What are the basic concepts of neorealism?

The above presentation of Neorealism is fair and shows a good grasp of it. I feel, however, that few spontaneous observations may be of help:

1. We have to distinguish between Neorealism and the systemic approach. The two do not necessarily coincide.

2. The man who coined the concept to which the term “Neorealism” was attributed is Kenneth Waltz. Therefore, he should be the first to be mentioned in the list of authors who contributed in forming Neorealism or Structural Realism. His work Theory of International Politics is outstanding and of great theoretical value for us, students of International Relations.

2. The Waltzian international system (and of Neorealism) is based on three concepts: structure (like units and relations), anarchy, and distribution of power. Anarchy, as correctly put, does not mean disorder; and, if there is order, this is due to restraints imposed by the international system to the units.

3. Capability is a Realist concept. It is correct that to Neorealists, but also to Realists since the time of Thucydides, what counts is relative power and relative gains.

4. The systemic approach is known before Neorealism, as is the distinction between unipolar, bipolar and multipolar systems. I can mention Waltz again (the third “image” in his Man, the State and War), Kaplan or Raymond Aron, who in Paix et Guerre entre les Nations dedicates an entire chapter on “systèmes internationaux”.

5. I am having difficulty agreeing that the current international system is unipolar. It is true that the distribution of capabilities favors one pole, yet there are other poles which cannot be “satellized” or absorbed by the dominant one. I know it lacks elegance, but I prefer saying that the international system is multipolar with a dominant pole.

6. The national interest: most important is that, according to Neorealists, the international system is shaping national interests and states’ international behaviour: will imitate each other and become socialized to their system.

7. Waltz's “Neorealism” has given birth to the question how much capability the states seek (how much is enough?). Answering this question, another Neorealist, John Mearsheimer, created Offensive Realism (as opposed to Waltzian “defensive” realism) – a major contribution to IR theory.

8. Waltz's “Neorealism” has also given birth to Robert Keohane’s “Modified Structural Realism’, in his 1982 paper “Structural Realism and beyond” (Ada Finifter, ed., Political Science: The state of the discipline, APSA).

If you are interested, see Waltz on the future of IR theory:

I hope my comments were useful and creative,

Ilias Kouskouvelis

Professor of IR Theory

University of Macedonia

Thessaloniki, Greece

Pretty good. As mentioned, Waltz should come first. One thing I noticed: The STRUCTURE is not anarchy. Anarchy is the organizing principle according to Waltz (pg 88, I think). It sounds the same, but it is an important difference. An organizing principle explains how structures emerge. They are not the structures themselves.

Oh, a second point is what structural realism is good for: explaining continuity. It explains why different countries, different internal structures, and different leaders often produce similar outcomes. A systemic theory CANNOT predict change, as any change to the structure must occur on a sub-system level (i.e. within the units themselves, as in when one great power overtakes another, etc.). Many people misunderstand neorealists and think they ignore everything below the systems level. This is not the case because lower levels are obviously important for the above reason. The issue is that many theorists try to analyze international politics without noting systemic effects, which impinge upon lower-level events.

The topic you’ve posted, its treatment and the subsequent discussion it generated are all thought provoking. I would just like to add or further clarify a few points. Some of them are directly linked and a few of them are of a broader concern about neorealism as a theory. I hope you will find them useful.

1. States are indeed the most important units of the international system according to neorealism. However, we should always remember that neorealism is not only relevant to the state-centric system. It is the collective units with fighting capabilities that neorealism is concerned with and which in our time are the states.

2. Multipolarity does not have to occur only “when more than two actors possess nearly equal amounts of relative capabilities”. Mearsheimer has argued that multipolarity can be stable or unstable depending on the distribution of power. On another point, it might be better to omit the word “relative” from the previous sentence. I feel it is contradictory in that context. You are comparing the power of a given number of countries. You are not comparing their relative capabilities. In essence, “relative” is a form of comparison by itself. It is like preferring to compare a fraction or a percentage instead of an absolute number. Also, (and I understand that this may just be semantics) multipolarity is about the most powerful actors and not just any actors.

3. States “primarily” seek to survive: although this is correct a better formulation would be that states at least seek survival and at most hegemony as Waltz argues. Offensive realists disagree.

4. On the “Security Dilemma” (SD): The concept is understood among realists in a similar way. However, they disagree on its impact. This is important to remember because it influences neorealists’ worldviews and has a different effect on their theories. The SD matters the most to defensive realists because they argue that its intensity can be reduced and hence some conflicts can be avoided. For offensive realists the SD is intractable. Therefore, although they recognise its salience they don’t accept that it can be ameliorated and create a permissive environment for international cooperation.

5. That point on the SD is also relevant to the issue raised by Kouskouvelis about “how much capability the states seek” and to the understanding of the differences among neorealists. Not all neorealists agree with each other and one fundamental reason for that is their interpretation of the SD. For instance, if the SD is intractable then it becomes understandable that offensive realists like Mearsheimer advocate the maximisation of relative capabilities. If the SD is tractable then it is to be expected that defensive realists argue that the necessary amount of power a state seeks… depends. Their justification for that is contingent on the SD and how they interpret it; seeking too much power may become self-defeating. However, for Waltz things are “simpler”. He argues that the disagreement between offensive and defensive realists is a matter of strategy and that depends on the situation. For him “realist theory, properly viewed, is neither offensive nor defensive… [R]ealism is best left without an adjective to adorn it”.

6. Another point that must be always stated clearly and be remembered is that neorealism is not a theory of foreign policy but a theory of international politics. The difference is huge and often misinterpreted and that is why I insist on repeating it. Waltzian realism explains patterns of behaviour. It explains international outcomes. Neorealism doesn’t explain what states do but what states tend to do. For example, to take one of the few but important things that Waltz explains, states tend to balance. Waltz explains why there has never been a universal empire and why the world is divided into states. The reason is that the strategy induced by the system is balancing. That is why there is no universal empire, because balances of power emerge. Waltz argues that balances will emerge and not that states will always balance. That is why his theory is not disproved by any evidence of non-balancing behaviour. Waltz explains uniformity in outcomes or “continuity” as mentioned. In other words, he explains why “different countries, different internal structures, and different leaders often produce similar outcomes” but he also explains the opposite; why similar states act differently. Waltz does not say he explains foreign policy and the individual behaviour of states. He mentions that states are free to do any foolish thing they want to do. That also explains the title of his famous 1979 book: Theory of International Politics. Nonetheless, neorealism is not uniform and this clear and often misunderstood idea about what Waltz explains does not correspond to what defensive and offensive realists aim to do. (but this is a point for a longer discussion)

7. All the aforementioned issues are important to bear in mind for another reason as well. If your question was different, then these points could even be combined with your analysis and lead you to an understanding of Waltz’s theory of theory. The kind of theory he advocates is an integral part of what he tries to explain and of what he thinks it is explainable theoretically.

8. Last but not least, I would like to mention that understanding the concepts of a theory is a valuable task by itself but should not be pursued in isolation from understanding the purpose of the theory. Theories have a goal. They are helpful for a reason. They are instruments to help us navigate the sea of the facts of reality from a specific perspective. Only with this double strategy can we acquire a full grasp of theories and avoid “strange” situations where scholars may agree on the details of a theory but still end up disagreeing on the utility of a theory or on what it is really (trying) to say.

I wasn't sure if I ever thanked everyone. A year after submitting this dissertation, I'm still benefiting from viewing contemporary political events from the lens of neorealism. Thank you again for your hugely valuable contributions.

Why not we can have similar discussion on neoliberalism?

Tej, do you mean as an economic "theory" or a political one? I'd argue either form of neoliberalism is more a set of principles than a real theory, making it hard to discuss. Waltz did an amazing job making neorealism a single coherent concept.

Helped me to under stand the concept. Anybody can throw some light on neoclassical and how it is different from imperialist and how major powers relations fits in with oil rich countries. Thanks.

Fellow professors,

I have attached a piece to this message of mine. Could you please let me know if you think this piece fits inside of the category Neorealism. If so, why. More importantly, I feel lost in terms of politics and what you say that has to do with Neorealism. Please contextualise using my text. I am also interested in learning if you agree that I have made good use of Free Indirect Discourse. Someone told me to watch The Bicycle Thief to know what Neorealism is. Please expand on that, if possible.

The work by Luis Simon titled Neorealism, Security Cooperation, and Europe’s Relative Gains Dilemma deepens the discussion on neorealism - particularly in the European context. The article is available on: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2017.1280297?journalCode=fsst20