Classical Realism &

UNIT 8 LIBERALISM AND Neorealism

NEO-LIBERALISM*
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The Liberal Tradition: Main Characteristics
8.3 Classical Liberalism
8.4 Liberal Approach in the Post War Years
8.4.1 Sociological Liberalism
8.4.2 Functionalism
8.4.3 Interdependence Liberalism
8.4.4 Republican Liberalism
8.5 Neo-Liberal Approach
8.5.1 A Break with Traditional Liberalism
8.5.2 The Neo-Neo Debate in IR
8.5.3 The Darker Side of Neo-Liberalism
8.6 Let Us Sum Up
8.7 References
8.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

8.1 OBJECTIVES
Liberalism is an eminent theory of international relations (IR). It has several
dimensions. The objective is to explore the definitions, history and the various
theoretical standpoints of liberalism. This unit introduces you to the key thinkers
on the subject. Besides, it also helps to understand the key concepts associated
with it. After reading this unit, student shall be able to:
Identify the core principles of liberalism in the years before the Second World
War
Describe the major liberal theories that evolved in the post-war period
Identify the core features of neoliberal approach to study IR
Identify the core features of the Neo- Neo debate
Describe the liberal vision of society, state and market
Explore key aspects of neoliberalism and the evolution of international
political economy

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Like Realism, Liberalism (and its current variant neo-liberalism) is a mainstream
approach to understand international politics. And, like Realism it is a name
given to a family of related theories of international relations. It has a
multidimensional tradition dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Historically,
the liberal tradition emerged as a critique of feudal political rule. It also emerged
*
Dr. Avipsu Halder, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta 115
Theoretical Perspectives as a critique of mercantilism, the dominant economic strategy of those times.
Liberalism is also a rich tradition of thought concerning international relations.
In this unit, we are concerned mainly with the latter dimension of liberalism.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, liberal philosophers and political thinkers debated
the difficulties of establishing just, orderly and peaceful relations between peoples.
A systematic account of the problems of world peace was given by Immanuel
Kant in 1795. His ideas have had a profound impact on the development of
liberalism in international relations.

In the 19th century, solutions to the problem of war evaded even the most eminent
of thinkers. Much of the liberal scholarship became content with diplomatic
history until the outbreak of the First World War. The Great War and the destruction
that it caused forced the liberal thinkers to find new means to prevent violent
conflicts and create conditions in which reason and cooperation would prevail.
Basing their premise on the inherent goodness of man, these liberal thinkers
focused on negotiations, rule of law and establishing stable international
institutions. The widespread anti-war sentiment within Europe and North America
which existed in the 1920s provided the necessary support for the liberal
enterprise.

However, the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of the Second
World War led to the marginalisation of liberal thought that was infused with
idealism. Realism came to the fore as it seemed to provide a better explanation
of the power politics of the Cold War that came to dominate international relations.
Nevertheless, innovations in liberal tradition continued leading to the development
of a number of theories to explain the developments in international relations.
Prominent among them are sociological liberalism (or transnationalism),
pluralism, interdependence theory, liberal internationalism, liberal peace theory,
world society and neo-liberal approaches.

In the early 1980s when conflict between major powers had receded and
cooperation in pursuit of mutual interests had emerged as a prominent feature of
world politics, a new paradigm or framework of analysis emerged in the liberal
tradition- Neoliberal Internationalism. As this approach emerged in response to
the development of neorealism, it is also called as the Neoliberal approach. This
new approach infused greater scientific rigor in liberal scholarship.

In the 1990s, regional and international economic integration (globalisation) on

the one hand and new issues, such as multiculturalism, democracy, environment
on the other, have led liberalism to focus on international order, institutions and
processes of governance, human rights, democratisation, peace and economic
integration. The focus of this unit is on the dominant features of the liberal tradition
in the years before the Second World War and the important trends in the evolution
of liberalism in the post-war years, focusing in particular on the neo-liberal
approach.

