Neo Realism

From 1970’s onwards, a new school of thought emerged with in the realist tradition called
neo realism (structural realism). This new thinking was critical of classical realist like Hans
Morgenthau.

US based international relations theorist Kenneth Waltz has given the principles of neo –
realism in his book “theory of international politics” (1979). This book went on to become
one of the most influential books of its generation on international relations theory. It
established Waltz as the successor to Morgenthau in the discipline of International Relations.
Waltz is also known as Détente realist. Waltz attempted to develop a more scientific
version of realism, which can explain changes in international system.

1970’s was the time when world saw an increase in cooperation among nations and even
superpowers. This growth of cooperation was contradictory to the claims made by classical
realist like Hans Morgenthau. In this background Kenneth waltz comes forward to defend the
realist view of international politics, calling realism as “timeless wisdom”.

Waltz theory of neo-realism is responsible for the shift from actor level analysis to
structure level analysis. Neo realists agree with the idea that international politics is
essentially a struggle for power, but they do not attribute this to human nature. Instead neo
realism proposes the idea of anarchical structure of the international politics in order to
explain the conflictual nature of international politics. Whereas classical realists such as
Morgenthau argued that power is rooted in the nature of humankind, neo realists such as
Waltz refers to the anarchical condition of the international system of states as the main
cause which imposes the accumulation of power as a systemic requirement on states.

The key question which Waltz poses and then proceeds to answer is: why do states follow
similar foreign policy behavior despite their different political systems and contrasting
ideologies?

Waltz gives the example of superpower behavior during the cold war to reject the argument
that it is possible to understand the condition of international politics from the internal
composition of states. The Soviet Union and the United States were based on totally different
and opposite political and social orders. However, their behavior during the cold war was
remarkably similar. Their pursuit of military power and influence, their competition for

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 1

strategic advantage were strikingly parallel. According to Waltz above behavior of two
superpowers can be explained by understanding the systemic constraints on each state rather
than their internal composition. The identification of the systemic forces is perhaps neo
realism‟s single greatest contribution to the theory of international relations.

For the purpose of explaining its determining properties and distinguishing it from domestic
political systems, Waltz believes that international system has a precisely defined structure
with following three important characteristics:

1. The ordering principle of the system:

In domestic political systems the ordering principle is hierarchy, with power and
authority implemented through the compulsory jurisdiction of political and legal processes.
The ordering principle of the international system is „Anarchy‟, with an absence of any
overarching authority regulating the behavior of nation states towards each other. Therefore,
nation states, unlike individuals in domestic society, exist in a self-help environment where
the quest for survival requires them to seek security through the growth of military power.

2. The character of the unit in the system. (Differentiation principle):

According to Waltz, the character of the units in the system is identical. All states in
the international system are made functionally similar by the constraints of structure. The
anarchic international political structure requires all states to pursue security. Therefore, there
is no differentiation of functions in international politics. However, differentiation of
functions exists in domestic context. There are three branches of government performing 3
different functions: legislative, executive and judicial.

3. The distribution of the capabilities of the units in the system:

However, although states are functionally similar, they vastly differ in their
capabilities. There is an unequal and constantly shifting distribution of power across the
international system. The differences are of capability not of function.

As a key to understanding the behavior of states, the distribution of power in the international
system over rides consideration of ideology or any other internal factor. Hence on the basis of
capabilities neorealist categorize states as great and small powers. Number of great powers
shapes the nature of the international system. e.g. unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 2

Neorealist stability theory (polarity of power thesis):

From a neo realist perspective, bipolar systems are more stable and strengthen the likelihood
of peace. The long peace of the cold war was a result of three factors –

1. The bipolar distribution of military power.

2. The rough equality of military power between the U.S and the Soviet Union (Balance
of Power).
3. Pacifying effect of the presence of nuclear weapons. (Nuclear deterrence theory).
However unlike liberals, neo-realists are pessimistic about the prospects for peace in the post-
cold war unipolar world. According to waltz in international politics, unbalanced power
constitutes a danger even when it is American power that is out of balance.

