Neoclassical Realism: Challengers and Bridging Identities

Abstract

This article anchors neoclassical realism (NCR) as a solid theoretical framework which departs from Wendtian constructivism, Moravcsik's liberal theory, and Putnam's two‐level game liberalism. NCR moves away from these other approaches by bridging three divides: the spatial (domestic–international), the cognitive (matter‐ideas), and the temporal (present–future). What matters is not what states have to do because the structure compels them so (as Waltz and Wendt would want us to believe). Looking at what domestic interest groups want states to do (as Moravcsik and Putnam suggest) is also unsatisfactory. Rather, what can states do to represent domestic economic interests within the predefined geopolitical context? The argument here is that a version of geopolitical structure is external to the state and binds. However, a perceptual layer at the level of state policymaker affects the operationalization of that structure. Domestic economic forces make themselves felt through state‐level policymakers, but only within the predefined context of binding structural factors that constrain. The findings from this study are vastly different from previous studies, suggesting that NCR's triple bridging identity distinguishes it from other IR theories.

Kenneth Waltz is not a neorealist (and why that matters)

“…Recent neorealist contributions have also repeated the Waltz-as-materialist misreading (e.g. Foulon, 2015: 637).…”

“…12 Moreover, in critical discussions of their own research, neorealists have emphasised the same criteria as Legro and Moravcsik: neorealism should generate empirically testable hypotheses and predictive capacities in the manner of a scientific research paradigm (e.g. Elman and Elman, 1997; Foulon, 2015: 635–638, 649ff; Lobell et al, 2009; Lynn-Jones, 1995: 663–664; Ripsman et al, 2016; Rose, 1998; Taliaferro, 2001: 129–134).…”

Realist avenues to global International Relations

“…What allows NCR to address these potential shortcomings of non-Western theorizing is that it attempts to theorize progressively and bridge materialism and idealism as well as structure and agency (Brown, 2013: 488–489; Foulon, 2015; Sears, 2017; Zhang, 2017: 291). NCR offers a way to operationalize non-Western knowledge and scholars within a realist framework that places causal primacy in the material structure of the international environment.…”

The Duterte method: A neoclassical realist guide to understanding a small power’s foreign policy and strategic behaviour in the Asia-Pacific

“…Hence, a neoclassical realist guide to foreign policy emphasizes a three-way direct causal chain that links together clearly indicated explanatory, explained and intervening variables. It is precisely by bridging the spatial divide between the domestic and the international, the cognitive divide between matter and ideas and the temporal divide between present and future that neoclassical realism is able to mitigate the problems inherent in other approaches such as Putnam’s two-level game liberalism, Moravcsik’s liberal theory and Wendtian constructivism (Foulon, 2015: 635). As Christensen (1996: 252) succinctly put it: ‘It does not simply state that domestic politics matter in foreign policy, but specifies the conditions under which they matter’.…”

The Trade Policy of Emerging Countries

“…Also, by relating automatically to liberalism and shifting the focus to the domestic sphere, the author denies that there are international and geopolitical elements that constrain domestic options. Foulon (2015), for instance, shows some examples of how a predefined geopolitical structure can limit…”