Is Neorealism (or Structural Realism) a superior theoretical approach to Classical Realism?

Chaim Narang - 14042699 - GI5005 Approaches to International Relations and Foreign Policy

"Is Neorealism (or Structural Realism) a superior theoretical approach to Classical Realism?"

With roots stretching back two millennia to the Athenian philosopher Thucydides's account of relations between warring city-states during the Peloponnesian wars in ancient Greece, political Realism and its contemporary interpretations and offshoots have proved instrumental theoretical approaches within the International Relations academic and practical discipline.

By looking at key principles of Classical Realism set out by Hans Morgenthau and principles of Neorealism its structure based counterpart fathered by American theorists such as Kenneth Waltz and later by John Mearsheimer, I aim to investigate which theoretical interpretation within the Realist camps holds superiority and on what grounds. However, in order to establish superiority in terms of theoretical approach, one must seek clarification and insight of the purpose theory plays within academia. Morgenthau and Thompson provide a simplistic function of theory ascertaining that the aim of theory is to "bring order and meaning to a mass of phenomena which without it would remain disconnected and unintelligible" (1985:3). This account emphasises the theory's correlative, cognitive and coherent conjectural attributes. Whereas Burchill and Linklater present characteristics surrounding theory stating, "Theories have to rely on some principles of selection to narrow their scope of inquiry; they discriminate between actors, relationships, empirical issues and so forth which they judge most important or regard as trivial" (2009:13). This latter definition suggests the subjective nature of theoretical analysis. A more general and encompassing yet ambiguous requisite of theory is reiterated by Quincy Wright who states, "a general theory of International Relations means a comprehensive, coherent and self correcting body of knowledge contributing to the understanding, prediction and evaluation" (1964:20). In Wright's assessment, an IR-specific theory should provide a flexible, prophetic and evaluative contribution to the discipline's paradigm. Evaluation of superiority of the two Realist perspectives will be through Wright's normative description of a theory's function.

With issues of theory pertinence clarified, it is essential to understand Realist fundamental concepts which both camps ascribe to, and then onto a point of departure from Classical to Structural theories; once established these can be critiqued in order to discover which perspective provides the best contribution within the Realist tradition to the IR academic discipline.

In the early examples of writings by figureheads of Realist tradition and thought such as Thucydides (460-406 BC) and Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the central unit of political analysis were the city-states or polis. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia initiated the change in thought and tradition towards a sovereign state based approach; a practice still overwhelmingly prevalent in today's geographical makeup and political reality. Statism, the notion that the shared will of the people is represented by the state authority has developed as a central and shared tenant of post-Westphalian Realist thought, in Classic and Structural camps alike (Dunne and Schimidt, 2011). This legitimacy allows a state to exercise domestic authority within its territory. External to territorial authority, arises a structural condition agreed upon by all Realist schools, that being anarchy. As the key characteristic of the realist view of the world, anarchy, is defined as the condition in which "there is no international political [or legal] authority invested with a legitimate monopoly of force capable of enforcing peace, protecting states against aggression, and guaranteeing that their rights are not violated" (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 2001:286). The assertion that an anarchic system allows for no formal protection against aggression, leads to another key tenant of Realist ideas; that of 'self help'. According Kenneth Waltz, the self-help principle is the states' ability to "take care of itself since no one else can be counted on to do so" (1979:107). This notion leads us on to the last shared concept within the Realist tradition; the overarching and pre-eminent objective of survival of the state in the International system.

