On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism

Abstract

Both Gideon Rose's neoclassical realism and Andrew Moravcsik's liberalism attempt to solve the problem of how to incorporate domestic factors into international relations theory. They do so in very different ways, however. Liberalism is a “bottom-up” perspective that accords analytic priority to societal preferences; neoclassical realism is a “top-down” perspective that accords analytic priority to systemic pressures and treats domestic factors as intervening variables. These two approaches are not equivalent, and the choice between them has high stakes. Although it has gained rapidly in popularity, neoclassical realism is fundamentally flawed. Its intellectual justification is weak; it is logically incoherent; and it induces the commission of methodological errors. Realism can incorporate certain domestic factors without losing its theoretical integrity, but it does not need and should not use neoclassical realism to do so.

Realist avenues to global International Relations

“…Due in part to this broad thrust, NCR has developed into the new orthodoxy for realists (Narizny, 2017: 155). However, NCR has also attracted criticism from within and outside the approach.…”

“…However, NCR has also attracted criticism from within and outside the approach. Critics argue that NCR lacks theoretical consistency, employs intervening variables ad hoc, and theorizes in a regressive and degenerative manner (Legro and Moravcsik, 1999; Narizny, 2017; Rathbun, 2008; NR Smith, 2018; Wivel, 2005: 367–370). In response, NCR’s advocates order their intervening variables in two ways: one is to systematize the intervening variables’ likely interaction and influence on state behavior (Ripsman et al, 2016); another is to categorize the different intervening variables, which highlights the differences and richness within NCR (Onea, 2012; Quinn, 2013; Rathbun, 2008; NR Smith, 2018; Taliaferro, 2000; Wivel, 2005).…”

Uluslararası Ekonomi Politikte Neoklasik Realizme Duyulan İhtiyaç: Avrasya Ekonomi Topluluğu

“…Ancak neoklasik realizm özü itibariyle ad hoc olması riskini taşımaktadır ki gerçekten de yaklaşımın ortaya çıktığı ilk dönemlerde bu durum bizzat neoklasik realistler tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir (Ripsman et al, 2016, p. 9). Bu bakımdan literatürde neoklasik realizmin esasında realizmin ana ilkelerini göz ardı ettiği (Legro & Moravcsik, 1999), yapısal yaklaşımlara ek bir analiz boyutu katmadığı (Rathbun, 2008), daha da önemlisi eklektik olmasından dolayı ampirik olarak kanıtlanabilir bulunmadığı (Smith, 2018) ve bu yüzden esasında terk edilmesi gereken bir yaklaşım olduğu yönünde önemli eleştirileri yer almaktadır (Narizny, 2017). Nitekim Ripsman, Taliaferro ve Lobell de bu riskin bulunmasından dolayı yukarıda sayılan dört parametre ile neoklasik realizmi sistemik hale getirmeye çalışmıştır.…”

“…Nitekim Ripsman, Taliaferro ve Lobell de bu riskin bulunmasından dolayı yukarıda sayılan dört parametre ile neoklasik realizmi sistemik hale getirmeye çalışmıştır. Yine de realizmin temel varsayımlarından olan gücün temelinin materyal kapasitede yattığı varsayımını geri plana iterek sosyal inşacılığın varsayımı olan kimlikleri ve fikirleri ön plana çıkarmakla eleştirilmekten geri kalmamış ve esasında realist inşacılık (realist constructivism) olarak nitelendirmenin daha uygun olacağını vurgulamıştır (Barkin, 2010;Narizny, 2017). Bu bakımdan epistemolojik ve ontolojik olarak tutarsız bulunmaktadır (Smith, 2018).…”

Making Europe Defend Again

“…By adding domestic or unit-level variables to systemic ones, these critics claim, neoclassical realists have engaged in "post hoc efforts to explain away the anomalies of neorealism, making use of whatever tools are necessary to plug the holes of a sinking ship" (in the words of Rathbun [2008: 295], himself a strong proponent of neoclassical realism). The result, critics argue, is a degenerative research paradigm that lacks coherence and is indistinct from alternative research paradigms such as liberalism and constructivism (Vasquez 1997; Legro -Moravcsik 1999;Narizny 2017). In response to such criticisms, neoclassical realists assert that the incorporation of domestic variables extends the limited explanatory range of Waltzian neorealism, which "makes no claim to explain foreign policy or specific historical events" (Schweller 2003: 317), thus making neoclassical realism "a logical and necessary extension of structural realism" (Rathbun 2008).…”