8.2 THE LIBERAL TRADITION: MAIN

CHARACTERISTICS
Liberal theorists have strong faith in human reason. This characteristic can be
traced back to the ideas of John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that reason is
116
necessary for arriving at truth and right action. Reason is necessary for Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism
understanding and shaping nature and society. According to the liberal theorists,
human beings are capable of shaping their destiny, including international relations
and moulding the negative ramifications of the absence of a world government.

Secondly, liberal theorists believe in the possibility of historical progress. Human

reason and processes of social learning make progress possible. In the liberal
conception therefore, mankind is not doomed to live in a state of perpetual conflict,
but can choose political strategies to avoid it. In other words, liberal theorists
argue that it is possible and desirable to reform international relations.

Thirdly, liberal theorists focus on state-society linkages and claim the existence
of a close connection between domestic institutions and politics on the one hand
and the international politics on the other. Since the publication of Perpetual
Peace (1795) by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) many liberal
theorists became convinced that there is a causal link between the form of domestic
regime and the possibility of war. Kant had specifically claimed that ‘republican’
(that is, democratic) states are more peaceful at least vis a vis one another. The
contemporary idea of theory of democratic peace can be traced to this idea of
Kant

Liberal theorists are pluralists as well. They believe that state is only one actor
both in within a society and on the international stage. They challenge the realist
assumption that states are the only actors in international politics. Liberals argue
that there are many actors in world politics which play a vital role in influencing
international outcomes. The liberal tradition highlights the importance of non-
state actors such as MNCs and NGOs.

Fifth, some liberal theorists, following David Ricardo ((1772-1823) and Richard
Cobden (1804-65), champion free trade as increasing interdependence among
states reduces the likelihood of war. They reject mercantilism which regarded
economic growth and war as compatible goals. Liberals argue that free trade is
preferable to mercantilism as trade produces wealth without war. As we shall
see later, these ideas have formed the basis of an entire current of thinking:
interdependence liberalism.

Liberal theorists also place great emphasis on institutions. They believe that
Institutions are necessary to protect and nurture the core values like order, liberty,
justice and tolerance in politics. They therefore championed the creation of the
League of Nations after the World War I. They were convinced that the League
as an international organisation could prevent war better than the alternatives,
including the traditional balance of power politics.

8.3 CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

Classic liberalism is the name given to liberal thought in the pre-Second World
War years. As we saw, liberalism bestowed importance on the idea of human
reason. It believes that all individuals are rational creatures. Hence, they are in a
better position to decide what is for their own good. It is precisely because human
beings are driven by the logic of reason that they have a tendency to cooperate
with one another, especially in areas where they have common interest. Such
cooperation can occur both domestically and internationally (Jackson and
Sorensen 2008: 98). Liberalism focuses on the idea of individual liberty. The 117
Theoretical Perspectives basics of classical liberalism can be found in the ideas of Adam Smith, John
Locke and Jeremy Bentham.

John Locke (1688) is known as the father of classical liberalism. He argued

that government should rule by the consent of the governed. Locke argued
the case of limited government. The main responsibility of the government
is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens.

Adam Smith (1776) believed in the idea of ‘economic man’. Smith believed
that if every individual tries to maximize their self-interest, it will lead to
overall economic prosperity in the society. Smith coined the term laissez
faire economy. According to this idea, the market the state shall not interfere
in the activities of the market. Smith visualized that a free market can bring
about overall national prosperity.

Bentham introduced the concept of the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest

number’. Thus, individuals should focus on those activities which maximizes
pleasure and minimizes pain. Bentham also proposed that there should be
an international court. The spirit of Bentham’s idea can be observed in the
structures and functions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Sutch
and Elias 2010).

In the early 20th century, liberal thinkers dominated both scholarship on

international relations and policy making. In fact, the establishment of the
academic discipline to address international relations was essentially a liberal
project. The academic discipline emerged specifically in order to improve our
understanding of international relations and in turn to improve or reform the
relations.

