I am a Global Political Economy Masters graduate with industry experience as a Business Analyst consultant in an environment that is cutting edge and of fast-paced change. I have a passion for political economy and political theories.  

• Have sound knowledge of the major ideologies of political economy, and the political economy of the governance of the contemporary global economy.
• Have a clear understanding of the principal debates surrounding the relationship between politics and economics.
• Able to make informed judgments about the globalisation and governance of financial markets in theory and in practice by critically evaluating facts, concepts, theories and current scholarship on the governance of globalisation
• Can devise and sustain an argument supported by valid evaluated evidence about different various aspects of globalisation and governance, to critique existing arrangements and to hypothesis about superior solutions to the problems of governing globalisation
• Able to explore the implications of the ambiguities and contradictions inherent in the facts, concepts, theories and debates which dominate the academic discourses associated with the globalisation and governance.
• Able to understand and engage with academic and professional audiences by communicating, both orally and in writing, ideas, concepts, theories and methods applicable to the globalisation and governance.

Sample

Neo-realism as an international relations theory

Neo-realism as an international relations theory supports the premise of a systemic international structure that operates through anarchic conflict. Conflict or fear is seen as a control on sovereign states behavior. How sufficient neo-realism helps one understand the international system depends of the definition of the international system? Thomson William asserts that, “the international system can be looked at in four ways:

1. It is characterised by interdependent political, economic and cultural subsystems which are embedded in its own specific historical development. Therefore the structure and processes of the international system at present reflects the same aspects of the earlier centuries.
2. The behaviors in the international system, from trade policies, global financial conducts and security reflect the structures and its critical processes.
3. The international system has two main dimensions; the World economic perspective and the World security / leadership perspective.
4. The international system is dynamic (Thomson, 1983)

From that definition, the observation is Neo-realism only partially explains the international system. The central view of an anarchic international structure made up of equally self interested states does not completely cover Thomson Williams’ understanding of a interdependent and dynamic international system.

Starting with the positive, one would acknowledge that Neo-realism provides the premise that the states’ survival and lack of trust between States is still useful. The competitive nature and lack of trust of states equals to what is called a security dilemma (Booth, 2007). States have different capabilities and compete on that basis. This competition for higher capability results in the reduction of co-operation, but also results in them constraining each other, therefore ending in what is known as balance of power. It is this balance of power that, according to Neo-realism, shapes international relations through security dilemmas. The key view from Neo-realists, is not just the rationalisation of conflict but the uplifting of conflict as an important part of the international system.

That view is important because it provides a scientific approach important for policy setting and analysis. Neo-realism should therefore be credited for the use of scientific means through modeling and analysis of the International system. This has been achieved through firstly the linkage of domestic factors on foreign policy which contribute to our understanding of interactive patterns and structures in the international system as based on the actor’s national interests (Groom 1999). Therefore one can conclude that if citizens in one country wanted sugar, their countries foreign policy will be friendly to countries that produce sugar. Global policy makers take that information and are able to use it for setting policy and figure out the consequences of their policies. According to Xin Benjian, the theories of “Security Dilemma” and “Balance of Power” are still playing important roles in international relations today. He has the opinion that the US has adopted neo-realist theory in its policy towards China. Xin provides the example of the US using the security dilemma theory to contain China regards Taiwan. He sites the fact that USA has never stopped upgrade arms sales to Taiwan in order to guarantee the so-called military balance between the Mainland and Taiwan (Benjian, 2001).

By providing the use of logic in the view of the international system, academician are provided with tools and methodologies that help them understand world events and provide provable propositions that can be used as answers on the ways of the international system. Examples of concepts like the Richardson’s arm race model, Lanchester on battle, Decision theory, Game theory and its extensions, Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory are born out of neo-realism academicians. Like any science, Neo-realism has used these concepts to achieve studies into national interest and power (Keohane, 1986). Through conceptualisation it offers something scientific and paradigms that derive explanations of the international system as a place where actions and interactions of states take place. This offers some distinctions useful for the analysis of not essentially predictive capability, but analysis of historical events that may, in cases, be connected to the realities of the present.  Therefore with enough history, academicians are able to use theory and models as useful guides in understanding the international system.

