NeorealismThe realist tradition has furnished

NeorealismThe realist tradition has furnished an abundant basis
for the formation of what is termed a neorealist approach to
international relations theory. Neorealism purports to refine and
reinvigorate classical realism by developing propositions based upon
the disaggregation of independent and dependent variables, and by
integrating what is termed as classical realist theory into a
contemporary framework based upon comparative analysis. A neorealist
theory would inject greater rigor into the realist tradition by
developing a series of propositions that could be subjected to
empirical testing and investigation. {…} For neorealism, power
remains a key variable, although it exists less as an end in itself
than as a necessary and inevitable component of a political
relationship. According to Kindermann, “just as the instrument of
power and of sanctions does not exhaust the nature of law, the nature
of Politics is also not exhausted by primarily referring to power as
its most important tool.”
Indeed, the neorealist approach represents and effort not only to draw
from classical realism those elements of a theory adequate to the world
of the late twentieth century, but also to link conceptually other
theoretical efforts. Thus the structural realism of Kenneth Waltz draws
heavily upon systems constructs and the neorealism of Kindermann’s
Munich School has as its basis a constellation, or configuration,
consisting of a “systems of interaction---relations between states
and other action-systems of international politics at a given moment or
within a defined period of history past or present.” This neorealist
approach contains as interdependent categories of inquiry 1. system and
decision (leadership) 2. interest and power 3. perception and reality,
4. cooperation and conflict (behavioral strategy) and 5. norm or
advantage. Thus neorealism posits the existence of an international
system consisting of interactive elements that are to be studied by
reference to concepts derived from classical realism, but also based on
variables drawn on cross-cultural comparative analysis. To quote again
from Kindermann’s description: “Neorealism, in other words,
proceeds from the assumption that a much higher degree of of concrete
and quasi-institutionalized cross-disciplinary cooperation is required
before essential progress can be made in our ability to analyze and, if
possible, to predict political action processes of systems as complex
as, for instance, the nation-state and its structurally essential
subsystems.” If the flawed nature of man forms a crucially important
point of departure for classical realist analysis, neorealism has as
its focus the international system. Stated differently, it is the
structure that shapes the political relationships that take place among
its members. For structural realism, international politics is more
than the summation of the foreign policies of states and the external
balance of other actors in the system. Thus, Waltz argues for a
neorealist approach based on patterned relationships among actors in a
system that is anarchical. In this respect, drawing upon the paradigm
of international politics of classical realism, structured realism
contains and emphasis on those features of the structure that mold the
way in which the components relate to one another.{…}
The focus of structural realism is the arrangement of the parts of the
international system with respect to each other. According to Waltz,
“The concept of structure is based on the fact that units differently
juxtaposed and combined behave differently and interacting produce
different outcomes.” Basic to the anarchic system, by virtue of its
structure, is the need for member units to rely on whatever means or
arrangements than can generate in order to ensure survival and enhance
security. In such a system, based as it is on the principle of
self-help, states pursue one or both of two basic courses of action in
keeping with Waltz’s approach to structure as a variable
conditioning, or circumscribing, political behavior. They engage in
internal efforts to increase their political, military and economic
capabilities and to develop effective strategies. They also undertake
attempts to align, or realign, with other actors. The structure of the
system, notably the number of actors and their respective capabilities,
shapes the patterns of interaction that will take place, including the
number of states aligned with each other in opposing groupings as part
of a balance of power. In the anarchical structure all units confront
the minimal need or functional requirements for security, although
there are wide variations among them in their respective capabilities
for this purpose. In Waltz’s perspective, international systems are
transfigured by changes in the distribution of capabilities among its
units. As structures change, so do interactive patterns among its
members as well as the outcomes that such interactions can be expected
to produce. Although the capabilities constitute attributes of units,
their distribution among the various units forms a defining
characteristic of the structure of the system, and in this case, of
structural realism. In sum, central to structural realism, and
especially to the approach developed by Waltz, tis the proposition that
only a structural transformation can alter the anarchical nature of the
international system.{…}
Contending Theories of International Relations. James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltzgraff, Jr.