Review: Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

NEOCLASSICAL REALISM, THE STATE, AND FOREIGN POLICY Steven E. Lobell, Norrin Ripsman, and Jeffrey W Taliaferro, editors New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 327pp, $34.99 paper (ISBN 978-0-521-73192-8)This volume is the most sophisticated endeavour so far to sketch a neoclassical realist theory of foreign policy. Given the specialized nature of its content, it will be of significant and lasting interest for students of international relations and scholars already familiar with the main concepts of neoclassical realism.Neoclassical realism claims to account for the way that states respond to systemic constraints. In contrast with neorealism, it does not focus on outcomes - what states end up doing due to the influence of the international system - but on outputs - what states are likely to do. Consequently, neoclassical realism presents itself as a theory of foreign policy, since in practice states behave in ways that contradict systemic requirements. The authors assume that while a government's ability to obtain privileged intelligence on international events offers it a special understanding of systemic pressures, there is no way to predict how a state will actually respond to such pressures. This is why neoclassical realism examines both international variables, such as the global distribution of relative capabilities, and domestic ones, such as the state's ability to mobilize resources. Thus neoclassical realism claims to offer the best of both worlds: it is more useful than neorealism because it examines domestic politics and is superior to liberalism because it pays attention to systemic constraints. Hence, the authors' mission is to pinpoint the line that separates international and domestic influences on states' international conduct.For scholars who prefer an agnostic, case-specific approach to foreign policy, establishing a priori whether international or domestic influences have the upper hand in a given context might be a moot point. Clearly, both variables have to be considered. However, formulating a general answer to this question is a laudable goal, even though the volume's contributors disagree about what the answer is. In this respect, the book suggests that neoclassical realism has evolved into a family of neoclassical realist theories, comprising three alternative positions (10, 283-87).The first interpretation hews closely to Waltz's orthodox neorealism. It argues that domestic variables only come into play when explaining state behaviour that is anomalous from a systemic viewpoint. For instance, Randall Schweller posits that the lack of a mobilizing ideology explains the absence of violent expansionism since the Second World War. In the intervening years, no ideology has been able to replicate fascism's ability to marshal the necessary public support for aggressive war.Jeffrey Taliaferro, Norrin Ripsman, and Colin Dueck seize the middle ground in presenting a second perspective. They argue that domestic politics do affect foreign policy, but only in specific circumstances and up to certain limits. The international side ofthe equation determines the content ofthe policy, but the domestic side shapes its style and its timing. …