The Neo-realist Theory of Kenneth Waltz

Kenneth Waltz is a benchmark author in international relations theory who successfully integrated the realist tradition with system theory. He is the primary reference for neo-realist synthesis in international relations. His works, many of which are considered classics in the field, include Man, State and War; Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics; and his masterwork Theory of International Politics. Man, State and War is a critique of the theories of Kant, Cobden, and Woodrow Wilson, based on the Hobbesian conception of international relations. In it, Waltz described three levels of analysis in international relations: the selfish nature of man, the behavior of states and institutions (national and international institutions) and the pressure of the international environment i.e. factors coming from outside of the state, such as war. The methodology of this work hailed from David Singers classic, Levels-of-Analysis Problem (1949), and K. Waltz addresses the question of whether to emphasize the behavioral differences between states or the normalizing power of the system towards behavioral convergence. Waltz did argue in favor of the primacy of external, systemic variables: war cannot be eliminated simply by changing the behavior of individuals or individual states. Nonetheless, this work falls within the tradition of pre-systemic realists. During the following decade, his research underwent an important evolution. In his 1964 article, The Stability of the Bipolar World, Waltz explicitly defended the rationality of the bipolar system, based on the complete opposition between the United States and the USSR: bipolarism leads to greater stability than multipolarism. The level of vulnerability, and thus likelihood of potential crisis, is diminished within the bipolar framework by stopping interdependence between the two blocs. But it is Waltzs 1979 work, Theory of International Politics, that is the pillar of neo-realist theory; it is not only his masterpiece, but a fundamental International Relations text that has been profusely commented by subsequent analysts. The first element of the work to be stressed is Waltzs methodology: by this book, he highlighted the difference between a real theory and a mere connection of empirical observations that neither explains the causes of international politics nor predicts their future evolution. He opposed empiricism in favor of methodological rapprochement between International Relations and deductive theory. According to Waltz, theory must evolve towards greater abstraction in order to understand the laws underpinning International Relations and thus to analyze and make predictions in the field. This theoretical ambition has planted him at the center of the methodological debate on International Relations for three decades. Unlike Kaplan and the realists, Waltz substantially reinforced the systemic approach by insisting on this point; the international system is characterized by eternal structural anarchy and systems analysis is the most important of the three levels of analysis. Each state acts according to its calculation of costs and benefits, but also adapts to external constraints and pressures. Waltz was aware of the existence of international interdependence, but insisted that this does not affect the inherent structural anarchy: on the contrary, interdependence aggravates states reciprocal 1

vulnerability and can thus engender real conflicts (commercial, economic, military, etc.). The international system is undirected, decentralized and anarchic, and no state has the right to give orders, no state has the obligation to obey. The use of force and the possibility that conflicts will devolve into armed conflict are everpresent. The anarchy of the international system creates insecurity for all actors and is the source of potential conflict. This structurally-generated insecurity exists independent of states or governments good will. Thus, unlike classical realism, neorealism is not simply based on the centrality of states. Waltzs theory has been called political structuralism i.e. political determinism based on the anarchy of the system (this has nothing to do with the economic determinism of the Marxist school or with French structuralism). Contrary to realist theory, he claimed that it is not human selfishness or states behavior, but the anarchic structure of the system that conceptualizes individual units as parts of an ensemble, distinct from the simple sum of these parts. This structure has three components: its ordering principle of structural anarchy, its functional distinctness and the all-important power distribution. Once the nature of the system is understood, power relations between its units must be considered. In this aspect, Waltzs systemic approach rejoins classic realist theory. Power is not only exercised in terms of military force but also of economic pressures and sanctions. According to Waltz, relations between states are based on a zero-sum game dynamic, in which there is always a winner and a loser. As a result, no unit acts to reinforce universal principles or international institutions but only to reinforce its power. Within the framework of a zero sum game, Waltz developed the security dilemma. No state can consider disarmament, if even one other state refuses to disarm; this is a characteristic of the systemic anarchy and the insecurity created by its decentralized structure. Rearmament of a single state creates uncertainty and necessitates the rearmament of the others, who do not really have a choice in the matter. states primary goal is to strengthen its chances of survival. Self defense is the necessary principle of action in an anarchic order. Once their security has been established, states can have other objectives such as peace, profit and increasing capabilities. In international politics, certain issues are considered low politics (commerce, civil relations) and others are high politics (security). According to Waltz, high politics always dominate low politics, as it is the essential issue to states survival. Even if security evolves with the existence of real or perceived threats; however, states can make autonomous choices to improve their power. Although the bipolar world guaranteed peace through nuclear deterrence, Waltz did not consider this an ideal. His reasoning is based on axiological neutrality he simply noted that the world had not experienced a major war (but only local wars) since 1945 but his analysis of international relations is devoid of any ideological or normative consideration. Moreover, in his 1979 work, he drew attention to the dangers of instability and warfare implied by the growing number of powers in the bipolar world: in a multipolar world, maintaining balance is more difficult, an error in calculation becomes easier, great powers run a greater risk of being drawn into conflicts with lesser ones. Waltzs reasoning is also highly conscious of the United States rise as the primary global superpower. He contended that an actor is powerful to the degree that it can affect others more than the others can affect it 2

