NEO-LIBERALISM
a. Two seminal works that marked a break from the existing liberal tradition in international
relations are Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy (1984) and Robert Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation (1981).
b. These publications introduced a new conceptual framework in liberal studies which has come to
be called as Neo-liberalism. The use of the ‘neo-liberal’ label is no doubt because the theories
developed by Keohane and Axelrod shared a lot with neo-realism.
c. They accepted the two basic assumptions of international anarchy and rational egoism of states to
show that it was possible for rational egoists to cooperate even in anarchic systems. They also
drew on material from the same kind of sources as the neorealists- in particular game theory,
public choice and rational choice theory
d. Neo-liberals believe that peace and justice are not natural conditions. They are products of
intentional designs.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM VS NEO-LIBERALISM
1. To begin with Liberal thought had not addressed the question of anarchy in the international
system. Neo-liberals accepted the neorealist proposition that the international system is anarchic,
but rejected the realist assertion that this condition would lead to conflict. Instead, Neo-liberals
emphasised the centrality of cooperation in international politics. An important question that they
pose to the Realists is “If the anarchic international system necessarily creates a self-help
environment-a war of all against all as Hobbes suggested -then why is war not more common?”
2. Neo-liberals also differ from classical liberals on the causes of conflict. As we saw, liberalism had
emphasized on the centrality of human nature and argued that conflict and war was the result of
bad actors or failure of cooperation. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, stress on the importance of
international institutions in structuring international environment in ways that mitigates against
anarchy. In other words, causes for conflict cannot be traced to human nature, but to the presence
or absence of international institutions.
3. Neo-Liberalism differs with Liberalism on the question of important actors in global politics.
Liberalism tends to emphasise the importance of individual agents as actors in global politics.
Individual choice and psychology tend to play an important role in the Liberal explanations and
analysis. In sharp contrast, Neo-liberals accept the Realist assertion that the state is the most
important actor though they add international institutions as essentially as collections of states as
well. They accept the Neorealist claim that the state is a rational actor and that it engages in cost
benefit analysis in pursuit of defined goals. Liberals would not be necessarily comfortable with
this claim.
4. Neo-liberalism differs with Liberalism in its analysis of conflicts. Liberalism is generally
historical and philosophical in their orientation, explaining conflict in specific historical context.
It draws extensively on fields like political theory and philosophy. Neo-liberal explanations of
conflicts, on the other hand, tend to be more focused on a historical structural explanations.
Neo-liberals draw extensively from game theory and behavioural economics rather than history
and philosophy in their analysis. Neo-liberals often use concepts from game theory to show how
the structure of the international system can force particular outcomes or can lead to situations
where rational decision making which may appear to be rational but which lead to suboptimal
outcomes.
