1
NEOLIBERALISM
&
NEOREALISM
Neoliberalism
“In a world where freedom,
not tyranny is on the march,
the cynical calculus of pure
power politics simply does not
compute. It is ill-suited to the
new era” (Bill Clinton, 1995).
BACKGROUND
Liberal Institutionalism has its roots in 4
schools of thought:
• Functional Integration (1940s/1950s)
• Regional Integration (1960s)
• Complex Interdependence (Keohane and
Nye, 1970s)
• International Regimes (Stephen Krasner,
1980s)
Functional/Regional Integration
• The way to world peace was for individual
states to pool their resources and even
surrender some of their sovereignty to
create integrated communities to promote
economic growth or respond to regional
problems
• European Union is the best example of
functional/regional integration
2
Neoliberalism
1. Complex Interdependence
(Keohane and Nye, Power & Interdependence
1977, 2001):
“States increasing dependence, sensitivity
and mutual vulnerability to one another in
ways that were eroding their sovereign control
and independence”.
1970’s – New perspective called transnational
interdependence emerged challenging realist
view that states are the only important actors
in the international system
DEFINITIONS
A synthesis of realist and liberalist
perspectives by looking at world politics
through the relationship between economics
and politics and patterns of institutionalized
international cooperation
Institutions are seen as persistent and as
connected sets of rules and practices that
prescribe roles, constrain activity, and shape
the expectation of actors. May include
organizations, bureaucratic agencies,
treaties and agreements, and informal
practices that states accept as binding
ASSUMPTIONS
• States are key actors in the int. system but
not the only actors
• States are rational or instrumental actors
always seeking to maximize their interests in
all issue areas
• States seek to maximize absolute gains
through cooperation
• Rational behaviour leads states to see value
in cooperation
• States are less concerned with gains or
advantages achieved by other states in
cooperative arrangements
ASSUMPTIONS – CON’T
• The greatest obstacle to successful
cooperation is non-compliance or
cheating by states
• Cooperation is never without problems ,
but states will shift loyalty and resources
to institutions if these are seen as
mutually beneficial and if they provide
states with increasing opportunities to
secure their international interests
ASSUMPTIONS (CON’T)
The nature and consequences of anarchy: Unlike
neorealists who argue that anarchy does not matter
much, for neoliberals, it is a big problem that can be
reformed through the creation of strong global
institutions. The role of institutions is crucial to world
politics
International Cooperation: Cooperation can be
expected because it produces rewards that reduce
the temptation to selfishly compete
Absolute Gains: Rather than get ahead of their
competitors through relative gains states do not try
to thwart the attempts of other states to maximize
ASSUMPTIONS (CON’T)
Economic Welfare – Unlike neorealists who stress
security, neoliberals give priority to economic welfare
States intentions – seen as most influential in
determining their behavior (as well as interests,
information and ideals) instead of the distribution of
states capabilities as the neorealists argue
Institutions and Regimes –For neoliberals
international regimes create norms that are binding
on their members and can change patterns of
international politics. Neorealists see these
institutions as arenas where states carry out their
