Waltz, Neo-realism, The Theory Flashcards
Neo realism vs classical realism
Waltz perspective
Morgenthaus realism
Elements of a theory but never a theory
Lacks of coherence, misreads key concepts such as power and anarchy
Explaining foreign policy (level of analysis, so called 2nd image)
Waltz neo- realism
Ambition and self-understanding : a lean theory which explains immutable laws of international politics
Anarchy not background condition, but key driving force, power is a means, not an end in itself
Explaining international politics (3rd image)
Neo-realism as the truly first (and only) theory in IR
Morgenthau dealt persuasively with major problem and issues of enduring importance. He had the knack of singling out salient facts and constructing causal analyses around them.. He was engaged.. In a gigantic struggle with the facts, seeking to derive an explanatory principle from them.. Morgenthau and other realists (however) failed to take the fateful step beyond developing concepts to the fashioning of a recognizable theory.
Waltz on images
Three levels of analysis
1st image
Man (human nature, individuals)
2nd image
States (national interest)
3rd image
Structure of the international system
What is a theory according to waltz?
Artificial, a slender intellectual construction
A carefully constructed, parsimonious took by which
Facts are selected and interpreted
Explanations and predictions are made possible (only looking at a handful of facts, the truly important ones)
Theories are based on bold, most probably reality-distorting assumptions, theory is mostly omissions
Specific relation between facts and theory (lean) theory is first, selection, interpretations etc. of facts follows (not- theory as an aggregation and abstraction from facts) - deductive reasoning
Theories cannot explain the accidental and unexpected, they deal on regularities and repetitions
Neo-realism = structural realism
Structure of the international system
1 ordering principle: anarchy (not hierarchy)
2 distribution of power/ capabilities among units (states)
-unipolar
Bipolar
Multipolar
Nonpolar
Interactions of actors within system
1 like units (self-help, power politics)
2 vary only on capabilities (balancing )
The structure of the international system determines the interaction of the units within
The basic unit is the state, states are like units because they are all equal as regards the anarchical structure (all must strive for their own security in a potentially hostile environment, self-help is dictated by system’s structure )
Capabilities are unevenly distributed among the units in a certain manner, this might change over time
Power is a means to achieve security (power politics is logical outcome of systems’ structure)
States are interested primarily in security (defense positionalists)
Structural realism and the end of Cold War
Cf waltz essay in international security
A change within the international system (distribution of capabilities), not a chance of the system (its fundamental character- anarchy)
International politics will continue to be conflictive, self-help oriented power politics between states
US might have attained temporary superpower status, but others will rise/ally to balance this power (unipolar systems are inherently unstable)
Structural realism and today’s international politics
Pros
Conflicts, especially between great powers
Balancing and rise of new powers
Some international cooperation dependent on interest of great powers
Military security still important (WMD, security concerns because of specific states
Cons
Non-state actors? Non-state security threats?
Cooperations without hegemony
Mon-military fields of activity ?
