision of superior. But members in
international system are equal and self-governed and states have the ability
1 Steven L. Lamy, Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism
2 Steven L. Lamy, Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism

and motivation to offend others since it is more difficult to defend themselves

from other aggressors.3 Because of the potential threats, states have to
prepare to be challenged by stronger states. They cannot depend on others for
their security.4
However, neo-liberalists argue that neo-realists rely on worst-case analysis. 5
Neo-liberalists emphasize on the importance of international interdependence,
globalization and institutions. They think anarchy can be mitigated by
international regimes and institutions. And cooperation is easy where states
have mutual interests that can contribute to the settlement of conflicts
peacefully.
2. Gains and cheating problem in cooperation
Neo-realists argue that it is difficult to achieve and sustain cooperation due to
the two factors: relative gains consideration and concern about cheating. 6
Firstly, according to Prisoners Dilemma, we can see the different gains
between cooperation and cheating, which is the difference between absolute
gains and relative gains. If both states agree to cooperate, both of them can
get benefits and the gains are evenly distributed between states. But if there is
cheating, the relative gains of the cheating state are much more than the state
which is not cheating. Since states are rational and there are no rules in
international system, they can be motivated by relative gains when considering
cooperation. The fundamental goal of states in cooperation is to prevent others
from gaining more. Secondly, states would not like to cooperate for fear that
other states will cheat in cooperation. States are egoistic value maximizers and
3 Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), p.35
4 John. J Mearsheimer, False Promise of International Institutions, Vol.19, No.3, p.8
5 Robert O. Keohane; Lisa L. Martin , The Promise of Institutionalist Theory Vol. 20, No. 1.
(Summer, 1995), p.40
6 John. J Mearsheimer, False Promise of International Institutions, Vol.19, No.3, p.9

put security at the first place, so there is a great chance for them to cheat in
order to gain more advantages. Even if the cheating problem is solved, states
still have to worry about relative gains because gaps in gains can be translated
into military advantage that can be used for aggression.7
But neo-liberalists claim that cooperation is easy to achieve because firstly, if
states have mutual interest, cooperation can maximize the absolute gains to
both sides of cooperation. Rational states seek for absolute value they can get
through cooperation and they are less concerned with gains other states can
get through this behavior. Secondly, relative gains are unlikely to have much
impact on cooperation if the potential absolute gains from cooperation are
substantial, or in any context involving more than two states. 8 Thirdly, in terms
of Prisoners Dilemma, the result can be different if the game is infinite or it is
linked to a wide variety of other games with the same players. 9 In the first
cooperation, there is little chance for states to communicate. So in order to
keep away from worst consequence, states may choose to cheat to get shortterm benefits. But in long-term horizon, cooperation can increase the
understanding and trust of other states, which will also help states to get out
Prisoners Dilemma through lots of cooperation while cheating means the end
of long-term benefits of both cooperation sides.
3. Institutions
Neo-realists claim that institutions have little effect on states behavior.
Institutions reflect the distribution of international power. 10 The most powerful
states create the institutions so that they can maintain their place in
7 John. J Mearsheimer, False Promise of International Institutions, Vol.19, No.3, p.20
8 Duncan Snidal, "Relative Gains and'the Pattern of International Cooperation ," American Political
Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726.
9 Charles Lipson, International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs, World Politics, Vol. 37
(October 1984), p. 6
10 John. J Mearsheimer, False Promise of International Institutions, Vol.19, No.3, p.13

international system. Institutions can legalize the order in international system

under the power of hegemonic states. And in order to keep this order
established by institutions, super power states will tolerate free riders to some
extent and also will provide public goods to reduce the revolt of other states.
However, neo-liberalists believe that institutions can independently change
states behavior. Firstly, institutions can make hard cooperation among states
become possible by offering not only one mechanism for cooperation. 11 The
biggest problem in cooperation is neither cheating nor relative gains but the
disagreement about the specific form of cooperation in coordination games. 12
States may doubt for the gains they can get from cooperation. But institutions
can provide them with many appropriate forms for cooperation that convinces
members about the expected result. Secondly, institutions can mitigate fears of
cheating in cooperation by providing enough information. 13 Institutions can
facilitate cooperation because they can offer valuable information to show that
gains

are

evenly

distributed

among

cooperated

members.