On the other hand, one would prefer to see the journey of the international system as moving along a coiling cycle, which goes round but does not follow the same path the next time around. This view offers a better approach of how the world can inquire and understand of how the dynamic international system has been organised, is organised and how it might be organised in the future. Neo-realism, despite its attempt, lacks scope in helping us understand the complexities of the international system. As a theory it sought to deepen and broaden classical realist theory by introducing structure to the analysis of a self helping international system (Dougherty, 2001). One would view it as too simplistic, rather not deep or broad enough for understanding a very complex system that has actors with more impact than states.

Looking at the international system as described by Thomson, the international system has the potential to offer a protective and overarching authority. The frameworks from neo-realism however removes that possibility through its assumption that states interact selfishly in order to survive in an anarchic environment (Baylis, 1999). Global governance has challenged neo-realism through the establishing of rules and standards to avoid the accepting that conflict is a permanent variable. Most leaders of nations use the neo-realist outlook to defend their policies through the use of the national interest argument, even when they know the pressure is imposed on them by the international system. Citizens end up without the true link between the policy and policy drivers because they just assume that their state primary select those strategies in which the expected gain is likely to exceed the expected loss against other states (Elman, 1995). Thomson’s definition of the international system does not present the states as the only actors, the environment is not shown as always anarchic and what one gets is that the international system is characterised by interdependent dynamic subsystems that are well established through history.

Neo-Realism has a static view and limited scope to cover interdependent subsystems. As a discipline in international relations, it reflects post World War Two and Cold War mind sets, which sees the international system as fragile, brutish and a home to savages interacting in an anarchic but structured environment, almost as articulated in literature as early as Art of War by Sun Tzu an ancient Chinese military strategist and Thucydides an ancient Greek historian in his writings of History of the Peloponnesian War. However, unlike then, the world today is not a home to savages because according to Baylis, global governance offers some kind of order. Neo-realism ignores the social basis and social limits of power and powerful constraints to political behaviors that global governance provided today (Baylis, 1999). This shows that the assumption that Neo-realist makes about states being self regarding with self-help mandated behavioral outcomes are actually constrained in the international system today. States do not in the name of sovereignty develop offensive military capability to dominate anymore.

People do not to see the system as anarchic but as having different orders in its many structures. The international system in this age is pre-occupied by setting that order. Global governance has become the main stay in the international system. If we take time to look at the roots of the current global financial crisis and solutions needed, Neo-realism become redundant as the complexity and co-operation workings of the international systems are demonstrated. This too shows that neo-realism has expired and was only useful as a paradigm of the World Wars and the Cold War periods.

Neo-realism as a theory is too rigid. It fails to account for change and development. It also missed a trick in not taking into account the strong will by people to not repeat bad history and because of that it does not give an outline as a theory in suggesting important answers of the future nature of the international system. It also does not provide the predictive potential that is needed in the concept of a coiling cycle.  Unlike Dougherty’s view that the international system is basically the inter play of impersonal forces (Dougherty, 2001), the international system is dynamic therefore it restructure, consolidate and extend. Neo-realism does not address the possible fluidity of actor’s in the international system, it takes them as constant. History has shown that the inter play of the actors in the international system are diverse and dynamic. Therefore, Neo-realism is unable to cover the larger aspect of a very fluid international system. One would reaffirm that due to its static nature, Neo-realism is not enough to explain the international system because it ignores change and development.

Making the state the primary actor and main focal point of the international system structure limits neo-realisms relevance in these times (Mingst, 2008). It is important to pay great attention to other actors holding the international system e.g. Multi-national corporations, Non-governmental organisations, terrorists, other states seen as lower in the structure and individuals, especially that these actors in some cases have more impact than the state to the international system. Accordance to Keohane and Nye, the traditional view that states with military power control world affairs is no longer, because the sources that produce power capability have become more complex (Keohane and Nye, 1989). Also historically neo-realism, which describes change in terms of “shifting patterns of growth or the distribution of capabilities” (Kratochwil 1993) fails to explain the nature, extent and course of change in the fall of the Soviet bloc. For example, a hegemonic war did not bring about the fall of the Soviet and Russia remained militarily strong the day after its fall.

