Search results

"Neoclassical Realism" published on by Oxford University Press.

The author deals with neoclassical realism, the approach which emerged within
the realist school of thought about international relations during the
nineties of the last century. The goal of the paper is to consider the
establishment and development of the approach during this decade and later in
the 21st century, in order to show that it improved the realist school of
thought and thus responded to the challenge that the end of the Cold War
posed to it. This improvement consists of an integration of systemic level of
analysis, on which neorealism insists, with unit level, from which classical
realism and other IR schools of thought start. The author illustrates the
application of neoclassical realism on the research of the topics relevant
for the 21st century through the examples of several significant titles
within the approach, but also citing his own application of the approach.

Abstract
The debate on how neoclassical realism (NCR) has fared as a new brand of realism and supposedly a more rigorous approach towards foreign policy has become increasingly acerbic. Most NCR critics have challenged NCR's epistemological positions, and few have scrutinised NCR's methodological practice. This essay seeks to fill the void and focuses on the latter. My aim is both critical and constructive. Because NCR's mainstay method is comparative case studies (CCSs), I first examine how NCR has practiced this method. I argue that NCR has been saddled with several key shortcomings when doing CCSs. Drawing from the extensive new qualitative methodology literature, I propose several remedies corresponding to the shortcomings. Fixing these shortcomings will allow NCR to advance more valid theories and move towards better theoretical synthesis. I then highlight qualitative comparative analysis as a very useful tool for NCR. Finally, I address a common criticism against NCR, that is, with numerous variables, NCR lacks theoretical synthesis and hence a theoretical core. I accordingly advance a preliminary framework for possible theoretical synthesis.

Neoclassical Realism's (NCR) theoretical relevance is on the line. The structural realist variant of the paradigm, tasked to explain why states react inefficiently to systemic stimuli is threatened with triviality by being assigned to explain a few cases of deviance. This is given the usual lack of ability on the part of those stimuli to point to a single optimal state response. In acknowledgement of the permissiveness of systemic stimuli, a second generation of NCR scholarship has proposed the development of a general theory of explaining foreign policy as the joint result of the limits imposed by them and the function of non-systemic factors – ideas and domestic politics – in selecting outcomes from within those limits. But this endeavour has been charged with the 'crime' of striping NCR of its theoretical distinctiveness, based on the argument that both types of causes are prima facie symmetrical. Accepting the view that NCR faces such an impasse, this article points towards a third pathway, termed transitive NCR. What is proposed under the latter is the longitudinal study of policy trends and patterns as the outcome of the transitive interplay between systemic and non-systemic factors; that is, the careful study of the ways in which systemic factors activate a number of non-systemic causal mechanisms, leading to the explained trends and patterns. In this way, the paradigm acquires distinctiveness and sufficient explanatory breadth while building bridges with other paradigms committed to the multicausal study of long-time periods.

Since its appellation, much work has sought to consolidate neoclassical realism. Specifically, a number of variations on the neoclassical theme have reconceptualised the third-image and carved out a distinctly European neoclassical variant. This article contributes by recollecting the Structural Realism of Logic of Anarchy. In unpacking Structural Realism's framework and dissecting its engagement with inter alia Kenneth Waltz, this article illustrates the importance of Logic's conceptualisation of the system, particularly in terms of anarchy's logic. This framework can enrich a number of debates within the neoclassical realist community, especially concerning third-image change and the possibility of a neoclassical realism in and of Europe, while also contributing to debates regarding the strategic actor-ness of the European Union. While Logic and its framework might appear dated, the article submits that one of its principal motifs, anarchy, along with realism's normative ethos may remind us of International Relation's (IR's) healthy pluralism.

Although international relations theory has been dominated for two decades by debates over theories of international politics, recently there has been a surge of interest in theories of foreign policy. These seek to explain, not the pattern of outcomes of state interactions, but rather the behavior of individual states. The author surveys three prominent theories of foreign policy and shows how the works under review set out a compelling alternative, one that updates and systematizes insights drawn from classical realist thought. Neoclassical realism argues that the scope and ambition of a country's foreign policy is driven first and foremost by the country's relative material power. Yet it contends that the impact of power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening unit-level variables such as decision-makers' perceptions and state structure. Understanding the links between power and policy thus requires close examination of both the international and the domestic contexts within which foreign policy is formulated and implemented.