On Realism and Neoliberal Institutionalism

I would like to draw your attention to the chart on page 494 of the summer of 1988 issue of International Organization, or as you might also know it page 10 of the first reading we had to do for class. On this page Joseph M. Grieco, the author, presents the reader with a graph showing the difference between realism liberal institutionalism and this new version of neoliberal institutionalism. While Mr. Grieco highlights only five topics, and surly there are more issues that liberalism and realism might agree or disagree on, these five topics are the fundamental foundations of realism according to Mr. Grieco. Thus when comparing neoliberal institutionalism with realism we notice that they agree, more or less, on three out of the five subjects and the two that they do disagree on are highly related to each other. The two issues that they disagree on, the ability of international institutions to facilitate cooperation and optimism or pessimism over the ability for cooperation, both have the issue of cooperation at their heart. Thus the only issue that it appears that realism and neoliberal institutionalism are arguing over is whether or not cooperation is possible in the long run, with or without international institutions. Mr. Grieco seems to think that it is not, since he proposes that cooperation might help one state more than the other, and this would thus relatively hurt one state and make them unwilling to cooperate. He also says that neoliberal institutionalists discount, or more accurately, don’t look at relative gain, and focus entirely on absolute gain. Thus since cooperation can create a situation where all sides gain absolutely, neoliberal institutionalists would believe that cooperation is possible. But the problem, in my opinion, with both of these arguments is that they are attempting to speak for all states, in all situations, in all times. I propose that the relationship between the two states that are interacting will determine whether or not the states are concerned with absolute or relative gains.

While ultimately realism is correct in its assumption of anarchy in the world system, I believe that this anarchy can be subdued in certain cases between states that wish to cooperate (but I acknowledge that ultimately there is nothing stopping one state from ceasing to cooperate and invading their idealistic neighbor). The Western European Democracies are a great example of this. Whether through economic, political or civilizational bonds (that is a debate for another day), these states have created a situation where cooperation is very possible. War is no longer thought to be a possibility between these states, they have created a supranational government, and they have tied their economies very closely together. This has removed many opportunities for relative gain in the hope of absolution gain for everyone. Thus neoliberal institutionalism is applicable in this situation.

But you could not hope to replicate these results in most other places of the world. Other countries do not have the bonds and the desires for absolute gains and instead focus on relative gains. It would be very difficult to convince countries such as Israel and Iran that they could each gain absolutely through cooperation. Thus realism is the best way to analyze these countries interactions with each other.

So I propose that scholars need to be able to look at different situations in different ways. No two countries are exactly alike and the relationships between countries are almost always different. So keep an open mind and be able to look at things from more than one perspective.

Matt Bank