Taking Stock of Neoclassical Realism

Abstract

Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Edited by Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 310 pp., $31.99 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-521-73192-8). Within contemporary realism literature, neoclassical realism, which seeks to combine both structural and domestic variables to explain state behaviors, has been where the action is (Sterling-Folker 1997; Rose 1998; Introduction, this volume). Admitting structural realism's notion that structure is an important factor for shaping state behavior, neoclassical realism adds a new assumption: structural impact has to be relayed to state behavior via domestic politics, especially state structure and leadership/elite's perception.2 Other than this core assumption, however, most neoclassical realists do not agree on what exactly shape states policies, and they have ventured far and wide in the past decade, generating an extensive literature. After more than a decade of robust growth, we definitely welcome a stock-taking of neoclassical realism. This volume explicitly seeks to do such a job, besides presenting some ongoing studies by some of the leading neoclassical realists. In their introduction, the volume's editors review the history of neoclassical realism. They refine the core of neoclassical realism by pitting it against classical realism, neorealism, and innenpolitik . They also outline neoclassical realism's conception of the state and international structure. Lastly, they demand that contributors look at the three stages of a state's (security) behavior (which they put as three key questions): strategic assessment (the volume focuses on threat assessment), strategy formulation, and implementation of strategy (which covers resources extraction and mobilization, and actual implementation). Most chapters in the volume (Brawley, Dueck, Lobell, Ripsman, Schweller, and Taliaferro) can be neatly classified according to their focus on the three stages. Fordham provides a methodological critique of neoclassical realism's (implicit) assumption that one can neatly separate domestic politics from structure. The concluding chapter sets out some direction for future research. The odd man out may be Sterling-Folker's contribution, which is more akin to the second image reversed approach …