The field of international politics is a vastly complex field that can be difficult to interpret and make sense of. There is no supreme governing power, only sovereign states. Theories can be used as a sort of lens to find patterns in the behavior of states and determine how likely cooperation is in the international system. In this essay, I will be presenting the Neorealist argument that states are self-interested actors concerned with security and survival, and the Neoliberal Institutionalist argument that states are self-interested actors primarily concerned with economic gain. Despite some basic similarities, both have markedly different views on the possibility of cooperation and how likely it is to occur.
There are some key terms and …show more content…
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a game used in international relations to demonstrate the potential outcomes of two states choosing to either cooperate or defect (Jervis). Neorealists analyze the game by assuming only one round is played and the two participants cannot communicate, meaning that the most beneficial outcome for each party involved can only be achieved by defecting. Neoliberal Institutionalists changed the nature of the game by assuming participants can communicate and multiple rounds can be played. In this scenario, it becomes evident that the most beneficial outcome for both parties can be achieved through mutual cooperation. Neoliberal Institutionalists apply this to the international system by looking at the role of institutions and examining how much states value the legitimacy of them. Jervis writes that, “The best situation is one which a state will not suffer greatly if others exploit it… (that is, the costs of CD are low); but it will pay a high long-run price if cooperation with others breaks down… (that is, the costs of DD are …show more content…
Neorealists are more pessimistic in their view that cooperation is unlikely unless it is essential to the security and survival of a state; cooperation may take the form of balancing against or bandwagoning with a state that is posing a threat. Instead of viewing cooperation as an unlikely occurrence, Neoliberal Institutionalists consider cooperation a tool to advance a state’s own interests of economic gain. Both theories are an attempt to make sense of the international system and analyze how states behave within the anarchic
There are some key terms and …show more content…
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a game used in international relations to demonstrate the potential outcomes of two states choosing to either cooperate or defect (Jervis). Neorealists analyze the game by assuming only one round is played and the two participants cannot communicate, meaning that the most beneficial outcome for each party involved can only be achieved by defecting. Neoliberal Institutionalists changed the nature of the game by assuming participants can communicate and multiple rounds can be played. In this scenario, it becomes evident that the most beneficial outcome for both parties can be achieved through mutual cooperation. