1.

3 Theoretical Approaches to International Relations: Realism, Liberalism,

Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism, Marxist theories
A theory of international relations is a set of ideas that explains how the international
system works. Unlike an ideology, a theory of international relations is (at least in
principle) backed up with concrete evidence. The two major theories of international
relations are realism and liberalism.
National Interest
Most theories of international relations are based on the idea that states always act
in accordance with their national interest, or the interests of that particular state.
State interests often include self-preservation, military security, economic prosperity,
and influence over other states. Sometimes two or more states have the same
national interest. For example, two states might both want to foster peace and
economic trade. And states with diametrically opposing national interests might try to
resolve their differences through negotiation or even war.
Realism
According to realism, states work only to increase their own power relative to that of
other states. Realism also claims the following:
The world is a harsh and dangerous place. The only certainty in the world is power.
A powerful state will always be able to outdo—and outlast—weaker competitors. The
most important and reliable form of power is military power.
A state’s primary interest is self-preservation. Therefore, the state must seek power
and must always protect itself
There is no overarching power that can enforce global rules or punish bad
behaviour.
Moral behaviour is very risky because it can undermine a state’s ability to protect
itself.
The international system itself drives states to use military force and to war. Leaders
may be moral, but they must not let moral concerns guide foreign policy.
International organizations and laws have no power or force; they exist only as long
as states accept them.
Politicians have practiced realism as long as states have existed. Most scholars and
politicians during the Cold War viewed international relations through a realist lens.
Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union trusted the other, and each sought
allies to protect itself and increase its political and military influence abroad. Realism
has also featured prominently in the administration of George W. Bush.
Machiavelli
One of the best-known realist thinkers is the notorious Niccolo Machiavelli. In his
book The Prince (1513), he advised rulers to use deceit and violence as tools
against other states. Moral goals are so dangerous, he wrote, that to act morally will
bring about disaster. He also gave advice about how to deal with conflicts among
neighbouring states and how to defend one’s homeland. Machiavelli’s name has
become synonymous with nasty and brutal politics.
Liberalism
Liberalism emphasizes that the broad ties among states have both made it difficult to define
national interest and decreased the usefulness of military power. Liberalism developed in the
1970s as some scholars began arguing that realism was outdated. Increasing globalization,
the rapid rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade meant
that states could no longer rely on simple power politics to decide matters. Liberal
approaches to international relations are also called theories of complex interdependence.
Liberalism claims the following:

The world is a harsh and dangerous place, but the consequences of using military
power often outweigh the benefits. International cooperation is therefore in the
interest of every state.
Military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a
great deal too. Exercising economic power has proven more effective than
exercising military power.
Different states often have different primary interests.
International rules and organizations can help foster cooperation, trust, and
prosperity.
Example: Relations among the major Western powers fit a model of complex
interdependence very well. The United States has significant disagreements with its
European and Asian allies over trade and policy, but it is hard to imagine a
circumstance in which the United States would use military power against any of
these allies. Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure and incentives
to achieve its policy aims.
Idealism
Idealism is a specific school of liberalism that stresses the need for states to pursue moral
goals and to act ethically in the international arena. Idealists believe that behaviour
considered immoral on an interpersonal level is also immoral in foreign policy. Therefore,
idealists argue that dishonesty, trickery, and violence should be shunned. In the United
States, idealism has usually been associated with the Democratic Party since World War I.

Example: As he negotiated the treaty to end World War I in 1918, Woodrow Wilson
worked to promote democracy and national self-determination. Wilson’s idealism led
him to push hard for the creation of the League of Nations, an international
organization that would fight aggression and protect the weak from the strong, in
1919. Scholars use the term Wilsonian to describe a person or group who advocates
promoting democracy overseas in the name of idealism.
Source:
https://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/political-
science/international-politics/section2/
Key Theories of International Relations
International relations theories can help us understand the way the international
systems work, as well as how nations engage with each other and view the world.
Varying from liberal, equality-centric strategies to straightforward realist concepts,
international relations theories are often used by diplomats and international
relations experts to dictate the direction that a government may take in regards to an
international political issue or concern. By studying the following key international
theories, professionals in the field can better discern the motivations and goals
driving policy decisions worldwide.
Realism in International Relations
Realism is a straightforward approach to international relations, stating that all
nations are working to increase their own power, and those countries that manage to
horde power most efficiently will thrive, as they can easily eclipse the achievements
of less powerful nations. The theory further states that a nation’s foremost interest
should be self-preservation and that continually gaining power should always be a
social, economic, and political imperative.
The nature of realism implies that seeking a moral high ground is a goal that
governments cannot always achieve and that deceit and violence can be highly
effective tools for advancing national interests. With homeland defense elevated to
the highest priority, remaining morally righteous in the eyes of international
organizations can take a backseat to enforcing foreign policy that will improve the
nation’s global stature. In modern times, realism is evident in the foreign policies of
China and Russia. The relationship between Russia and Syria is one that has raised
eyebrows in Europe and around the world; despite the bloody civil war in Syria—and
the international community’s pleas for intervention—Russia has maintained
strategic relations with the government of Bashar Al-Assad in order to protect
Russian interests in the region. Similarly, China continues its diplomatic and
economic association with North Korea in spite of the latter’s abysmal human rights
record and aggressive nuclear testing. Chinese encroachment into the South China
Sea and Russia’s incursions into Ukraine also highlight the two countries’
aggressive—and at times violent—realist political approach to international affairs.
Liberalism
Also called “liberal internationalism,” liberalism is based on the belief that the current
global system is capable of engendering a peaceful world order. Rather than relying
on direct force, such as military action, liberalism places an emphasis on
international cooperation as a means of furthering each nation’s respective interests.
Liberalists believe that the negative consequences of force—such as economic
losses and civilian casualties—far exceed its potential benefits. Therefore, liberal
politicians generally prefer the use of economic and social power in achieving their
national goals (for instance, obtaining the agreement of a neighboring country to help
secure a border). In today’s globalized society, using economic tactics—such as
bilateral trade agreements and international diplomacy—can be more effective in
advancing political interests than threatening force. As liberalism has become more
rooted in international cooperation through the establishment of organizations like
the United Nations, realism has started to wane as a viable political strategy. It can
be argued that the liberalist tradition, perpetuated by the United States, has become
the dominant system in international relations, with established values and
international institutions in place to regulate this order.
Constructivism
Constructivism rests on the notion that rather than the outright pursuit of material
interests, it is a nation’s belief systems—historical, cultural and social —that explain
its foreign policy efforts and behavior. For example, since German aggression
served as the primary catalyst for the Second World War, Germany deploys its
armed forces outside of German borders only when its government is certain of the
need to intervene in instances of genocide or conflict that threatens to spill over into
other nations. This has been demonstrated by the country’s foreign policy following
the first and second Gulf War (the latter of which Germany refused to participate), as
well as its reluctant participation in United Nations-led operations in Somalia and
Yugoslavia.
Constructivists also argue that states are not the most important actors in
international relations, but that international institutions and other non-state actors
are valuable in influencing behavior through lobbying and acts of persuasion. For this
reason, constructivism has become a popular and important theory in recent
decades as non-state actors like international organizations such as Amnesty
International, OXFAM, and Greenpeace gain political influence. International
organizations play a role in promoting human rights and making them an
international standard to which countries are expected to conform.
Marxism
Karl Marx was a Prussian philosopher and economist whose works posited that
societies could escape the self-destructive nature of capitalist socioeconomic
systems by implementing socialist theory into their policies, both locally and abroad.
Marxism, a theory that closely analyzes social classes, aims to dismantle the
capitalist structure of the international system, as it states that capitalism is no longer
practically sustainable in the modern world. Marx believed that private property
should be replaced by cooperative ownership, with the emphasis placed entirely on
satisfying human needs for consumption, rather than creating private profit. Under an
ideal socialist international regime, societies would work together to ensure that
basic human needs were met on a global scale. Marxism was a dominant political
ideology during the Cold War and inspired socialist revolutions in countries such as
China, Vietnam and Cuba. Marxism’s influence can still be felt today, with
Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung encouraging students to study
Marxism in exchange for free tuition. The Marxist revival is not exclusive to current
and former communist nations; The 2017 Marxism Festival was hosted by the
Socialist Workers Party in London and attracted thousands of activists from across
the world. As the global population continues to grow and sustainability becomes
increasingly precarious, Marxism remains a relevant topic of discussion for those
who advocate the prioritization of human needs over private profit.
Feminism
Gender issues are a significant concern within global politics, and feminism as an
international relations theory seeks to regulate the power derived from (or denied on
the basis of) an individual’s gender. Feminists are mostly interested in tracking
political and social developments that inhibit success in female populations. When
systems of power subtly or overtly tell women they can only fulfill certain roles, those
limitations become social norms and perpetuate the cycle. The significance of
feminism in international relations is evidenced by the role women play in promoting
more just and fair international relations policies. Women like Hillary Clinton and
Condoleezza Rice have both made important contributions to the advancement of
women worldwide. As a senator representing the state of New York, Clinton co-
sponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which was aimed at combatting
gender-based pay discrimination. Rice was instrumental in starting the One Woman
Initiative, which provides access to legal rights, political participation, and economic
development to women living in countries with a large Muslim population.
Outside of the U.S., the adoption of feminist policies has propelled women to political
achievement. Iceland has maintained women’s rights as integral to their political
policy since 1850, when the nation granted unconditional inheritance rights to men
and women. The nation, which also granted women suffrage five years before the
United States in 1915, has also seen women in the highest levels of government:
former President Vigdís Finnbogadóttir and current Prime Minister Jóhanna
Sigurdardóttir were the first women to be elected to these positions in 1980 and
2009, respectively. The National Committee for the United Nations Development
Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in Iceland was established in 1989 and focused on
improving the social status of women across the globe. The contributions of nations
such as Iceland have been financially and socially impactful, addressing the need for
true gender equality and demonstrating the positive effects of feminism in domestic
and foreign policy.
With the rapid changes taking place in the current geopolitical landscape, discerning
why governments act as they do and understanding the implications of those actions
has never been more crucial. When leveraged properly, these theories can be used
to accomplish a broad array of objectives; therefore, international relations
professionals must possess a keen understanding of the specific impact each
theoretical approach to international relations can have on global diplomatic efforts.
Obtaining a master’s degree in international relations—such as the Master of Arts in
International Relations degree offer by Norwich University—can help individuals
deepen their knowledge and understanding of these theories and prepare them for
the rigors of a career in international diplomacy.
Source:
https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/resources/key-theories-of-
international-relations
Explain different theoretical approaches to
international relations
International relations is a complex field of study that seeks to understand the
interactions between states and other international actors. It is widely recognized
that there are several theoretical approaches developed to explain these
interactions. The following is an overview of some of the major theoretical
approaches in international relations.
1. Realism
Realism is considered to be the oldest and most dominant theoretical approach in
international relations. It is based on the belief that the world is a competitive and
anarchic place, where states pursue their interests and security. Realists argue that
states are the primary actors in international politics, and their behaviour is driven by
their desire for power and security. According to realists, international politics is a
zero-sum game, where one state’s gain is another state’s loss.
2. Liberalism
Liberalism is another major theoretical approach in international relations. Unlike
realism, liberalism emphasizes cooperation and interdependence among states.
Liberals argue that the world is not anarchic, but rather a society of states, where
states are interconnected and interdependent. According to liberals, cooperation and
mutual gain are possible, even in the absence of a global government. They believe
that international institutions and norms play an important role in promoting peace
and cooperation among states.
3. Constructivism
Constructivism is a relatively new theoretical approach in international relations. It
emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identity in shaping international politics.
According to constructivists, the behaviour of states is not solely determined by
material factors such as power and interest, but also by social factors such as
culture, identity, and ideology. They argue that ideas and norms shape the interests
and identities of states, which in turn shape their behaviour in the international
system.
4. Marxism
Marxism is a political and economic theory that views international politics as an
extension of class struggle. According to Marxists, the world is divided into two
classes: the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and the proletariat (the workers). They
argue that international politics is dominated by the interests of the bourgeoisie, who
seek to maintain their power and exploit the workers. Marxists believe that the only
way to achieve peace and equality in the world is through the overthrow of the
bourgeoisie and the establishment of a socialist world order.
5. Feminism
Feminism is a theoretical approach that emphasizes the role of gender in
international politics. Feminists argue that international politics is inherently
gendered, and that the experiences of women are often marginalized and ignored in
traditional approaches to international relations. They advocate for the inclusion of
gender perspectives in the study of international politics, and for the promotion of
gender equality in international institutions and policies.
6. Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a theoretical approach that challenges the traditional assumptions
of international relations. Postmodernists argue that reality is socially constructed
and that there is no objective truth or universal values. They reject the idea that the
state is the only actor in international politics, and instead emphasize the role of non-
state actors such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and social movements.
Postmodernists believe that the study of international relations should be more
inclusive, diverse, and reflective of the complexity of the world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the theoretical approaches to international relations offer different
perspectives on how to understand and explain the interactions between states and
other international actors. While realism emphasizes power and competition,
liberalism emphasizes cooperation and interdependence. Constructivism
emphasizes the role of ideas and norms, Marxism emphasizes class struggle,
feminism emphasizes gender, and postmodernism challenges traditional
assumptions. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and scholars
continue to debate which approach is most accurate and useful in understanding
international politics.
Source:
https://shoutmore.in/international-relations-theoretical-approaches/

Theories of International Relations

Learning Objectives:
In this section you learn about:
Realism, liberalism, constructivism, feminism and neo-Marxism as ways of
explaining international relations.
Considering other factors to explain why states behave the way they do.
The study and practice of international relations has led international relations
scholars to suggest different ways that states might and should behave with regard
to their neighbours around the world.
Realism
Realism suggests that states should and do look out for their own interests first.
Realism presumes that states are out for themselves first and foremost. The world is
therefore a dangerous place; a state has look out for No. 1 and prepare for the worst.
When George W. Bush convinced the U.S. Congress that he should send in U.S.
soldiers into Iraq in 2003 and take out Saddam Hussein, this was realism in action.
Realism suggests that international relations is driven by competition between
states, and states therefore do and should try to further their own interests. What
matters, then, is how much economic and especially military power a state has.
When your neighbour misbehaves, you can’t call the police.
Classical realists say this is just human nature. People, by nature, are at some level
greedy and insecure and behave accordingly. So even if you’re not greedy and
insecure, you have to behave that way, because that’s the game. Structural realists
say it’s more about how the world is organized—an anarchic system creates the
Hobbesian state of nature, referring to the 16th century English philosopher who
justified the existence of the state by comparing it to a somewhat hypothetical “state
of nature,” a war of all against all. So states should seek peace, but prepare for war.
This tends to make national security look like a zero-sum game: Anything I do to
make myself more secure tends to make you feel less secure, and vice versa. A
realist might counter that a balance of power between states in fact preserves the
peace, by raising the cost of any aggression to an unacceptable level.
Realists argue that war, at some point, is inevitable. Anarchy persists, and it isn’t
going away anytime soon.
Liberalism
Liberalism suggests in fact states can peacefully co-exist, and that states aren’t
always on the brink of war. Liberal scholars point to the fact that despite the
persistence of armed conflict, most nations are not at war most of the time. Most
people around the world don’t get up and start chanting “Death to America!” and
trying to figure out who they can bomb today. Liberalism argues that relations
between nations are not always a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is one in which
any gain by one player is automatically a loss by another player. My gains in
security, for example, don’t make you worse off, and your gains in anything don’t
make me worse off. Liberal theory also points to the fact that despite the condition of
anarchy in the world, most nations are not at war, most of the time. So the idea that
international relations must be conducted as though one were always under the
threat of attack isn’t necessarily indicative of reality.
There are different flavours of liberalism. Liberal institutionalism puts some faith in
the ability of global institutions to eventually coax people into getting along as
opposed to going to war. Use of the United Nations, for example, as a forum for
mediating and settling dispute, will eventually promote a respect for the rule of
international law in a way that parallels respect for the law common in advanced
democracies. Liberal commercialism sees the advance of global commerce as
making less likely. War isn’t actually very profitable for most people, and it really isn’t
good for the economy. Liberal internationalism trades on the idea that democracies
are less likely to make war than are dictatorships, if only because people can say no,
either in legislatures or in elections. Consider that public protest in the U.S. helped
end U.S. involvement in Vietnam—that kind of thing doesn’t always happen in non-
democratic states. Although it can. Argentina’s misadventures in Las Malvenas—the
Falkland Islands—led to protests that brought down a longstanding military
dictatorship and restored democracy to the nation in 1982. Together, these three are
sometimes called the Kantian triangle, after the German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724–1804), who outlined them in a 1795 essay, Perpetual Peace.
The liberal argument that states can learn to get along is somewhat supported by the
work of Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books,
2006, who used an actual experiment involving a lot of players and the prisoner’s
dilemma game to show how people and perhaps states could learn to cooperate.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a fairly simple game that is useful for understanding
various parts of human behaviour. In this game, you have two players, both
prisoners. Each player has two choices: Defect to the authorities and rat out the
other player in exchange for a reduced sentence, or cooperate with the other player
and go free. If the players each defect they get 1 point apiece; if they cooperate they
get 3 points apiece. If, however, one player cooperates and the other defects, the
defector gets 5 points and the co-operator gets zero. Given that set of constraints, in
a realist world, both players defect and score only 1 point each. The best result
would be for both to cooperate, go free, and generate the most points between them.
In the Axelrod experiment, the game was iterated or repeated, so that in a round-
robin featuring dozens of players, each player played the other player multiple times.
The players were all notable game theorists, and each devised a particular strategy
in an attempt to win the game. What Axelrod found was the player in his experiment
who used a strategy called “tit-for-tat” won. Tit-for-tat simply began by cooperating
and then did whatever the other player did last time in the next round. In a repeated
game, which certainly describes relations between states, players eventually learned
to cooperate. Axelrod cites real-world examples of where this kind of behaviour
occurred, such as the German and Allied soldiers in the trenches of World War I,
who basically agreed at various times not to shoot each other, or to shell incoming
shipments of food. As the soldiers came to understand that they would be facing
each other for some time, refraining from killing each other meant that they all got to
live.
Constructivism
Constructivism is another and also interesting way of looking at international
relations. It may tell us more about why things are happening the way they do, but
somewhat less about what we should do about it. Constructivism argues that culture,
social structures, and human institutional frameworks matter. Constructivism relies in
part on the theory of the social construction of reality, which says that whatever
reality is perceived to be, for the most part, people have invented it. Of course, if the
theory were entirely true, then the very idea of the social construction of reality would
also be socially constructed, and therefore potentially untrue. To the extent that
reality is socially constructed, people can make choices. Hence the constructivist
argument is, in part, that while the world system is indeed a form of anarchy, which
does not demand a realist response to foreign policy. People can choose to
otherwise. So constructivists might argue that the end of the Cold War between the
U.S. and the Soviet Union was at least in part a decision by Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev to change his thinking. He attempted then to ratchet down tensions with
the U.S., and to liberalize Soviet society, Bova, 2012, p. 26. The fact that the Soviet
Union promptly disintegrated doesn’t change that.
2.4 Combining theories to explain: The Cuban missile crisis
Although constructivism can be a bit mushy, some clear versions of it are quite
interesting and useful in helping to understand why states behave the way they do.
Realism tends to treat states as single, rational actors—as though the state were a
single being, behaving in a consistent fashion with a constant eye to its own interest.
As detailed by the scholar Graham Allison Graham Allison, Essence of Decision,
1971., the rational actor model of analysis sees states nearly as single organisms,
pursuing policies with some planning and coherence. Allison used the 1963 Cuban
missile crisis, in which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to blows
over the Soviets’ efforts to put nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba, to explain how other
factors could explain why states behave the way they do. Allison suggests two other
models. In the organizational process model, the regular behaviour and processes of
government agencies (bureaucracies) tends to dictate how and why things happen in
government. So, for example, one of the ways in which U.S. officials were able to
figure out that the Soviets were building missile sites was from aerial reconnaissance
and satellite photos of the sites. Despite the fact that the Soviets were trying to keep
the missiles a secret, so they could be set up and ready to go if the Soviets should
have to confront the U.S. in any way, the sites they were building looked just like all
the Soviet missile sites they’d ever built.
In the governmental politics model, internal political struggles can lead to decisions
that may at least be questionable. In this case, Soviet President Nikita Khruschev
may have been pushed by internal political forces to put missiles in Cuba. President
John F. Kennedy faced internal pressure for air strikes on the Soviet sites in Cuba,
but resisted them.
In the end, the two sides were able to negotiate their way out of the standoff and
ratchet down the rhetoric. The Soviets pulled the missiles out of Cuba; the U.S.
pulled missiles out of Turkey—like Cuba for the U.S., right on the Soviets’
doorstep—and promised not to invade Cuba. What’s also useful and interesting
about Allison’s work is that it shows how using different theories together can explain
why states behave the way they do. Putting missiles in Turkey and Cuba was a
realist approach to international affairs. A constructivist view can tell us why things
happened the way they did: The culture and politics of the U.S. and the Soviet Union
led them to make decisions, and respond to each other’s decisions, in ways that
can’t be viewed as entirely rational. And, finally, the solution came from a somewhat
liberal approach to policy: Sit down, talk it out, reach an agreement and pull back
from the brink. Although in succeeding decades where the missiles were placed
became less of an issue, as each side developed weapons that could hit any spot on
the globe from anywhere else, despite all the weapons, nobody fired a shot. Despite
more than five decades of nuclear tension, threats, and military build-up, the world
failed to blow itself up.
Feminism
Realism, liberalism, and constructivism may be the three most prominent theories of
international relations, but they are by no means the only ones or the most important.
Feminist scholars look at international relations through the prism of gender
relations, noting that for much of human history, women have been relegated to a
side-line role in politics and government. This isn’t wise: More than half the people in
the world are women. Nonetheless, males have dominated both the study and
practice of international relations, but feminist scholars note that women’s roles as
wives, mothers, and workers have made all of that possible. Also, a female
perspective on foreign policy might be different. Feminist theory sometimes argues
that having more women in positions of power could change things, as women may
be more likely to believe peace through international cooperation is possible.
Feminist international relations theory has variants, of course. Liberal feminism
wants to ensure that women have the same opportunities in society as do men, so
that means liberal in the broader sense of general support for democratic capitalism.
Critical feminism, on the other hand, sees capitalism as the source of women’s
oppression and seeks to create new structures for society. Cultural or essentialist
feminism stresses the differences in how women view and think about the world. It
argues that women’s approach to the world would be more likely to bring peace and
avoid conflict.
As usual, there’s probably some kernel of truth in all of these ideas, and places
where we could find cases that contradict these notions. Clearly, for example,
women tend to be less involved in violent crime, and women in some parts of the
world are being sold into slavery and prostitution, where their lives are largely
controlled by men. On the other hand, it was a female politician, former British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, who marshalled her country’s military to go to war with
Argentina and reclaim the Falkland Islands in 1982. But while history is full of valiant
female warriors and strong leaders—from the Trung sisters and Trieu Thi Trinh of
Vietnam to Joan of Arc, and Queen Elizabeth I—they are much less common than
are men famous for their conquering exploits. And the women warriors, generally,
are famous for having defended their homelands as opposed to conquering
somebody else’s. While some men have felt threatened by the rise of feminism in the
last 60 years, it really is an opportunity to look at the world in a slightly different way,
perhaps shedding some light on why things happen the way they do.
Neo-Marxism
Neo-Marxists look at international relations through the perspective of our old friend
Karl Marx. Remember that Marx saw the world in terms of its productive relations so
that the way in which we organize production determines social and political relations
as well. Neo-Marxist theory applies this to international relations and tends to argue
that capitalism drives states to compete and attempt to dominate each other.
For example, under the variant known as Marxism-Leninism, named after the
Russian revolutionary leader, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–924), world relations are
really defined by the desire for industrial nations to develop both sources of raw
materials and markets for finished products (what Lenin called the core and the
periphery). Lenin was writing at a time when most of Africa had been carved into
colonies by the European powers, and the British Empire still stretched from Africa to
India to Hong Kong, so there was some evidence for what he was saying. The
collapse of the Soviet empire and China’s turning away from purely Marxist
economics has taken some of the steam out of the Marxian railroad of history, and
we may not agree with Marx and Lenin’s suggestion that a socialist dictatorship is a
necessary step on the road to nirvana. But it could be wrong to completely reject
their analysis. Economic problems and conflicts do continue to inform international
relations, and states do continue to try to acquire raw materials as well as markets
for finished goods. China, for example, is investing heavily in Africa to lock up
supplies of minerals for its growing manufacturing sector. The Chinese apparently
aren’t always the best employers. To the extent that they mistreat African workers,
the states where this happens will face the competing demands of a big country that
is paying them a lot of money for resources and the needs of its own citizens who
work for the Chinese.
Neo-Marxists might point to this as an example of where liberal commercialism is
really just the capitalist class protecting its own. China is nominally still a communist
state, but its economic system is really much more a sort of state-sponsored
capitalism. Capitalism, Neo-Marxists argue, in its relentless quest for rising profits,
leads to the degradation and impoverishment of workers. The realist explanation of
U.S. policy with regard to Central America is that the U.S. propped up right-wing
dictatorships there because they opposed communism. The other explanation was
that U.S. commercial interests, such as the United Fruit Company, pushed to
maintain their stranglehold on the banana industry. This helped lead, for example, to
a CIA-sponsored coup in Guatemala in 1954. The company had convinced the U.S.
government that the democratically elected Guatemalan president was pro-Soviet.
What is known for sure is that he was promising to redistribute land to Guatemalan
peasants, which would have threatened the company’s monopoly on the banana
trade.
In the view of neo-Marxist analysis, the Cold War was about the threat to U.S.
business interests. The same would be true for the first and second Gulf Wars, with
the U.S. fighting Iraq in part to preserve access to Middle Eastern oil. The United
States intervened when Iraq invaded Kuwait much more quickly than it intervened in
the former Yugoslavia when Serbs were killing Bosnian Moslems in much greater
numbers than Iraqis were killing Kuwaitis. Neo-Marxism also is realist in its
orientation, since it presumes that conflict and potential between states is the reality
of international affairs. But in their eyes, that conflict is driven by the conflict between
business interests and workers.
Combining Theories to Explain: Mexico and the Drug Wars
Let’s look at these perspectives using Mexico as an example. Many of Mexico’s
foreign policy issues involve the United States. The U.S. is Mexico’s biggest trading
partner; Mexican workers in the U.S. send back a lot of money to their families still in
Mexico; and U.S. drug policy has helped lead the Mexican government into an
ongoing war with drug lords. That in itself raises a question: Why does Mexico
persist in fighting the drug war when drug consumption is a much bigger problem for
the United States than it is for Mexico?
From a realist perspective, Mexico is not in a position to go to war with the U.S., so
working with the U.S. seems a much more likely alternative. As Mexico’s overall
economy is so dependent on sales to and from the U.S., Mexico will do what it can to
protect and preserve an open trading relationship between the two nations. A liberal
perspective might suggest that Mexico put pressure on the U.S. to address its own
consumption problem while continuing efforts to bring the drug lords to heel. A
constructivist approach might suggest that the real problem for Mexico is poverty and
the disparity of wealth in the country; it is generally not rich people who go out and
decide to sell illegal drugs. It might also suggest that Mexico’s leaders can and
should make choices that differ from what realism or liberalism might suggest. A
feminist analysis might suggest that Mexico’s somewhat patriarchal society leads it
to overlook more peaceful avenues to solving the problem. A neo-Marxist take on it
all would suggest that the capitalist nature of Mexico’s economy virtually ensures an
unequal distribution of wealth, leading the poor to seek other means of
empowerment, and the rich to seek to maintain the system that helped them become
rich in the first place. There may be some truth to all of these ideas; you will have to
decide what makes sense to you.
Key Takeaways
Realism suggests that because of the condition of anarchy in the world, the world is
a dangerous place, and states should prepare accordingly.
Liberalism suggests that rather than focusing on war, states should seek to use
diplomacy, international institutions, and commerce as ways of building peaceful
relationships with other states.
Constructivism suggests that human institutions often influence states to make
certain choices, blinding them to other foreign policy options.
Feminist theory looks at international relations with an eye to gender relations,
stressing both the historical role and the potential role women can play in foreign
policy.
Neo-Marxist theory suggests that productive relations and capitalism—cause states
to compete with each other for scarce resources, negatively affecting workers in the
process.
Question
In 2001, following 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. Which theory of international
relations would account for this action? Using the other theories, what else might
have been done instead?
Source:
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Political_Science_and_Civics/An_Introdu
ction_to_Politics_(Sell)/09%3A_International_Relations/9.02%3A_Theories_of_Inter
national_Relations

Neo-liberalism
Liberal institutionalism
Liberal institutionalism (or institutional liberalism or neoliberalism) is a theory of
international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is
feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and
competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism,
liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to
international relations.
In contrast to neorealist scholarship (which is skeptical of prospects for sustainable
cooperation), liberal institutionalism argues that cooperation is feasible and
sustainable. Liberal institutionalists highlight the role of international institutions and
regimes in facilitating cooperation between states. Robert Keohane's 1984 book
After Hegemony used insights from the new institutional economics to argue that the
international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus
rebutting hegemonic stability theory.
Keohane showed that international cooperation could be sustained through repeated
interactions, transparency, and monitoring. According to Keohane and other liberal
institutionalists, institutions facilitate cooperation by:
Reducing transaction costs
Providing information
Making commitments more credible
Establishing focal points for coordination
Facilitating the principle of reciprocity
Extending the shadow of the future
Enabling interlinkages of issues, which raises the cost of noncompliance
Terminology
Some call the school of thought rational functionalism instead of liberal
institutionalism. Liberal institutionalism is also close to—but not synonymous with—
regime theory and neoliberalism. Robert Keohane, a political scientist largely
responsible for the development of liberal institutionalism, considers his ideas part of
institutionalism or rational institutionalism, even though those schools disagree with
him on certain points. Keohane dislikes using the adjectives "liberal" or "neoliberal"
to describe his work because he also draws from realism, a school of thought that is
often contrasted with liberalism. Other major influences are the hegemonic stability
theory of Stephen Krasner and the work of Charles P. Kindleberger, among others.
Liberal institutionalism differs from other common international relations theories like
realism in the fact that it does not ignore internal politics. Furthermore, institutional
liberalism follows the idea that democracy and capitalism create systems which not
only maintain peace but also create beneficial economic opportunities for those
involved. Liberal institutionalists believe that democracies naturally lead to peace
because the many govern and not the few, and therefore those who decide to go to
war will be the many that serve. This is in stark contrast to monarchies and
dictatorships that are more warlike due to the fact that the few that do not serve will
go to war. Beyond that liberal institutionalists defend capitalism on an international
scale because they believe that if two nations are friendly, democratic, and capitalist
the two nations will inevitably negotiate mutually beneficial trade deals.
Role of institutions
According to liberal institutionalists, institutions facilitate cooperation by:
Reducing transaction costs
Providing information
Making commitments more credible
Establishing focal points for coordination
Facilitating the principle of reciprocity
Extending the shadow of the future
Enabling interlinkages of issues, which raises the cost of noncompliance
Critics of liberal institutionalism argue that institutions do not overcome power
politics; rather, institutions reflect power politics. Realist Joseph Grieco argues that
liberal institutionalist analyses omit that states pursue relative gains (rather than
absolute gains), and that institutionalist analyses that focus on the issue of
"cheating" ignore that the relative gains problem is key to why realists believe
international cooperation fails. Critics also argue that it is unclear whether institutions
have an independent effect on cooperation or whether they reflect that the members
are already willing to cooperate and comply. Other critics argue that liberal
institutionalists underestimate the enforcement powers of institutions: institutions are
often designed to be weak to attract more members, and they tend to be particularly
weak on issues related to security rather than economy.
Using logic from historical institutionalism, John Ikenberry argues that institutions
may be highly durable because
 They strengthen expectations about future behaviour
They build coalitions, routines and connections between actors, which creates
incentives for continuity
They lead to spill overs, as other forms of cooperation build around the existing
institutions
High start-up costs prevent actors from setting up challenger institutions
Learning effects create incentives for actors to stick with existing institutions.
Contentions
Keohane and Nye
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, develop an
opposing theory they dub "Complex interdependence." Robert Keohane and Joseph
Nye explain, "... complex interdependence sometimes comes closer to reality than
does realism." In explaining this, Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions in
realist thought: First, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in
international relations; second, force is a usable and effective instrument of policy;
and finally, the assumption that there is a hierarchy in international politics.
The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that in international politics there are, in
fact, multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional
Westphalian system of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from
informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here they
define their terminology; interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists;
trans governmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that
states act coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the
assumption that states are the only units. It is through these channels that political
exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channel as championed by
realists.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among
issues, meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy, not the supreme
tool by which to carry out a state's agenda, but that there is a multitude of different
agendas that come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy
becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate
relations.
Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence
prevails. The idea is developed that between countries in which a complex
interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated.
However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact
important in that "alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc."
Lebow
Richard Ned Lebow states that the failure of neorealism lies in its "institutionalist"
ontology, whereas the neorealist thinker Kenneth Waltz states, "the creators [of the
system] become the creatures of the market that their activity gave rise to." This
critical failure, according to Lebow, is due to the realists' inability "to escape from the
predicament of anarchy." Or rather, the assumption that states do not adapt and will
respond similarly to similar constraints and opportunities.
Mearsheimer
Norman Angell, a classical London School of Economics liberal, had held: "We
cannot ensure the stability of the present system by the political or military
preponderance of our nation or alliance by imposing its will on a rival."
Keohane and Lisa L. Martin expound upon these ideas in the mid-1990s as a
response to John J. Mearsheimer's "The False Promise of International Institutions,"
where Mearsheimer purports that, "institutions cannot get states to stop behaving as
short-term power maximizers." In fact Mearsheimer's article is a direct response to
the liberal-institutionalist movement created in response to neo-realism. The central
point in Keohane and Martin's idea is that neo-realism insists that, "institutions have
only marginal effects ... [which] leaves [neo-realism] without a plausible account of
the investments that states have made in such international institutions as the EU,
NATO, GATT, and regional trading organizations." This idea is in keeping with the
notion of complex interdependence. Moreover, Keohane and Martin argue that the
fact that international institutions are created in response to state interests, that the
real empirical question is "knowing how to distinguish the effects of underlying
conditions from those of the institutions themselves." The debate between the
institutionalists and Mearsheimer is about whether institutions have an independent
effect on state behaviour, or whether they reflect great power interests that said
powers employ to advance their respective interests.
Mearsheimer is concerned with 'inner-directed' institutions, which he states, "seek to
cause peace by influencing the behaviour of the member states." In doing so he
dismisses Keohane and Martin's NATO argument in favour of the example of the
European Community and the International Energy Agency. According to
Mearsheimer, NATO is an alliance that is interested in "an outside state, or coalition
of states, which the alliance aims to deter, coerce, or defeat in war." Mearsheimer
reasons that since NATO is an alliance it has special concerns. He concedes this
point to Keohane and Martin. However, Mearsheimer reasons, "to the extent that
alliances cause peace, they do so by deterrence, which is straightforward realist
behaviour." In essence, Mearsheimer believes that Keohane and Martin "are shifting
the terms of the debate, and making realist claims under the guise of institutionalism.
Mearsheimer criticizes Martin's argument that the European Community (EC)
enhances the prospects of cooperation, particularly in the case of Great Britain's
sanctioning of Argentina during the Falklands War, where it was able to secure the
cooperation of other European states by linking the issues at hand to the EC.
Mearsheimer purports that the United States was not a member of the EC and yet
the US and Britain managed to cooperate on sanctions, creating an ad hoc alliance
which effected change. "... Issue linkage was a commonplace practice in world
politics well before institutions came on the scene; moreover, Britain and other
European states could have used other diplomatic tactics to solve the problem. After
all, Britain and America managed to cooperate on sanctions even though the United
States was not a member of the EC."
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_institutionalism

Neorealism in international relations

Associated in particular with the American political scientist Kenneth Waltz,
neorealism was an attempt to translate some of the key insights of classical realism
into the language and methods of modern social science. In the Theory of
International Politics (1979), Waltz argued that most of the important features of
international relations, especially the actions of great powers, could be explained
solely in terms of the anarchical structure of the international system. Although
Waltz’s position was not original, in systematizing it and attempting to establish it on
empirical grounds he simultaneously reinvigorated realism and further detached it
from its classical roots.
Neorealism differed from classical realism in two important respects: methodology
and level of analysis. In terms of method, realism was reconfigured as a rigorous and
parsimonious social-scientific theory drawing in particular on microeconomics.
Regarding the level of analysis, Waltz argued that traditional realist arguments about
domestic institutions, the quality of diplomacy and statecraft, national morale, and
human nature were largely irrelevant. He conceived of states as unitary rational
actors existing in a “self-help” system (i.e., one in which each state must fend for
itself). Concerned above all with survival and operating with imperfect information,
states are conditioned by the logic of the system into similar patterns of behaviour.
The international system is defined by remarkable continuity across space and time,
and the trajectory of international relations is explained by the distribution of power
across units in the system. Waltz argued that the most stable arrangement was
“bipolarity,” or a balance between two great powers.
Development and criticism of neorealism in international relations
Both Waltz’s conception of international relations and his substantive arguments
proved influential, and debates between neorealists and their critics dominated the
field for much of the 1980s and ’90s. Although a competing school of neoliberal
institutionalists dissented from Waltz’s claims about the difficulty of cooperation
under anarchy, they nevertheless adopted his methods and many of his
assumptions. Neorealist, meanwhile, eventually split into “defensive” and “offensive”
camps. Defensive realists, following Waltz, argued that because states tend to seek
security, a stable international equilibrium is possible via balancing. Offensive
realists argued that states seek to maximize power rather than security, making
equilibrium harder to achieve.
Neorealism has had numerous detractors, including many who were sympathetic to
classical realism. Neorealism has been faulted, for example, for neglecting the
insights of history, sociology, and philosophy; for falsely claiming scientific validity;
for failing to account for systemic transformations in international relations (including
the end of the Cold War and the advent of globalization); and for an allegedly self-
defeating analytical reductionism. Nevertheless, it has remained a powerful research
program in the study of international relations.
Source:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science/Neorealism-in-
international-relations

Neo-realism
Introduction
Neorealism is an outgrowth of traditional balance-of-power (or “realist”) theories of
international relations and was first articulated by Kenneth Waltz in 1975 and 1979. It
is distinguished from the older theory primarily by its attempt to be more explicitly
theoretical, in a style akin to economics—especially by its self-conscious
comparisons of great-power politics to an oligopolistic market and its willfully simple
assumptions about the nature of international relations. Neorealism is also termed
“structural realism,” and a few neorealist writers sometimes refer to their theories
simply as “realist” to emphasize the continuity between their own and older views. Its
primary theoretical claim is that in international politics, war is a possibility at any
time. The international system is viewed as completely and always anarchic. While
norms, laws and institutions, ideologies, and other factors are acknowledged as
influencing the behaviour of individual governments, neorealists typically insist that
they do not alter the central role that war plays in international politics. Nor do
alterations in the characteristics of governmental units—from ancient empires to the
European Union, and everything in between—affect the underlying logic. The theory
purports to concentrate on how “international structure”—by which it means primarily
the distribution of capabilities, especially among the leading powers—shapes
outcomes. It also sometimes treats weapons technology (i.e., who possesses
nuclear weapons) as another important “systemic” property. It can be usefully
distinguished from what might be called “classical” realist theory by several ideas
that it highlights: the claim of complete and persistent anarchy; governments as
pursuing (at least in some versions of the theory) relative rather than total gains;
natural selection of states or governments’ alleged concern (in other versions) for
survival as the ultimate arbiter of wise policy choices; imitation as a supplement to
selection; the irrelevance of small states; and international law and institutions as
epiphenomena of the desires of great powers (they affect the behaviour of nation-
states, but only because great powers use them to do this). However, the distinctions
between neorealism and realism, and even between neorealism and aspects of
liberal and constructivist thought, are hardly clear-cut. An attempt to teach
undergraduates about the differences between, for example, realism and neorealism
will require making gross simplifications that run the risk of caricaturing each of the
respective positions.
Source:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-
9780199743292-0037.xml

Neorealism: Kenneth Waltz ‘Theory of International

Politics’ Research Paper
Introduction
A theory is a set of ideas which provide an explanation of something. Theories act as
frameworks for guiding scholars and researchers in their work so as to avoid
duplication of ideas or repeating the mistakes which were made by previous
researchers or scholars.
In international relations, theories are used to explain the relationships between
nations of the world. The theories look at the philosophies which shape the
relationships between nations and the key interests of the nations which participate
in international relations (Acharya & Buzan, 2009).
Various theories have different explanations about why, how, and to what extend do
nations interact. However, the overriding principle in all international relations
theories is that nations relate for specific interests and in their relations, they usually
try to create a win-win situation which is characterised by a symbiotic kind of
relationship.
One of the theories of international relations is neorealism which was derived from
the classical realism theory (Brown & Ainley, 2009).
Realism
This is a state-centric international relations approach in that it looks at states as the
key actors in international politics. The theory is based on historical writers such as
the works of Rousseau, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Edkins & Vaughan-Williams,
2009). The main argument of realism is that international relations is characterised
by anarchy, in which states interact for their selfish interests.
Realism, therefore, negates the mutual understanding of states in their relations but
rather puts more emphasis on the struggle of nations to amass as much resources
as possible in order to advance their own interests. With realism, economic success
is the leading interest in international relations (Booth & Smith, 1995).
Neorealism
As mentioned above, neorealism is a reformulation of classical realism. Its key
proponent is Kenneth Waltz, who outlined it in his book titled ‘Theory of International
Politics’ published in 1979 (Baldwin, 1993). For the last decade, the neorealist
approach has gained popularity in the field of international relations.
The theory is critical of classical realism because of the persistent use of the concept
of human nature in the explanation of relationships by nations. According to
neorealists, international relations are shaped more by structural constrains rather
than human nature which includes motivation and strategy.
It is also shaped by the anarchic principle, which has been widely decentralized
meaning that all states have similar needs but what separates them are their
capabilities to achieve those needs. States, therefore, have to be very careful when
choosing which state or states to partner with in efforts to increase capabilities of
meeting their needs.
What this means is that nations have to enter into a relationship only with nations
which have the potential of improving their capability of meeting their needs. If this is
not done carefully, the result is that some nations end up losing and others benefit
from the relationship thus creating a situation referred to as security dilemma
(Baldwin, 1993).
In order for nations to improve their capabilities of meeting their needs in the
international platform, they engage in what is referred to as balance of power which
takes place in two forms namely internal and external balancing.
Internal balancing of power entails the acceleration of economic growth and
investing more in the military. External balancing entails entering into alliances with
other nations so as to keep the power of other powerful nations or alliances of
nations at check (Baldwin, 1993).
According to neorealists, there exist three systems of capability distribution in the
international arena. They include a unipolar system, a bipolar system and a
multipolar system. In international relations, polarity is defined as the distribution of
power within the international system.
A unipolar structure constitutes of one state, whose capabilities (economic, military,
cultural and geopolitical) are too high to be counterbalanced by other states.
Bipolarity has to do with a situation in which two states are predominantly powerful
over the others while multipolarity has to do with a situation in which more than three
states are powerful and can act as centres of power in the world at the same time
(Krauthammer, 1991).
Realists are of the view that the current international system is a bipolar one, pitting
the United States (US) on one hand and the other nations on the other.
According to them, bipolarity is the least prone structure to war because the second-
tier states (those which are close to the super power in terms of capabilities) usually
foster their good relationships with the super power, each of them having the interest
of forming an alliance with the super power to outwit the others in the fight for
supremacy.
The closest rivals in the supremacy for bipolarity include Britain, German, Japan, and
China. All these are known to partner with the United States in many ways, both as
strategies for increasing their internal stability and increasing their supremacy
(Kugler & Lemke, 1996).
However, critics of neorealsim are of the view that since unipolarity is characterized
by one state whose capabilities are too high to be counterbalanced, it means that the
threat of rivalry between power hegemons is not a possibility.
According to the hegemonic theory, the presence of a powerful state enhances
international peace because there is no competition for supremacy. The given state,
therefore, enhances international peace as long as it is able to retain its power
differences and suppress any efforts by other states to close the gaps in power
(Huntington, 1999).
References
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (eds). (2009). Non-Western International Relations
Theory.London: Routledge.
Baldwin, D.A. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. New
York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Booth, K., and Smith, S. (eds). (1995). International Relations Theory Today,
Oxford:Polity.
Source:
https://ivypanda.com/essays/neorealism-kenneth-waltz-theory-of-international-
politics/

