Neoliberalism vs. Neorealism

Loading...

En provenance du cours de National Research University Higher School of Economics

Understanding International Relations Theory

26 notes

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Understanding International Relations Theory

26 notes

The course aims to introduce the key assumptions of the international relations theory as a part of social science and as an analytic tool, focusing on the problems of war and peace, foreign policy decision-making, etc. The course combines historic approach and analysis of the modern political problems. The historic part shows the evolution of the international relations theory from being a part of political philosophy to its emergence as a special branch of political science, which is essential to understand the key ideas of the IR science. The lectures also include broad outline of the modern concepts and debates in the context of the contemporary political problems, such as rise of China and other emerging powers, threat of terrorism, US-Russia confrontation, etc. The lectures of the two outstanding Russian scholars and political analysts – Timofey Bordachev and Dmitry Suslov - cover such fields as the problems of international security and conflict resolution, international economic relations, foreign policy decision-making, global governance, the role of power in the IR.

À partir de la leçon

Neoliberalism: The Liberal paradigm after the WWII

The module aims to teach the evolution of the liberal paradigm during the Cold War. Failed to build up an "eternal peace" after the French Revolution and after the WWI, liberalism proposes a new, even more comprehensive theory to make a new attempt.

Liberalism after the Cold War17:36

Liberal studies of order8:59

Neoliberalism vs. Neorealism3:26

Rencontrer les enseignants

Timofei Bordachev
Associate professor
Department of international relations
Dmitrii Suslov
Senior Lecturer
Department of international relations, HSE

As a summary, let us compare the major propositions of neo-liberalism and neo-realism,

and analyze their major points of disagreement.

First of all is the nature of relative anarchy.

Both liberalism and realism,

claim that international system is anarchical,

and they also claim that it is relatively, not absolutely anarchical.

But the reason of this relative,

or limited anarchy is different for neo-liberalism and neo-realism.

Whereas neo-liberals claim that

this relative anarchy can be mitigated through international institutions,

regimes, law, and values,

realists argue that anarchy can only

be reduced through a structure of international system.

That is through distribution of power.

Another crucial disagreement between neo-liberalism and neo-realism is about possibility,

or likelihood of cooperation in international system.

For neo-realists, international cooperation is quite hard to achieve,

difficult to manage, and ultimately cooperation depends on the distribution of power.

Again, it is the structure of international system which either promotes,

or rather limits cooperation.

Whereas neo-liberals claim that cooperation is much easier,

and the major reason for cooperation is mutual interest.

If you have mutual interest,

you would cooperate despite the differences of the power distribution.

The third disagreement between neo-liberalism and

neo-realism is the discourse about absolute and relative gains.

Neo-liberals claim that common interest compel states to maximize absolute gains.

And thus in order to get absolute gains just to achieve something,

states ignore relative gains.

For neo-realists it's the contrary.

They state that states are concerned about relative gains more than absolute gains,

and they wants to get more,

because relative gains impact the distribution of power.

And states do not want the others to be more powerful,

to become more powerful,

than themselves as a result of this cooperation.

And finally, neo-realists claim that

international order always follows the distribution of power.

If power shifts, the existing order ends,

and then is surpassed by another order based on a new distribution of power.

Whereas neo-liberals, such as John Ikenberry and his study of order,

argue that liberal international order can survive the change of power distribution.

And as Ikenberry claims,

the relative decline of the United States does not

result in the demise of the existing liberal international order.

The liberal international order continues to exist,

if you want in the post-American world.

This is all about neoliberalism.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play