Ideas of statism, survival and self-help are common themes across the Realist spectrum, however there exist clear points of departure. The issue of national interest or 'raison d'État' is hotly debated by Realist thinkers. Classical realists such as Morgenthau view national interest as equated with power; a means and an end in politics. Morgenthau simplistically defines 'power' as "man's control over the minds and actions of other men' (1985:26). However power is a complex and ambiguous concept; it is a relative commodity based upon the perceived power of others. Neorealist Waltz views power through a less abstract lens, considering capabilities such as size of population and territory, natural resource endowment, the military, financial and political prowess as key components of power possession (1979:131). These characteristics provide more clarity and insight into the functions of power at the socio-economic state-level; rather than largely theoretical (yet important) ideas of control and influence, which regarding policy hold little translation. Morgenthau isolates interest as his second principle of political realism, "international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power" (1985:4). He goes on to defensively argue that this second principle introduces rational order therefore bringing about a more understandable theory of politics (ibid). Later ascertaining that nation-states "act, as they must, in view of their interest as they see them" (1962:278). Although the state's survivalist ambitions are not disputed within Realist thought, the means to achieve said ambitions have caused some debate within Realist camps; particularly Structural Realists. Waltz interprets national interest through a security scope; perceiving power as means to the final goal of security, which in turn ensures survival. Waltz claims that statesmen consider power useful in appropriate accounts, however sees the security rather than power as of paramount priority (1989:40). Waltz favours the 'defensive' security maximisation over 'offensive' power accumulation, warning that 'offensive' policy may lead to counter-balancing by threatened states (Dunne and Schmidt, 2011). Internal deviation is offered by academics such as John Mearsheimer, who argue contrary to Waltz's defensive position concerning a state's desire and drive for power (2001:21). Mearsheimer asserts that a state's desire for as much power as possible is a strategically wise choice and if the opportunity arises, states should take steps towards regional or possible global supremacy (2013:78). John Herz refers to this situation as the 'security dilemma', claiming that states are [forced to gain more power to offset the powerful influence of others, this heightens levels of insecurity of other states. Because no one can feel safe or trusting, the odds go up, leading to competition and a "vicious circle of security and power accumulation" begins (1950:157). Herz suggests that power accumulation and security interests are connected not due to their similarities but their juxtaposition in practical application.

One well-defined way that Neorealism has departed from its Classical predecessor concerns the role of human nature in relation to power politics. Morgenthau states as his first principle of political Realism that society and politics are governed by "objective laws that have their roots in human nature" (1985:4) later adding his view that "ubiquity of evil in human action" stems from "man's ineradicable lust for power" (1985:24) and concluding "international politics, like all politics is a struggle for power" (1985:25). His view is rather pessimistic and based upon assumptions of all humankind. Morgenthau sees human nature as unchanged since antiquity (1985:24). Neorealists dispute Morgenthau's assertion of the role of human nature as the sole motivator in the pursuit of power. Mearsheimer argues for a different cause of this 'lust', claiming it is the "Structural architecture of the International system that forces states to pursue power" (2013:78). By architecture Mearshiemer is referring to the state of anarchy and mistrust which causes the consequent 'security dilemma' present within the international system. Waltz concurs with his fellow Neorealist, and identifies that "precisely defined structure is Neorealism's fundamental departure from traditional Realism" (1990:30). In short, Neorealist favour the argument of nurture of the system over the human nature as the influential factor in a state's motivation and behaviour.
Neorealists such as Waltz see states as unitary actors; the difference occurs not in function but capabilities (1979:97). Whereas Classical Realists perceive states in two power groups: status quo and revisionist. The former accepts its position within the system; choosing to focusing on keeping its place and ensuring survival. The latter group seeks to change the international order in its favour or interest; these states look for opportunities where they can find them. Status-quo states are primed with the goal of security maximisation and the revisionists seek the goal of maximum power. Blair and Curtis (2009) argue Realists also internally differ concerning the partiality between bi-polarity and multi-polarity balance of power models. The former suggests two main actors or powers dominate and the latter system contains "four to six great powers" (2009:135). It is argued that Classical Realists prefer the multipolar dynamic as alliances can be "more flexible and fluid" (ibid) whereas Structural Realists favour bi-polarity which they think of as more stable due to increased clarity in threat assessment of one other power. However Classical Realists would argue that this may lead to "over-reaction" and "lacks the room for judgement and freedom" (ibid) that arrives with the multipolar model. Waltz famously declared, "if there is any distinctively political theory of international politics, balance-of-power theory is it" (1979:117). However critiques offered by Keohane in his landmark 1986 work Neo-realism and its critics identified inadequacies of Waltz's contribution. He suggests that Waltz's first shortcoming is in reference to his predictions concerning coalitions and the condition in which they change; arguing that Waltz merely "forecasts the balance of power will periodically recur" (1986:174). Keohane goes on to state that the Balance-of-Power theory fails to live up to Waltz's third rule for testing theories that being the "number of distinct and demanding tests" (1979:13) which Waltz ambiguously mentions. Later Waltz urges the reader to "seek confirmation through observation of difficult cases" (ibid:124) in order to find select cases that conform to his Balance-of-Power theory, subsequently making the audacious conclusion that cases he has included "tend to confirm the theory" (ibid:125). Waltz even admits there are two issues with his Balance-of-Power theory, first that his "predictions are indeterminate" (ibid:124) citing the variable condition of balance. Second, Waltz cites "failure of balances to form and the failure of states to conform" (ibid:125). Keohane contends that this second admission fails in "examining a universe of cases […] instead he is looking only at the cases chosen because they are consistent with his theory" (1986:172). Paul Schroeder concurs with Keohane's assessment, claiming, "Neorealism gets the processes, the patterns and outcomes of international history wrong, and predicts things of major theoretical and historical importance which on closer examination turn out not to be so […] it prescribes and predicts a determinate order of history without adequately checked this against historical evidence" (1994:147). This critique would differ slightly in that Keohane claims that cases in Waltz's Balance-of-Power theory had been chosen to demonstrate his findings rather than that having not been checked for historical accuracy and consistency. John Ruggie reiterates his fellow critics' points, stating that Neorealism "provides no means by which to account for or even to describe, the most important contextual change in international politics; the shift from the medieval to the modern international system" (1986:141).

Even though such in-depth criticism has been launched against Waltz's theoretical approaches, Neorealism has added and extended the Realist paradigm more than its Classical earlier incarnation. Keohane reaffirms the relevance of Waltz academic task, stating, "fixation of critics and reformers on the realist theory of state action reflects the importance of this research tradition" (1986:159). According to Keohane, Structural Realism is an "impressive intellectual achievement" noting it as an "elegant, parsimonious deductively rigorous instrument" (1986:167-168). He even goes as far to praise Waltz's work classifying it as "more systemic and logically more coherent than that of its classic Realist predecessors" (ibid). Even usually harsh critics such as Richard Ashley also celebrate Neorealism, declaring that it is "a progressive scientific redemption of Classical Realism" (1982:25). A redemption that in the eyes of Ainsley and Brown, "remains not only the most convincing restatement of Realist positions in recent times but also a restatement that links IR theory to the mainstream of American political science" (2005:45). Modern Realist commentators such as Robert Jervis (1999) hint that the offensive/defensive
Realist debate within the Structuralist camp concerning security issues and military strategy in addition to Grieco's absolute and relative gains thesis has provided a more policy relevant and prescriptive account. This is more than other versions of Neorealism and far more than the ambiguously abstract Realism of Morgenthau (Lamy, 2011:116). Williams refers to Morgenthau's contribution as "an interesting and important episode in the history of thinking about the subject, no doubt, but one scarcely to be seen as a serious contribution of the rigorously scientific theory" (2007:1). Keohane reasons that Neorealism "helps us understand world politics […] and provides us with a logically coherent theory that establishes the contexts for state action" (1986:190-191). It should be noted however that Keohane emphasises "the virtues of parsimony and clarity, although the range of phenomena that it encompasses is limited" (ibid). He continues in the view that the Neorealist theory "can be modified progressively to attain a closer correspondence with reality" (1986:191). Amongst the praises and critiques launched at the Waltz's Neorealist theory over recent decades of scholarship, a recurring reproach concerns the lack of prediction in reference to the end of the Cold War and in turn, bi-polarity. In his landmark 1979 work Theory of International Politics, Waltz ascertains that "Structurally, we can describe and understand the pressures states are subject to. We can not predict how they will react to the pressures" (1979:71). In a later essay Neorealism: Confusions and Criticism he offers a rebuttal and clarification, arguing, "Theories are sparse in formulation and beautifully simple. Reality is complex and often ugly. Predictions are not made, nor explanations contrived" (2004:3).

Judgement of an approach's theoretical efficacy is no easy task. In the context of this essay, merit of judgement is made against Quincy Wright's prescription and purpose of a general theory of IR discipline stated at the beginning on the essay.

Looking at theory as a comprehensive endeavour, one can see that Waltz's definition of power and subsequent Balance-of-Power theory offers more detailed and specific identifiers of power than those of Morgenthau; this in turn helps to also provide a greater feeling of coherent argument. However Classical Realists mark a actor differences such as status-quo/revisionist. In terms of 'coherence', critics (Keohane 1986; Lamy 2011; Williams 2007) have all concluded that Neorealism offers a more coherent theoretical account of world politics; more so than theory put forward by Morgenthau. Looking at Neorealist theory as a 'self-correcting body of knowledge', Internal deliberations between Structural Realist academics have demonstrated a level of internal criticism and progressive awareness; this may permit the theory to be considered of a more self-correcting nature. Keohane (1986) has noted neorealism's theoretical progressive flexibility with Ashley (1982) referring to its redeeming qualities. Classical Realists focus on the unchangeable core of human nature, on which Morgenthau bases his broad assumptions of humankind. This assumption as a determinant of his theory could be perceived as a static obstacle to progressive rethought of state motivations and behaviours (Kaufman, 2006). A key essence to any theory is 'contributing to understanding'. Again Keohane praises Neorealism in its attempt to improve understanding while others such as Ainsley and Brown argue that Neorealism has improved links between the IR academic discipline and the wider political science community within the United States. However the validity of Neorealism's contribution is questioned by Ruggie and Schroeder who are critical of his accounting for international historical change; a topic that brings us to theory as means for 'prediction'. Waltz himself states that his theory doesn't seek to make predictions, while equally admitting that predictions made in reference to his Balance-of-Power theory were indeterminate. This lack of prediction has fostered reservations in the academic community of Neorealism's tenacity. Assessment of Neorealism's 'evaluative qualities' can be demonstrated and articulated by the volume and depth of debate, critique and rebuttal from all theoretical backgrounds within IR.

As an endnote, it is important to understand, that no one theory can fully foretell the events that have yet to occur, or why leaders, states or groups act in the ways they do. What Neorealism has done, is to attempt to add a scientific and logical basis and argument to the Realist paradigm. Neorealist theory and academic tradition has afforded revitalisation to Realist thought and practice within the International Relations discipline and influenced the wider academic community For these reasons, I make the argument that out of the two theoretical approaches covered in this essay, the Neorealism of Waltz and Mearsheimer has proven itself to be superior.
















































AINSLEY, K. and BROWN, C. (2005) "Understanding International Relations (3rd edn)" Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, p.45.
Available at: http://50.30.47.15/ebook/IR/Understanding-international-relations-3rd-ed.pdf Last accessed on 16/01/2016

ASHLEY, K, R. (1982) "Realist Dialectics: Towards a critical theory of World Politics". Denver, CO: American Political Society Association p.25. cited in KEOHANE, O, R (ed.) "Neorealism and its critics" New York, NY: Columbia University Press

BLAIR, A and CURTIS, S. (2009) "International Politics: An Introductory Guide", Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.131-135.

BURCHILL, S. and LINKLATER, A (2009) "Theories of International Relations (4th edn)" Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, p.13.

DADDOW, O. (2010) "International Relations Theory", London: Sage.

DONNELLY, J. (2000) "Realism and International Relations" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DOUGHERTY, E, J. and PFALTZGRAFF, L, R. (2001) "Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey", (5th edn), London: Longman, p.286.

DUNNE, T and SCHIMDIT, C, B. (2011) 'Realism' in "BAYLIS, J., SMITH, S., OWENS, P. "The Globalization of World Politics, An Introduction to International Relations (5th edn)", New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.87-98.

HERZ, H, J. (1950). 'Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma', World Politics, Vol. 2 (2): 157-180.
Available at: http://www.yale.edu/yjia/articles/Vol_1_Iss_2_Spring2006/kaufman217.pdf Last accessed 14/01/2016

KAUFMAN, R. (2006) "Morgenthau's Unrealistic Realism." Yale Journal of International Affairs Vol. 1 (Winter/ Spring 2006)

KEOHANE, O, R. (eds) (1986) "Neorealism and its critics", New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

MEARSHEIMER, J. (2001) "The Tragedy of Power Politics", New York, NY: W.W Norton, p.21

MEARSHEIMER, J. (2013) "Structural Realism' in DUNNE, T., KURKI, M. and SMITH, S. "International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (3rd edn)" New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp.77-91

MORGENTAHU, J, H. (1962) "The Decline of the Democratic Politics: Politics in the Twentieth Century" Vol.1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p.278

MORGENTHAU, J, H. and THOMPSON, W, K. (1985) "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (6th edn)" New York, NY: McGraw Hill. p.3

RUGGIE, G, J. (1986) "Continuity and transformation in the world polity: towards a neorealist synthesis" in KEOHANE, O, R (ed.) "Neorealism and its critics" New York, NY: Columbia University Press p. 141

SCHROEDER, P. (1994) "Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory" in International Security, Vol. 19(1) (Summer, 1994), pp. 108-148
Available at URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539150 Last accessed: 16/01/2016

WALTZ, N, K. (1979) "Theory of International Politics" London: McGraw Hill.

WALTZ, N, K. (1990) "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory", Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44(1), pp.21–37.

WALTZ, N, K (2004) "Neorealism: Confusions and Criticisms", Journal of Politics & Society, Vol. 15(1), p.3.
Available at http://archive.helvidius.org/2004/2004_Waltz.pdf Last accessed 16/01/2016

WILLIAMS, C, M. (2007) "Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations" Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WRIGHT, Q. (1964) "Development of a General Theory of International Relations" in HARRISON, V. H. (eds.) "Role of Theory in International Relations", Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand, p.20.