Liberal thinking at that time traced the causes of the World War I to fatal
misperceptions among political elite, secret diplomacy and lack of democracy,
war prone military establishments, lack of international institutions etc. Liberals
played an important role in designing a political programme to address these
issues in the immediate years after the World War I. In doing so, they made a
significant mark on the dominant foreign policies of the day. Much of their agenda
is reflected in the Fourteen Points programme speech delivered by the US
President Woodrow Wilson in January 1918.
The main features of the Fourteen Point programme are as follows:
‘Open covenants of peace openly aimed at’ – This means that that the process
of international diplomacy should be transparent in character. It means that
states shall no longer be able to enter into secret alliances with one another.
Following this logic, liberalism gives importance to the formation of
international institutions so that it can enshrine laws, and rules for the states
to follow.
‘Removal of economic barriers’ – This flows from the liberal belief that as
economic cooperation among states increases, they will not go to war.
‘National Self-determination’ – Every state should try to achieve democracy.
‘Associations of Nations’ – States should form associations among
themselves which would guarantee their territorial integrity and political
independence.
118
On the basis of these principles, the League of Nations was established in 1919 Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism
at the Paris Peace Conference. The League was intended to restore peace and
prevent war. Member countries of the League were to protect the territorial
integrity of other fellow members on the basis of collective security. Collective
security is based on the idea of ‘one for all, and all for one’, that is, each state in
the collective accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to
join in a collective response to aggression. This is different from Collective
Defence or an alliance of a number of states joining together in response to a
specific threat or for a specific issue of cause.

The liberal programme succeeded in influencing policy making but failed in

avoiding conflict and war. Instead of a bright post-war future, it led to, what is
referred to as the ‘Twenty Years’ crisis (E.H. Carr, 1939) and eventually to the
World War II. During these years, with the United States not joining the League
and the emergence of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, liberal ideas and strategies
could not flourish. The collective security system too collapsed. Towards the fag
end of the World War II, the major powers decided to give the liberal agenda a
big push by establishing more advanced forms of international institutions, the
United Nations and later the European Community.

8.4 LIBERAL APPROACH IN THE POST-WAR

YEARS
In the four decades after World War II, the Cold War conflict between the two
superpowers assumed global proportions. The Realist school that had come into
dominant position in academia and policy making in Europe and North America
dismissed the liberal approach as utopian or idealistic. Yet, despite their theory-
turned-practice failures, liberal thinkers managed to build new theories and
achieve a significant share in the research agenda of international relations. These
theories (Sociological Liberalism, Functionalism, Interdependent Liberalism and
Republican Liberalism) as well as their assumptions have formed the basis for
the emergence of a new conceptual framework, the Neoliberal approach (also
known as the Liberal Institutional approach).

8.4.1 Sociological Liberalism

Sociological liberalism came into being during the closing stages of the nineteenth
century and continued to flourish until the mid-20th century. The writings of
Richard Cobden (1903), Karl Deutsch (1957) and John Burton (1972) elaborately
explain the ideas. Importantly, Cobden argues that interactions across the world
can take place between different societies. This form of liberalism makes a strong
case for pluralism in IR. According to this view, people and social groupings
relate with one another and form networks across the globe. As we saw in the
last unit, realists give importance only to ‘official’ and ‘formal’ relations among
states. Sociological liberalism rejects this view as too narrowly focused and one-
sided. It points to the other actors, other than states, in IR. Sociological Liberalism
puts forward the idea of transnationalism whose key features are as follows:
Private groups and societies are important agents of international politics
These groups help states to achieve their objectives in international relations

119
Theoretical Perspectives The relations between people across different societies are friendlier in nature.
They are always eager to support one another.
It helps them to develop peaceful relations among themselves.
They can formulate networks among themselves around the world. It can
lead to the formation of global societies (Rosenau 1980).
Another key thinker of this school, Karl Deutsch introduced the idea of ‘security
community’. It means that regular interaction among people can lead to the
development of a ‘community feeling’ among themselves (Deutsch et al. 1957).
It would reduce the possibility of conflict among states. John Burton in his
book, World Society (1972) also discusses the interactions which take place among
different social, economic and cultural groups across the globe. This network is
known as the ‘cobweb’ model. It reduces the chances of conflict in world politics
(Jackson and Sorensen 2008; Little 1996).

