Neoclassical Realist Theories, Intervening Variables, and Paradigmatic Boundaries

Abstract

Extant neoclassical realist scholarship has identified a range of real-world factors (e.g., state capacity, interest group pressure, strategic culture, and leadership personality) that serve as intervening variables between systemic imperatives and states’ foreign policy behavior. Despite these elaborations, the intervening variable concept remains underdeveloped. In this article, I show that neoclassical realists have lumped together three different types of causal factors under the label intervening variable: (1) moderating factors, (2) complementary factors, and (3) primary causes. Making these distinctions explicit will enable scholars to increase the analytical precision of neoclassical realist approaches, choose appropriate research designs to test them, and define more clearly the paradigmatic boundaries of neoclassical realism vis-à-vis other perspectives.

La política exterior de la Francia revolucionaria: una aproximación geopolítica desde el realismo neoclásico

“…El realismo neoclásico incluye en sus análisis una gran variedad de diferentes variables intervinientes de la primera y segunda imagen, lo que ha hecho que algunos autores las hayan agrupado en distintas categorías (Ripsman et al, 2016: 61-79;Götz, 2021). Estas categorías son la percepción de la realidad de los decisores políticos, la cultura estratégica, las relaciones entre el Estado y la sociedad, y la estructura del Estado.…”

The Remaking of China–EUrope Relations in the New Era of US–China Antagonism

“…As Götz noted, it seems that neoclassical realists use the term "intervening variable" to refer to factors that fulfill different causal roles within their theories. [53] Nevertheless, this potential shortcoming of neoclassical realism is compensated for by its high degree of focus and explanatory power. Therefore, in this paper, we adopt a neoclassical realist approach while allowing for its inherent definitional and conceptual ambiguities, such as variables being generated and applied in an ad hoc fashion.…”

Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history

“…In particular, history and historical processes as developed above underlie other unit-level variables rather than playing the moderating, complementing or even primary causal role unit-level factors such as perceptions, strategic culture or state capacity play elsewhere in neoclassical realist scholarship. 83 Here, thinking about 'history' (rather than a specific vehicle of historical content, so to speak, for example, analogies) as a variable creates more theoretical problems than opportunities. Instead, history seems to serve as a latent factor, a basis from which more active variables (such as perceptions, beliefs, ideology or strategic culture) can be drawn.…”

“…43 While characterised by considerable divergence, NCR can broadly be characterised by an 'outside-in' approach to the analysis of state behaviour and international politics. 44 Its initial gambit and best-known contribution has been the attempt 'to explain variations of foreign policy over time and space' by supplementing neorealism with unit-level variables that mediate the impact of systemic stimuli. 45 Some neoclassical realists deviate from neorealist 'baselines' primarily to explain historical 'mistakes' in which systemic drivers failed to generate expected behaviour ('type I').…”