Structural Realism Vs Neo Liberalism Essay

The article “The Neoliberal Arts: How college sold its souls to the market,” is a really good representation on what college is now and what it is trying to make of the students they have in their institution. In my own opinion the statement “the worth of a person is the wealth of the person” that William Deresiewicz published is true in the 21st century. Now days you are no one if you don’t have a least a little money. Like what was said “neoliberalism is the ideology that reduces all values to money values.” You are only of value if your getting and spending.

The state consists of a society as it has citizens living there. States uniquely enjoy their sovereignty in international relations as it can legitimately possess coercive military power and create economic wealth form their territory. States can declare wars, as they have the ability to control most of the economic influence within a region. Larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region. Based on Neorealism, the state plays a very important role in international relations and possesses power to ensure domestic security and economy stability.

Realism focuses on the theory self preservation and that rules are created by governments to protect its people which would also help prevent conflict. However international politics can not be credited with this. (Lebow, 2007) Waltz argued that the continued lack of ‘world government’ leads to violence between states. It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation.

“Neoliberalism is considered to be the dominant ideology that is shaping our world day. ”(Thorsen and Lie, 2009, p. 1). There is however, no one true definition to neoliberalism as it is very diverse in terms of covering a lot of aspects of economic, cultural, and social terrains. This era came about with the introduction of Structural Adjustment policies stemming from the Bretton Woods System, Washington Consensus, World Bank, and the IMF (http://globalsocialtheory.org/topics/neoliberalism). There was also an increase in the number of capitalist theories claiming to be the “better” way for society to become developed.

The essay will then attempt to explore the differences between liberalism and neo liberalism. Next the essay shall explore the tenets of neo liberalism. It will then proceed to argue on the pros and cons of neoliberalism as an ideology and policy. Lastly the essay will conclude by offering the authors view on neoliberalism. 2.

3. Dominant Ideologies. It is clear from these texts that this world at that time was embedded in neoliberal frameworks a framework which honours the individual and constant self-improvement. I do not hesitate to call the individual who owned these item a neoliberal subject, whether they were knowingly so remains up for debate. It appears neoliberalism in some cases was an unavoidable, dominant ideology because of the way it took form both socially and politically.

Realism theorists emphasize that the anarchical international system command states to position security as their main interest because other states have a tendency to look opportunities to take benefit of each other by any means such as getting advantage from military force. This notion derived from the philosophy of necessity which views states actions as a result of predictable condition. In addition, realism view states violence as a result of the prevalent power struggle in international system. As Morgenthou said, “International politics is struggle for power”. Within this conditions the daily life in international system is always characterize by struggle among states with the possibility of war in the background.

Power is the key factor for all Realists. However, there are also some diversities within them about the idea of ‘’why do states want power?’’ Classical realists related this with human nature but structural realists are associated it with international system. Every state should pursue power in order to survive in the anarchy of international system according to structural realists. There are some assumptions between structural realists to get power.

The economic theory of neoliberalism is based on the premise that government cannot create economic growth or provide social welfare. It is the private companies, private individuals and the unhindered markets that are best able to generate economic growth and social welfare. The philosophy of neoliberalism is supported by powerful nations and transnational corporations. Transnational corporations that have subsidiaries in several countries, control much of the world’s investment capital and have access to international markets. Neoliberalism is the updated version of the liberal economics of the 18th and 19th centuries that supports the philosophy that unlimited competition in a free market is the best way to organise an economy because it forces everyone to perform with maximum efficiency.

The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military

Why do many neorealists liken states in the international system to firms in a capitalist market?  How valid is that analogy? Neorealism has emerged as a contemporary theory that attempts to explain the interaction of states on an international level. Oftentimes neorealists compare states in the international system and firms in a capitalist market. There are a number of factors that can be described as similarities or differences between the two and for the sake of brevity, only a few will be discussed below.

Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar.

If not, why not? If so, why so? Neorealism encompasses the following foundational assumptions – anarchy as the structural feature in international politics and in it, every state shares the wish to survive (Hopf Lecture 27 Jan). To survive in an anarchic world, “self-help is necessarily the principle of action” (Waltz 1979, p.108) . These assumptions apply to every state, resulting in functional similarities as states strive for survival.

He presents neoliberalism as a concrete and stagnate, arguing that there is no room for evolution and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are just ciphers for these theories onto the rest of the developing world. Harvey presents neoliberal as having the presumption of perfect information and a level playing field, a utopian-esque view that results in the concentration of wealth and restoration of class power. A contradicting binary between possessive individualism and the desire to live a collective life is born from neoliberal policies. He argues that although individuals are free to choose what they want, they are only able to choose what the state has put forth as the neoliberal substitute. Simply put, neoliberalism uniformly promotes the pursuit of individual freedoms through the shift of power from the state to unaccountable institutions.

3 A BRIEF HISTORY OF NEOLIBERALISM Harvey (2005:2-3) writes that neoliberalism is a theory of political economy practices that purposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. The state has to guarantee for example, the quality and integrity of money. It must also set up those military, defence, policy and legal structures as well as functions required to secure private property rights and to guarantee the proper functioning of markets. Furthermore, if markets do