This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

In the study of international relations (IR), neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains (economic, strategic, etc.), rather than relative gains to other nation-states. The notion is often connected with neoliberal economic theory. International relations (IR), a branch of political science, is the study of foreign affairs of and relations among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs). ... The absolute gain of an antenna, for a given direction and polarization, is the ratio of (a) the power that would be required at the input of an ideal isotropic radiator to (b) the power actually supplied to the given antenna, to produce the same radiation intensity in the far... The term neoliberalism is used to describe a political-economic philosophy that had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects positive government intervention in the economy, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by...

Assumptions and predictions

Neoliberal IR thinkers often employ game theory to explain why states do or do not cooperate; ^[1]since their approach tends to emphasize the possibility of mutual wins, they are interested in institutions which can arrange jointly profitable arrangements and compromises. Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics and economics that studies situations where players choose different actions in an attempt to maximize their returns. ...

Neoliberalism is a response to Neorealism; while not denying the anarchic nature of the international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. The neoliberal argument is focused on the neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of cooperative behavior possible within... a decentralized system." ^[2] Both theories, however, consider the state and its interests as the central subject of analysis; Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are. This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... For neorealism in film or literature, see neorealism (art). ...

In terms of the scope of international theory, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on state as the primary unit of analysis. This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... For neorealism in film or literature, see neorealism (art). ...

Development

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of the neoliberal school of thought; Keohane's book After Hegemony is a classic of the genre. Another major influence is the hegemonic stability theory of Stephen Krasner, Charles Kindleberger, and others. To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ... Joseph Nye (born 1937) is the founder, along with Robert Keohane, of the international relations theory neoliberalism (international relations) developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. ... This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ... Stephen Krasner is currently the Director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State. ...

Contentions

Keohane and Nye

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, develop an opposing theory they dub "Complex Interdependence". Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, “…complex interdependence sometime comes closer to reality than does realism.” ^[3] In explaining this, Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions in realist thought: First, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations; second, force is a useable and effective instrument of policy; and finally, the assumption that there is a hierarchy in international politics. ^[4] For the various types of hierarchy, see hierarchy (disambiguation) A hierarchy (in Greek: , it is derived from -hieros, sacred, and -arkho, rule) is a system of ranking and organizing things or people, where each element of the system (except for the top element) is subordinate to a single other element. ...

The heart of Keohane and Nye’s argument is that in international politics there are, in fact, multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional Westphalian system of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their terminology; interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists; transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that states act coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states act coherently. It is through these channels that political exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channel as championed by realists. The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster by Gerard Terborch (1648) The Peace of Westphalia, also known as the treaties of Münster and Osnabrück, is the series of treaties that ended the Thirty Years War and officially recognized the United Provinces and Swiss Confederation. ... A multinational corporation (MNC) or transnational corporation (TNC) is one that spans multiple nations; these corporations are often very large. ... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with transnationalism. ...

Secondly, Keohane and Nye, argue that there is, in fact, not a hierarchy among issues, meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a states agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.

Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails. The idea is developed that between countries in which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact important to that "alliance’s political and military relations with a rival bloc."

Lebow

Richard Ned Lebow, who states that the failure of neo-realism lies in its “institutionalist” ontology, where as Kenneth Waltz states, “the creators [of the system] become the creatures of the market that their activity gave rise to.” This critical failure, according to Lebow, is due to the realists’ inability “to escape from the predicament of anarchy.” Or rather, the assumption that states do not adapt and will respond similarly to similar constraints and opportunities. ^[5] Kenneth N. Waltz is one of the most prominent scholars of international relations (IR) alive today. ...

Mearsheimer

Norman Angell, a classical LSE liberal, had held: "We cannot ensure the stability of the present system by the political or military preponderance of our nation or alliance by imposing its will on a rival." ^[6] Sir Ralph Norman Angell Lane (December 26, 1872 – October 7, 1967) was a British lecturer, writer, and Member of Parliament for the Labour Party. ... The London School of Economics and Political Science, often referred to as the London School of Economics or simply the LSE, is a specialist university[2] and a constituent college of the federal University of London, located on Houghton Street in Central London, off the Aldwych and next to the...

Keohane and Lisa L. Martin expound upon these ideas in the mid 1990s as a response to John J. Mearsheimer’s, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” where Mearsheimer purports that, “institutions cannot get states to stop behaving as short-term power maximizers.”^[7] In fact Mearsheimer’s article is a direct response to the liberal-institutionalist movement created in response to neo-realism. The central idea in Keohane and Martin’s idea is that neo-realism insists that, “institutions have only marginal effects…[which] leaves it [neo-realism] without a plausible account of the investments that states have made in such international institutions as the EU, NATO, GATT, and regional trading organizations.” ^[8] This idea is in keeping with the notion of complex interdependence. Moreover, Keohane and Martin argue that the fact that international institutions are created in response to state interests, that the real empirical question is “knowing how to distinguish the effects of underlying conditions from those from those of the institutions themselves.” ^[9] Professor John J. Mearsheimer John J. Mearsheimer (born December 1947) is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. ... NATO 2002 Summit in Prague The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation[1] (NATO), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance or the Western Alliance, is an international organisation for collective security established in 1949, in support of the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington, DC, on 4 April 1949. ... General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (usually abbreviated GATT) functions as the foundation of the WTO trading system, and remains in force, although the 1995 Agreement contains an updated version of it to replace the original 1947 one. ...

Mearsheimer, however, is concerned with ‘inner-directed’ institutions, which he states, “seek to cause peace by influencing the behavior of the member states.” In doing so he dismisses Keohane and Martin’s NATO argument in favor of the example of the European Community (EC) and the International Energy Agency. According to Mearsheimer, the NATO argument is an alliance and is interested in “an outside state, or coalition of states, which the alliance aims to deter, coerce, or defeat in war.” Mearsheimer reasons that since NATO is an alliance it has special concerns and concedes this point to Keohane and Martin. ^[10]

Mearsheimer attacks Martin’s research on the EC, particularly her argument on Argentine sanctions by Britain during the Falklands war, which were affected by Britain’s linking of issues in context of the EC. Mearsheimer, purports that the United States was is not a member of the EC and yet the US and Britain managed to cooperate on sanctions, effectively creating an ad hoc alliance which effected change in its member states.

References

See also

• Liberal international relations theory
• Institutionalism in international relations
• Neorealism
• Perpetual peace