and highlighted that the United States manages to modify other states behavior, even against their will. The reason for this is quite simple: states whose behavior is maladjusted to the system inevitably suffer more than states that are sensitive to the system. Waltzs theory has been the object of several critics and certain important theoretical questions remain unanswered (even among neo-realist enthusiasts, such as J. Grieco and others): Waltzs theoretical model is too static and determinist; it does not account for systemic change. His theory does not explain the process of evolution from one system to another. According to Waltz, the substance of international politics does not vary over time. Change is confined to the micro-level, which does not affect the system; the power relations between two states can evolve and change, but not the anarchic structure. Robert O. Keohane and others highlighted that Waltzs theory does not adequately explain the importance of cooperation, as states increasingly collaborate with one another. It underestimates international regimes, associations and organizations and the effects of interdependence in terms of reinforcing cooperation. Waltz and the neo-realists responded that: a) cooperation is difficult due to systemic constraints, even where states have common interests: they run the risk of being betrayed by their partners (defection); b) states risk functional division in the framework of multilateral free trade (which can impair both their security and independence): although the specialization implied by international free commerce highlights comparative advantage, it also implies increased vulnerability; c) the advantage of cooperation is always asymmetrical. Waltz did not take into account European integration (EC), which has consolidated peace between Germany and its neighbors, the success of the common market and the complementary economic and political achievements. Stephen Krasner alleged that interdependence leads to increased possibility of constructing international regimes, thus limiting international anarchy and national sovereignty. This perspective, together with the EC, was ignored by Waltz. According to the transnational school, Waltz underestimates transnational flows. International networks that are independent of states develop in parallel with interstate relations: e.g. economic actors or transnational businesses which act outside of their national borders, independent of states politics. Multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, various churches, etc. are all transnational actors who operate independent of interstate relations. Waltz was convinced that it is always states that establish the terms of relations (with non-state actors); when the critical moment arrives, it is states that change the rules allowing other actors to operate. The so-called governance theory, whose primary proponent is James Rosenau, emphasizes the sociological phenomena of change in global society. According to this theory, the level of decision-making is no longer that of the state alone, as non-state forms of government have multiplied: regions, private actors, NGOs, etc. participate informally in decision-making. In other words, the actors who play a role in politics have multiplied, which affects Waltzs statecentric model. 3

Theorists of international political economy dispute the purely instrumental role that Waltz attributes to the economy i.e. economics will never be a fundamental variable, though always an issue in political conflict. Finally, many have criticized Waltz for not adequately considering domestic factors that complicate political rationality and compromise the unity of states. This critique is particularly made by theorists of non-systemic approaches, whereas the others are leveled by various systems theorists.

Nonetheless, Waltzs theoretical rigor remains a milestone for the discipline, which has inspired a number of spinoff theories in both the United States and Europe: neither wishful thinking nor contingencies based on mere empirical facts can match the strength of his arguments.