Therefore,

institutions can motivate states to cooperate.

Personal View
It is hard to conclude which camp has won the debate because they focus on
different study areas. When it comes to economic issues, institutions do help a
lot, such as IMF and World Bank. For example, OPEC was formed when the
international oil market was largely dominated by western countries at
September, 1960. Big profits were generated by developed states rather than
oil producing states. In order to respond to developed states controlling of oil
11 Robert O. Keohane; Lisa L. Martin , The Promise of Institutionalist Theory Vol. 20, No. 1.
(Summer, 1995), p.44
12 Robert O. Keohane; Lisa L. Martin , The Promise of Institutionalist Theory Vol. 20, No. 1.
(Summer, 1995), p.45
13 Robert O. Keohane; Lisa L. Martin , The Promise of Institutionalist Theory Vol. 20, No. 1.
(Summer, 1995), p.46

market and to ensure a steady income of member states, oil producing states
established OPEC and their economy experienced dramatic development after
creating OPEC.
But politics is another different thing. Survival and sovereignty cannot be
negotiated so cooperation is almost impossible and institutions have little
effect on military and security issues. Personally, I tend to agree more with
neo-realists but I am not as pessimistic as them. States pursue their own
interests but they depend more and more on others. Peace is the dominating
trend in the international system, so even cooperation is still hard to achieve,
the possibility of war is also getting lower due to the economy and culture
connections. States are seeking for a peaceful way to solve conflicts with
others.
Although OPEC has played a vital role in facilitating cooperation among
member states, it cannot change the states decision when faced with security
threats. The Gulf War is a good example for neo-realism. There are three
reasons for this war: first one is different oil policy. During Iran-Iraq war in 19801988, Iraq owed Kuwait about 14 billion US dollars debts. Iraq wanted OPEC to
reduce the production of oil so that they can increase the price of oil to pay the
huge debts. But Saudi Arabia and Kuwait increased production instead to
pursue their own interests, which made Iraqs economy worse. Second one is
territorial dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. The last one is debt problem. Iraq
held the opinion that Kuwait should forgive the debt of Iraq but Kuwait refused.
So after the failure of negotiation, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The deep
reason is the intention that Iraq wanted to get oil in Kuwait, namely the relative
gains for Iraq.
According to this case, we can see that states are rational. They could not get

consensus on oil policy since they focus on their own interests. OPEC and UN
Security Council could not change the behavior of Iraq because the relative
gain is much larger than absolute gains. Cooperation is hard to achieve,
especially on political issue. Iraq wanted to decrease oil price and be forgiven
of huge debt while Kuwait intended to get bigger profits by increasing oil price.
When there are only two states and have conflicting interest, it is not easy to
settle the problem.
Vietnam War also reflects the neo-realism opinion. Vietnam War occurred
during Cold War period in 1955. The U.S. government viewed American
involvement in the war as a way to prevent a Communist takeover of South
Vietnam. If one state went Communist, other states in the region would
follow.14 Then US would lose its dominant position in Cold War. So US spent a lot
into Vietnam War. Korea also benefited from this war because US covered
nearly 1 billion dollars of Koreas cost in the war. So we can see that the
decision of states is based on their own interests and there is little trust among
states. The world is dominated by super power states and they are trying their
best to maintain the order which depends on the distribution of power. Only
states are self-help, can they survive in the world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, neo-neo debate cannot explain states behavior perfectly and it is
not easy to conclude which theory has won the debate. The debate between
neo-realism and neo-liberalism is much more deepen and careful than the
debate between realism and liberalism. It also opens up a new form of debate
and new theory will come up to continue the same topic in international
relations study.
14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War