Neo-realism is also derived largely only from the European cultural view point, in a contemporary international system which has expanded to include non-western cultural stands, neo-realisms value diminishes. The international system changing means the theories that explain it needs to be timeless and dynamic. The rigid assumptions provided by neo-realist on the international system give an incomplete and prejudiced view. Neo-realism fails to recognise the diversity of variables on the international system, the structuralism it embraces again only concentrates on the motivation of top actors in the system. This is not a surprise because power remains a key variable in Neo-realism. Therefore, in important questions on events in the international system, the level of analysis that Neo-realism would offer would limit what we would need to explore the issues. I believe power is no longer a variable useful for the level of analysis needed for us to understand the international system. The obsession on power makes it difficult to make logical deductions, According to Mingst, good theory should be able to explain phenomena at a particular level of analysis; better theory should also offer explanations across different level of analysis and be able to stand up to variations (Mingst 2008). Neo-realism fails to do that.

Conclusion
While this work acknowledges Neo-realism as valid because it provides scientific approaches that are useful and relevant for analysis of the International system by academics and of use for policy setting to political leaders, it has been able to get out key points against what Neo-realism offers in our understanding of the international system in international relations. It shows Neo-realism as offering partial contribution to ones understanding of the international system because of its assumption being static and its scope being limited due to its focuses on the state. This, as highlighted in the essay, cuts out a huge body of non-State actors of the international system. 1t also shows how Neo-realism fails to cover the international systems as ever dynamic, interdependent subsystem structures and processes because it is mainly interested in polarity, only looking at few state actors that it thinks exert power in the international system. Ignoring the fact that the international system is multi-channeled and well connected the agenda in it is of multi issue and power has become irrelevant.

Bibliography

Books
Baylis J & Smith S, (1999) – The Globalisation of World Politics, An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press, London.

Booth, Ken and Wheeler, Nicholas (2007) - The Security Dilemma, Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan

Clark Ian (1980) – Reform and Resistance in the International Order, Cambridge University Press. London.

Dougherty E.J. & Pfaltzgraff R.L, JR (2001), Contending Theory of International Relations, a Comprehensive Survey. Longman, New York.

Groom A.J.R. & Light M (1999) – Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, Pinter Publishers. London

Jackson R.H, (1999) The Political Theory of International Society in Booth and Smith, international Relations Theory Today, Addison-Wesley, London

Keohane Robert (1986) – Neo-realism and its Critics, Columbia University Press, New York

Keohane Robert & Nye Joseph (1989) – Power and Interdependence, Harper Collins Publishers, Harvard University

Kratochwil Friedrich (1993) The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-Realism as the Science of Realpolitik without Politics, vol.19 pp. 63-80 Cambridge University Press.

Mingst Karen (2008) – Essentials of International Relations, Forth Edition, W.W North & Company. New York.

Russett Bruce, Starr Harvey and Kinsella David (2001) – World Politics, The Menu for Choice, 6th Edition, Bedford St. Martin’s.

Stefano Guzzini (1998) – Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, the Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, Routledge, London.

Sterling - Folker Jennifer (2006) – Making Sense of International Relations Theory, Lynn Rienner Publication. New York

Thompson William R (1983) – Contending Approaches to World System Analysis, Sage Publications, London

Waltz K (1979), Theory of international politics, Addison-Wesley, London.

Journal Articles
Benjian, XIN (2001) - Security Dilemma, Balance of Power Vs. US Policy Towards China in the Post-Cold War Era By Faculty, Luoyang PLA Foreign Language College Xiandai Guoji Guanxi Contemporary International Relations, September 2001

Elman Colin, Elman Miriam & Schroeder P W (1995), History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look, International Security (MIT), Vol. 20, No. 1 pp. 182-195

Fox B.A, (1969), The Small States in the International System, 1919-1969, International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 751-764

Mearsheimer J, (1995), The Force Promise of International Institutions, International Security, Vol. 19 No.1, pp

Wright Q, (1952), Reviewed work(s): Political Realism and Political Idealism: A study in Theories and Realities by John H. Herz, World Politics, Vol.5, No. 1 pp.116-128