Neorealism was formulated by Kenneth Waltz in the year 1979. The idea developed as a reaction by realists to emerging forces that came as a result of globalization, increased interdependence between different nations, and the re-emergence of the cold war. Structural realism managed to handle some of the shortcomings associated with classical realism. Despite this, it did not accurately predict and explain the stopping of cold war that developed and the fall of the Soviet Union. The failure was as a result of ignoring domestic politics in its structure. This became a main flaw in the idea of Neorealism.
According to Waltz, international relations is a system in which a variety of parties that represent countries associate with one another. In addition, he sees the structure as a method that arranges the countries in association with one another. By having an insight into the location of a country, it is possible to explain both the behavior of a nation and predict it too. However, it is not possible to exactly foretell what the country will specifically do.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Structural realism does not consider the impact of policies and conduct of countries on international politics. Instead, the idea argues that the results of a country’s policies rely mostly on the change of the structure around which an action happens. As a result, by trying to understand relationship at the state level, Waltz omitted all aspects that are not related to this process. The omitted parts include a country’s history, ideology, cultural practices, and both economic and political institutions. However, he did not deny the fact that they are important. He then clarified that because capability is a feature of the state, it cannot be incorporated in defining the structure which should omit any element of the nations including their conduct and associations. In addition, distribution capabilities between the states within the structure is a characteristic of the system.
Waltz brings out the difference between the old realism and the new realism in a clear and concise way. Old realism is behavioral while new realism is structural. In the old realism, good states give good results while the bad countries give bad results. He therefore refutes the claims that neorealism is old realism turned vigorous. Critics claim that structural theory does not put into consideration the impact of policies and conduct of nations on international politics. In response to this, Waltz states that they are exempted because the theory is not about foreign policy but about international politics. From an neorealism perspective, external forces are known to determine the conduct of a State. The theory does not mention the impact of the internal forces on the behavior of states. Considering this fact, critics argue that the theory requires help from outside the theory itself. However, Waltz brings out a difference between accounts and theory which seems to provide clarity in this matter. In the text, accounts relating what happen and explanations for the events are not theory.
In conclusion, Waltz impressive effort to systemize classical realism foundations provides a challenge to new theories to become self-conscious in their ideas and in line with their internal logic. As Waltz states, confusion starts with a misunderstanding of a theory is developed and failure to understand what it can or not accomplish. Also, as asserted by Waltz, it comes out clearly that a theory is meant to assist in explaining what goes on in a certain realm of activities. Therefore, criticizing a theory because of its omissions appears odd due to the mere fact that a theory is mainly omission.
