Structural neorealism defined

Before I describe the neoliberalist tradition of IR theory, I'd like to review a particular offshoot of neorealist theory, in part because I find it particularly interesting and important and in part because I've already written about it in a recent term paper from which I am culling most of the material below (keeping up with weekly blog postings is at least as tough as I expected!).

In the refinement of classical realism, Kenneth Waltz’s book, Theory of International Politics, introduces analogies to economic theory and begins to allow some empirical measurement and testing of realism's theoretical concepts.

Waltz puts forward "structural neorealism", wherein Morgenthau's "balance of power” is reconceptualized as the “distribution of power” in a particular system and takes on the primary role of explaining state behavior. Structural neorealism assumes the realist’s theoretical elements of anarchy and self-help, but also adds the nondifferentiation of units.

Using an economic analogy to explain this refinement, states are similar to economic firms. Just as firms behave differently in a monopoly than in a duopoly or in perfect competition during their pursuit of maximizing profit, states behave differently in a unipolar environment than in a bipolar or in a multipolar environment during their pursuit of maximizing power. In each scenario, it is the system that explains the actor’s behavior; it does not matter which states are involved, what form of government they practice, or which political party or individuals are in power.

With this neorealist IR theory, even fewer facts are needed to explain state behavior, and generalizations can be performed to an even further extent. Furthermore, empirical measurements and tests can be introduced to verify its theoretical tenants.

However, Waltz's refinements have been criticized for allowing explanations that can become circular due to a lack of standardized measurements. The introduction of quantitative measurements that define system polarity and measure power are appropriate improvements to realist IR theory, but at this point neorealist theorists are still able to define power and polarity in any way that they see fit and can reasonably justify. Worse yet, a theorist might even use results and outcomes to adjust their theoretical frameworks ex post facto; a bipolar system that produces behavior not appropriate for a theorist’s hypotheses could simply be relabeled and redefined as multipolar in order to preserve the validity of the framework.

In addition, neorealism remains bound to abstractions such as rational actor models, market theory, and a unitary approach to states that are criticized as oversimplifications of the real dynamics of foreign policy and statecraft.

Despite these criticisms, neorealism is praised for its ability to explain with great accuracy a large amount of history using very few variables. Social scientists strive for the greatest amount of explanation with the most parsimonious theory, and structural neorealism produces a theoretically plausible “stability and restraint” model that constrains state behavior in a manner akin to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of economic theory. As such, the realist tradition continues to be the baseline against which all new IR theories are tested.

(OK, next post I will tackle neoliberalism, I promise)