In sum, sociological liberalism believes that overlapping interdependent relations

between people are bound to be more cooperative than relations between states
because states are exclusive and their interests do not overlap and cross-cut. A
world with a large number of transnational networks will thus be more peaceful.

8.4.2 Functionalism
The functionalist theorists such as David Mitrany and Ernst Haas argue that if
states cooperate in any one aspect, they would be able to do so in other fields.
Although the primary focus of functionalism is on the economic cooperation
among states, its underlying assumption was that economic cooperation would
allow them to cooperate in the political domain as well (Leiber 1972: 42). In
other words, cooperation in one field will have a spill over effect (Jensen 2010:
272) eventually giving rise to a supranational authority (such as the European
Union – EU).

Functionalism in International Politics can be understood in a better manner by

observing the history of the formation of the EU. It began with the emergence of
the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952. The European
economies which were devastated by the World War II began giving more
importance to economic revival. It was based on the belief that cooperation can
prevent war and conflict among nations. Peace can be restored if states collaborate
with one another in the realm of trade, culture, transport and communication.
Indeed, since the establishment of ECSC, there has been a growing economic
and political cooperation among European nations leading to common policies
in agriculture, currency, security etc. This eventually led to the establishment of
the European Union, the EU in 1993. The EU is an example of political, economic
and monetary union. The EU makes a strong case in favour of ‘pooling of
sovereignty’. It means that states are not surrendering their sovereign power.
But they are trying to create a condition which can help them to achieve power
sharing (Leiber 1973: 42- 43).

8.4.3 Interdependence Liberalism

This concept came into the parlance of international politics during the latter
part of the 1970s. Robert O’ Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, who developed this
concept point out that all actors of international relations – state and non-state
120
are mutually dependent on one another. International politics works on the basis Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism
of collaboration of these various actors. Interdependence takes place due to the
transnational flow of money, people, goods, services and communication. In
their book, Power and Interdependence (2001), Keohane and Nye identify three
main features of interdependence:

There are multiple channels of connection that link societies and peoples. It
includes informal ties between a) government officials; b) non-governmental
individual; and, c) members of transnational organizations. These
classifications communicate the idea that transnational connections important
in world politics. This understanding is different from realism.

There are multiple issues in world politics. It means that in international

politics, there is no hierarchy of issues. Liberalism therefore challenges
statesmen across the world who give priority only to military and security
issues. It argues that there are certain issues of domestic politics of a country
that may have a worldwide impact.

There can be a connection between national issues of a country with an

international event. Liberal theorists call this as linkage strategy (Burchill
2013). For example, financial breakdown in one country may have a negative
impact on the world economy.

8.4.4 Republican Liberalism

Republican liberalism is inspired by the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
and contemporary American scholar, Michael Doyle. It postulates that democratic
governments have positive features and that they do not go to war with one
another. This is the central idea of the democratic peace thesis. This thesis poses
a challenge to the realist claims that peace depends on the systemic balance of
power rather than the domestic nature of the governments.

Michael Doyle (1983, 1986) who has developed Kant’s perpetual peace theory
explains why democracies are at peace with one another. First, the existence of
domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution encourages
peaceful international relations. Government controlled by their citizens, will
not advocate or support wars with other democracies.

Second, democracies hold common moral values which lead to the formation of
what Kant called a ‘pacific union’ (not a formal treaty, but rather a zone of peace).
Freedom of expression and free communication promote mutual understanding
internationally, and help to assure that political representatives act in accordance
with citizens’ views.

Finally, peace between democracies is strengthened through economic

cooperation and interdependence. In the pacific union it is possible to encourage
what Kant called ‘the spirit of commerce’: mutual and reciprocal gain for those
involved in international economic cooperation and exchange.