What is the neorealism concept in international

politics?
A modification to the prevalent realism, neorealism took birth through the hands of
Kenneth Waltz in the late 70s. Neorealism or structural extension of realism is a
theory of international relations emphasizing the influence of world power structures
on the behaviour of states within the global hierarchical order. It deviates from
classical realism in the matter that they analyze power in relation to individual
decision makers.
Neorealism seeks to explain the interaction among states in the international sphere.
Waltz believes that the international sphere has a profound influence on state
behaviour.
Neorealism sticks to the idea that the international system is anarchic in nature. This
leads the states to a situation of security dilemma, where every state is trying to
strengthen its military power.
Thus, the international system forces the states to behave in a certain way,
irrespective of its capabilities. Despite their different cultures or ideologies or political
system, all states are similar in the aspect that they perform these basic tasks for
survival.
They all collect taxes, conduct foreign relations and ensure security for the common
masses from internal disturbances. Although they are functionally similar, the states
differ from each other in their capabilities to perform these tasks. The capabilities of
states keep changing as there is a constant shifting of power relations in the
international sphere.
The great powers determine these changes and divide world politics as unipolar,
bipolar, or multipolar. For example, the Cold War period saw the power structure as
a bipolar one, where continuous tension existed between the two major powers of
the United States and The Soviet Union, influencing the entire global politics.
Neorealism seeks to explain interstate conflict through the underlying sources, and
the notion of power is not considered as an end in itself, thus differentiating
themselves from classic realism.
Source:
https://www.sociologygroup.com/neorealism/

Neoliberalism: What It Is, With Examples and Pros

and Cons
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism is a policy model that encompasses both politics and economics. It
favours private enterprise and seeks to transfer the control of economic factors from
the government to the private sector.
Many neoliberal policies concern the efficient functioning of free market capitalism
and focus on limiting government spending, government regulation, and public
ownership.
Neoliberalism is often associated with the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, the prime
minister of the U.K. from 1979 to 1990 (and leader of the Conservative Party from
1975 to 1990) and Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the U.S. from 1981 to 1989.
More recently, neoliberalism has been associated with policies of austerity and
attempts to cut government spending on social programmes.
Understanding Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free trade,
deregulation, globalization, and a reduction in government spending. It's related to
laissez-faire economics, a school of thought that prescribes a minimal amount of
government interference in the economic issues of individuals and society.
Laissez-faire economics proposes that continued economic growth will lead to
technological innovation, expansion of the free market, and limited state interference.
Additionally, neoliberalism is sometimes confused with libertarianism. However,
neoliberals typically advocate for more government intervention in the economy and
society than libertarianism. For example, while neoliberals usually favour progressive
taxation, libertarians often eschew this stance in favour of schemes like a flat tax rate
for all taxpayers.
In addition, neoliberals often do not oppose measures such as bailouts of major
industries, which are anathema to libertarians.
While neoliberal policies may be considered conservative and contrary to the political
beliefs of many, it should be noted that various U.S. neoliberal initiatives such as free
trade agreements, the deregulation of the transportation, utilities, and banking
industries, and cuts in the top-income tax rate and the capital gains tax all had
bipartisan support.
Characteristics of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism involves the belief that greater economic freedom leads to greater
economic and social progress for individuals. It supports:
Free enterprise, competition, deregulation, and the importance of individual
responsibility
Opposition to the expansion of government power, state welfare, inflation
Minimizing government control of industry and boosting private sector ownership
of business and property
Free market capitalism and the efficient allocation of resources
Globalization rather than heavily regulated markets and protectionism
A reduction in government spending and lower taxes
Less government control over economic activity to enhance the efficient
functioning of the economy
An increase in the impact by the private sector on the economy
A reduction in union power and greater flexibility in employment
Government intervention when it's needed to help implement, sustain, and protect
free market activities
What Is Neoliberalism in Simple Terms?
It's an economic model or philosophy that emphasizes that, in a free society, greater
economic and social progress can be made when government regulation is
minimized, government spending and taxes are reduced, and the government
doesn't have strict control over the economy. Neoliberalism does not oppose all
government intervention. However, it does wish to see it limited to only when it's
necessary to support free markets and free enterprise.
What Are the Effects of Neoliberalism?
Some effects might be freer markets, access to more products and services to meet
consumer demand, greater revenue and higher profits. Price reductions due to
greater competition can also be an effect. Savings can result from a more efficient
allocation of resources. The better organization of workforces and ability to hire
needed talent for specific jobs can result from neoliberal policies, as well. Others
might point out some of the negative effects believed to be associated with
neoliberalism. These could include economic inequality, the growth of monopolies, a
lack of job security, the loss of jobs due to outsourcing, and an increasing
indifference to the needs and well-being of individuals.
What Is an Example of Neoliberalism?
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one example. By this
agreement, Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. agreed to remove all trade restrictions
between their countries to open up trade and increase the economic benefits for
each.
Source:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp