Neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the future of NATO
In: Security studies, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 3-43
ISSN: 0963-6412
In: Security studies, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 3-43
ISSN: 0963-6412
World Affairs Online
In: Security studies, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 3-43
ISSN: 1556-1852
In: International organization, Band 42, Heft Summer 1988
ISSN: 0020-8183
Argues that neoliberal institutionalism misconstructs the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. Highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. Argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter. (Abstract amended)
In: International organization, Band 42, Heft 3, S. 485-507
ISSN: 1531-5088
The newest liberal institutionalism asserts that, although it accepts a major realist proposition that international anarchy impedes cooperation among states, it can nevertheless affirm the central tenets of the liberal institutionalist tradition that states can achieve cooperation and that international institutions can help them work together. However, this essay's principal argument is that neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. This essay highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. It also argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter.
In: American political science review, Band 85, Heft 4, S. 1303-1320
ISSN: 1537-5943
The problem of absolute and relative gains divides neoliberal institutionalism and structural realism. The former assumes states focus primarily on their absolute gains and emphasizes the prospects for cooperation. The latter supposes states are largely concerned with relative gains and emphasizes the prospects for conflict. Existing work in international relations theory generally traces the differences between these two theories to different assumptions about states' preferences. Using a simple game-theoretic model, this essay offers a reformulation of the problem of absolute and relative gains that links changes in the states' behavior, the feasibility of cooperation, and especially the states' concern for relative versus absolute gains explicitly to changes in the constraints facing the states. Many of the differences between neoliberal institutionalism and structural realism appear as special cases of the model.
In: New directions in world politics
Neoliberalism, neorealism, and world politics / D.A. Baldwin -- Coordination and collaboration: regimes in an anarchic world / A. Stein -- International cooperation in economic and security affairs / C. Lipson -- Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions / R. Axelrod and R.O. Keohane -- Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism / J.M. Grieco -- The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: a critique / H. Milner -- Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation / D. Snidal -- Absolute and relative gains in international relations theory / R. Powell -- Global communications and national power: life on the Pareto frontier / S.D. Krasner -- Do relative gains matter? American's response to Japanese industrial policy / M. Mastanduno -- Institutional theory and the realist challenge after the Cold War -- R.O. Keohane -- Understanding the problem of international cooperation: the limits of neoliberal institutionalism and the future of realist theory / J.M. Grieco
World Affairs Online
In: International social science journal: ISSJ, Band 45, S. 443-498
ISSN: 0020-8701
French, Swiss, & Swedish international relations scholars present critical analyses of the US-based neorealist international relations & regime theory for explaining transnationalism, multilaterlism & international organizations (IOs). Dissatisfied with regime theory's realist assumptions & methodological individualism, each advances alternative sociologically oriented approaches. US regime theorists then respond to these critiques. In Some Thoughts on International Organizations and Theories of Regulation, Marie-Claude Smouts suggests a regulation theory perspective for understanding shifts in conventional roles & objectives of the IO. The IO of the future will directly regulate social, economic, & political problems, thereby integrating domestic & international political economy. In Regime Theory and the Study of International Organizations, Pierre de Senarclens reviews a sociological framework for studying the regime that accounts fully for the IO's various functions. Noting regime theory's downplaying of coercive & conflictual power relations & the misguided explanations of hegemonic stability theory for the creation of regimes, analysis also suggests that US scholarship is biased by collaboration with political interest groups. In International Organization and Co-Operation: An Interorganizational Perspective, Christer Jonsson proposes an interorganizational theory, focusing on networks of resources, actors, & public/private ties within IOs. Based on experience with projects in international coordination of civil air transport, refugees, & atomic energy, the theory suggests redefinitions of power, bargaining, mediation, & brokerage concepts & clarifies the roles of individual leadership, international secretaries, & relations between inter- & nongovernmental organizations. In Toward a Sociology of International Institutions: Comments on the Articles by Smouts, de Senarclens & Jonsson, James A. Caporaso (U of Washington, Seattle) concedes that regime theory's preoccupation with realism, disregard for more integrative, sociological approaches, & failure to discuss the issue of conflictual power relations are problematic, but argues that the alternatives suggested here are also troublesome. In International Regimes and World Politics: Comments on the Articles by Smouts, de Senarclens & Jonsson, Helen Milner concurs that neoliberal institutionalism is marred by realist principles, but stresses that this perspective does not represent all of regime theory. These critiques argue for the primacy of the IO over that of regime. Parallels are drawn between their proposals & a branch of US international relations studies emphasizing intersubjective agreement. 5 Figures, 9 Photographs, 119 References. J. Sadler
In: Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen: ZIB, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 91-114
ISSN: 0946-7165
"Der Aufsatz ist eine Reaktion auf den Beitrag von Hellmann (ZIB 1/1994). Der Situationsbeschreibung, dass die 'Hegemonie' der amerikanischen Forschung über internationale Politik ungebrochen ist und die deutschsprachige IB-Forschung auch heute noch im Ganzen unter ihren Möglichkeiten bleibt, ist nicht zu widersprechen. Dieser wenig befriedigende Tatbestand kann aber nicht dadurch überwunden werden, dass wir uns an die amerikanische Diskussion ankoppeln oder einen Re-Import der Realistischen Schule vornehmen. Dafür gibt es sowohl wissenschaftstheoretische als auch substantielle Gründe. Zum einen beruht die scheinbar 'vorbildhafte' Theorienkonkurrenz zwischen Neorealismus und neoliberalem Institutionalismus auf einigen Konfusionen und ist auch überholt. Die (internationale) Diskussion ist längst komplexer und differenzierter. Zum zweiten stellt sich eine Fixierung auf 'Theorienkonkurrenz' und 'harte Tests' als problematisch dar. Angesichts des Stands unserer Disziplin sind empirisch informierte Auseinandersetzungen über die theoretischen Prämissen unserer Disziplin mindestens ebenso wichtig. In der Summe komme ich mithin zu einer etwas 'selbstbewussteren' Einschätzung des Verhältnisses der Disziplin 'Internationale Beziehungen' in den USA und in Deutschland." (Autorenreferat)