Republican liberalism, therefore, advocates promotion of democracy worldwide

to achieve peace, one of the most fundamental values of all political values. In
this sense, it is one of theories with a strong normative element.

121
Theoretical Perspectives Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What are the features of the idea of transnationalism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

8.5 NEO-LIBERAL APPROACH

We have seen in the last unit that there was a new positivist orientation and shift
in the scope of the Realist approach that has come to be called Neo-realism or
structural realism. A similar shift occurred in Liberalism, largely as a reaction to
the rise of Neorealism. Two seminal works that marked a break from the existing
liberal tradition in international relations are Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony:
Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984) and Robert
Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation (1981). While the former focused on complex
interdependence, the latter applied game theory to explain how cooperation
emerges and persists. These publications introduced a new conceptual framework
in liberal studies which has come to be called as Neo-liberalism. The use of the
‘neo-liberal’ label is no doubt because the theories developed by Keohane and
Axelrod shared a lot with neo-realism. They accepted the two basic assumptions
of international anarchy and rational egoism of states to show that it was possible
for rational egoists to cooperate even in anarchic systems. They also drew on
material from the same kind of sources as the neorealists- in particular game
theory, public choice and rational choice theory.

8.5.1 A Break with Tradtional Liberalism

Neo-liberalism differed from classical liberalism in several important ways. To
begin with Liberal thought had not addressed the question of anarchy in the
international system. Neo-liberals accepted the neorealist proposition that the
international system is anarchic, but rejected the realist assertion that this condition
would lead to conflict. Instead, Neo-liberals emphasised the centrality of
cooperation in international politics. An important question that they pose to the
Realists is “If the anarchic international system necessarily creates a self-help
environment-a war of all against all as Hobbes suggested -then why is war not
more common?”

Neo-liberals also differ from classical liberals on the causes of conflict. As we

saw, liberalism had emphasized on the centrality of human nature and argued
that conflict and war was the result of bad actors or failure of cooperation. Neo-
liberalism, on the other hand, stress on the importance of international institutions
in structuring international environment in ways that mitigates against anarchy.
In other words, causes for conflict cannot be traced to human nature, but to the
122
presence or absence of international institutions. Neo-liberals assert that Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism
international institutions perform the following tasks:
1) Encourage communication and dialogue between states creating a forum to
negotiate their differences.
2) Promote transparency in interaction between states and in the agreements
that they negotiate.
3) Help to shape expectations and to develop collective international norms
that offer stability and predictability in global politics
4) Establish a framework to promote reciprocity and bargaining between states
facilitating the peaceful resolution of disputes. They permit the coordination
of policy to address tensions in collective action problems and thus help to
avoid the security and prisoners’ dilemmas.

It is because of the importance placed on global institutions that the Neo-liberal

theory of international relations is also referred to as Neo-liberal Institutionalism.

Secondly, Neo-Liberalism differs with Liberalism on the question of important

actors in global politics. Liberalism tends to emphasise the importance of
individual agents as actors in global politics. Individual choice and psychology
tend to play an important role in the Liberal explanations and analysis. In sharp
contrast, Neo-liberals accept the Realist assertion that the state is the most
important actor though they add international institutions as essentially as
collections of states as well. Other actors would include non state actors like
MNCs and NGOs. They accept the Neorealist claim that the state is a rational
actor and that it engages in cost benefit analysis in pursuit of defined goals.
Liberals would not be necessarily comfortable with this claim.

Finally, Neo-liberalism differs with Liberalism in its analysis of conflicts.

Liberalism is generally historical and philosophical in their orientation, explaining
conflict in specific historical context. It draws extensively on fields like political
theory and philosophy. Neo-liberal explanations of conflicts, on the other hand,
tend to be more focused on ahistorical structural explanations. Neo-liberals draw
extensively from game theory and behavioural economics rather than history
and philosophy in their analysis. Neo-liberals often use concepts from game
theory to show how the structure of the international system can force particular
outcomes or can lead to situations where rational decision making which may
appear to be rational but which lead to suboptimal outcomes.

8.5.2 The Neo-Neo Debate in IR

If we are to examine the emergence of liberalism and neoliberalism as an academic
discipline, it is necessary to focus on the Great Debates of IR. The First Great
Debate between realism and liberal internationalism showed how the failure of
the League of Nations proved that the idea of harmony of interest was not correct.
Historians such as E.H Carr termed liberal internationalism as ‘utopianism’ and
‘idealism’ (Brown and Ainley 2009: 26). The Second Great Debate between
Behaviouralism and Post-behaviouralism focused on whether IR should be studied
by taking help from methods of natural science or it should be done by taking a
more value-based approach (Daddow 2013: 70). The third Great Debate in
international relations between Neo-realism and Neo-Liberalism (the neo-neo
debate) gives a detailed understanding of neoliberalism in IR as an approach to 123
Theoretical Perspectives study. Both neorealism and neoliberalism believe that states are rational actors.
But there are certain differences between them. They are as follows:

Neorealism and Neoliberalism accept that there is anarchy in the international

system (Baldwin 1993). Neorealism argues that due to anarchy, states will
never cooperate with one another. They will always compete with each other.
Neorealists feel that cooperation depends upon the will of the state. The
neoliberals on the other hand point out that states do cooperate with one
another on those issue areas where they have similar interests (Lamy 2008:
133).

Neorealism focuses on survival. Hence, use of force cannot be avoided. On

the other hand, the neoliberal school believes in the idea of complex
interdependence (Baldwin 1993).

The neorealists have given importance to ‘high politics’ such as military

and diplomacy. For the neo-liberals, trade and economic activities are more
important. (Keohane and Nye 2001: 28).

Neo-liberals are optimistic about cooperative behaviour and therefore argue

in favour of absolute gains. When states are conducting economic
interactions, it leads to a positive sum game. All parties involved in the
process benefit. Neo-realism, on the other hand, holds that states compete
with one another and therefore there can be only relative gains (Lamy 2008:
133).

Neo-realism throws light on capabilities of the states. They feel that states
are always uncertain about the intentions of other states. Neo-liberalism
gives more importance to the preferences and intentions of states.

Neo-liberals argue that international regimes play an important role world

politics. They can help states to cooperate among themselves. Neo-realism
does not agree with this point (Baldwin 1993).

From the above, it is evident that there is much in common between the neo-
realism and neo-liberalism. Scholars outside the United States as well as those
who work outside these paradigms therefore call it a ‘neo-neo synthesis’.
Moreover, they argue that the neo-neo debate has not advanced IR scholarship
as a whole. Instead it has narrowed the field to a superficial enquiry based on
questionable assumptions (such as anarchy) and methodologies that may or may
not be suitable to the discipline.

8.5.3 The Darker side of Neo-Liberalism

A number of studies based on the neoliberal approach have emerged since the
1980s. However, almost all studies have focused on the experience of Western
countries with international interdependence and regimes. As Robert Cox has
observed,

“regime theory has much to say about economic cooperation among the Group
of 7 (G- 7) and other groupings of advanced capitalist countries with regard to
problems common to them. It has correspondingly less to say about attempts to
change the structure of world economy, e.g. in the Third World demand for a
124
New International Economic Order (NIEO). Indeed, regimes are designed to Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism
stabilize the world economy and have the effect, as Keohane has underlined in
his work, of inhibiting and deterring states from initiating radical departures
from economic orthodoxy, e.g. through socialism.” (Cox, 1992,173)