Neorealist like John Mearsheimer also argues that the multipolar systems are notoriously less
stable then bipolar systems because the number of potential bilateral conflicts is greater,
deterrence is more difficult to achieve, and the potential for misunderstandings and
miscalculations of power and motive is increased. Moreover, multipolarity also creates a bias
in favour of fluidity and perhaps instability, as it leads to shifting alliances.

Anarchy and its implications:

Neorealist argue that international anarchy necessarily leads towards tension, conflict and the
unavoidable possibility of war because of three reasons -

1. Anarchy results into a system of ‘self-help’. States cannot count on anyone else to
take care of them.
2. Relationships between states in an anarchical system leads to uncertainty and
suspicion because of the presence of security dilemma.
3. Making relative gains (zero sum approach) – conflict is encouraged by the fact that
states are primarily concerned about maintaining or improving their position relative
to other states. Therefore, states prefer pursuing relative gains instead of absolute
gains. This discourages cooperation and reduces the effectiveness of international
institutions.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 3

Ken Booth and Nicholas Wheeler in their book “the security dilemma: fear,
cooperation and trust in world politics” (2008) give a detailed account of security
dilemma. According to Booth and Wheeler security dilemma describes a condition in
which actions taken by one actor to improve national security are interpreted as
aggressive by other actors, thereby provoking military countermoves. Thus, it involves
two component dilemmas. First is the dilemma of interpretation (what is the motive,
intentions and capabilities of others in building up military power). Second is the dilemma
of response (should they react in kind, or should they seek to signal reassurance and
attempt to defuse tension.

Defensive and offensive realism:

Two key questions in international politics points toward the debate between offensive and
defensive realist with in the neorealist theory. Following are the questions –

1. Does uncertainty and instability in the international system encourage states to

prioritize survival or to seek domination?
2. Are states content with maintaining national security, or do they seek ‘power after
power’?

According to offensive realist such as John Mearsheimer, combination of anarchy and

endemic uncertainty causes states to behave as power maximisers. Primary motivation for
states is to improve their position within the power hierarchy. In this view all states are would
be ‘hyper powers’ or ‘global hegemons’. Therefore, perpetual great power competition is
inevitable. Morgenthau is also an offensive realist and even Kautilya can be considered as an
offensive realist.

According to Mearsheimer, no state is fully secured until and unless there is huge gap
between its power and power of others. Hence, hegemony is the only condition for security. it
is noted that China is fast bridging this gap with respect to USA.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 4

John Mearsheimer in his book “the tragedy of great power politics” (2001) has explained
that Chinese are gaining and acquiring power not for defensive purposes but for offensive
purposes. He argues that Chinese attempts to gain power are an indication of their intention to
alter the status quo in Asia-Pacific. China is acquiring power not just to challenge US
hegemony, but to displace US hegemony.

Therefore, he cautions US foreign policy makers to not consider Chinese ambitions in terms
of security maximization despite Chinese claims of peaceful rise. US should not live in the
world of fantasy. The rise of China is not going to be peaceful. Thus, USA needs to adopt a
proactive policy to balance the rise of China as China is a revisionist state. Mearsheimer is
also known as post-Cold War realist.

Defensive realism has been given by theorist like Kenneth Waltz and M. Mastanduno who
argue that primary motivation of states is to guarantee their own security, in which case
power is only a means to an end. Therefore states are security maximisers.

According to Waltz, balance of power is the inherent feature of the structure of international
politics. If states pursue unlimited and extraordinary power, this may compel others to form
counter alliances and coalitions. Thus, there will be no change in the relative power.
Therefore, it makes more sense for states to pursue security maximization instead of power
maximization.

Hence, offensive realist suggests endless war and violence, while the latter suggests that
international affairs are characterized by peace and stability.

M. Mastundo – ‘Do relative gains matter? America’s response to Japanese industrial policy (1991) article

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 5

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 6