The principal cooperative institution of the Global South during the Cold War,
the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) has received scant attention from the
Neoliberal theorists. Secondly, these theories would ‘assume, rather than establish,
regimes as benevolent, voluntary, cooperative and legitimate’ (Kieley, 1990, 90),
a highly questionable assumption when one considers the exclusionary nature of
some of the regimes and multilateral institution, at least from the point of Global
South. Consider the case of those Latin American countries which have
experienced economic inequality as a result of privatization and Structural
Adjustment Policy (SAP). Bolivia, Venezuela and other Latin American nations
have expressed their voices in protest of the neoliberal economic policies (Lamy
2008: 136). Moreover, it needs to be remembered that due to the increased mobility
of capital, the government of states have faced difficulties in taxing the profits
incurring from privatization-led development projects (Rodrik 1997). Had the
government been able to earn revenues from these projects, it could have been
channelized towards the development of social sectors such as health, education
and social security measures. Hence, it can be argued that as a theory,
neoliberalism is a construct of the developed world. As Robert Cox famously
argued, ‘Theory is always for someone and for some purposes’ (Cox 1981: 128).
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) List the differences between neoliberalism and neorealism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

8.6 LET US SUM UP

Liberalism has strong faith in human reason and rationality. They also focus on
state-society linkages and argue that there is close connection between domestic
institutions and politics on one hand and international politics on the other hand.
Liberalism also contradicts the realist claim that states are the only actors in
international politics. They champion free trade to increase interdependence
among states to avoid war. In its new version, neo-liberal approach differs from
liberalism. The liberal approach did not address the question of anarchy in
international politics. Liberals and neo-liberals also differ on the causes of conflict
125
Theoretical Perspectives among states. As a theory, neo-liberalism is a construct of the developed world
and the perspectives from Global South have not found a considerable mention
in this approach.

8.7 REFERENCES
Baldwin, David (eds.). (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary
Debate. New York. Columbia University Press.

Blair Alasdair and Steven Curtis. (2009). International Politics: An Introductory

Guide. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press.

Brown, Chris and Kirsten Ainley. (2009). Understanding International Relations.

Hampshire and New York. Palgrave Macmillan.

Burchill, Scott (2013). “Liberalism”, in Scott Burchill et al., (eds.). Theories of

International Relations. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cobden, Richard. (1903). Political Writings. vol. 2, London. Fisher Unwin.

Cox, Robert. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory”. Millennium Journal of International Studies.
10 (2): 126-155.

Daddow, Oliver. (2013). International Relations Theory: The Essentials, New

Delhi. Thousand Oaks and London: Sage.

Doyle, Michael W. (1983). “Kant, Liberal Legacies and foreign Affairs”.

Philosophy and Public Affairs. 2 (3): 205-235.

Gill, Stephen and David Law. (1988). Global Political Economy: Perspectives,
Problems and Policies. London: Harvester Wheatleaf.

Gunter, Tamar. (2017). International Organizations in World Politics. Thousand

Oaks. London. New Delhi and Singapore. Sage.

Heywood, Andrew. (2011). Global Politics. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen. (2008). International Relations: Theories

and Approaches. New York. Oxford University Press.

Kauppi, Mark V and Paul R. Viotti. (2020). International Relations Theory.

London. Rowman and Littlefield.

Keohane, Robert O’ and Joseph S. Nye. (2001). Power and Interdependence.

New York. Longman.

Lamy, Steven L. (2008). “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neorealism

and neoliberalism”. in John Bayllis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.). The
Globalization of World Politics. New York. Oxford. (124-141).

Rosenau, J. (1980). The Study of Global Interdependence: Essays on the

Transnationalization of World Affairs. New York. Basic Books.

126
Rosenau, J. (1992), “Citizenship in Changing Global Order” in J. N Rosenau Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism
and E.O Cziempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change
in World Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. (272-294).

Smith, Adam. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and causes of The Wealth of
Nations. Hampshire. Harriman House.

Sutch, Peter and Juanita Elias. (2010). International Relations: The Basics. New
York. Routledge.

8.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Private groups and societies
important in IR, ii) People across societies are friendlier and support each
other, iii) It can lead to formation of global societies
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Differences over
implications of anarchy, ii) Neorealists give importance to military,
neoliberalists prefer trade, iiiNeoliberals talk of absolute gains, neorealists
favour relative gains

127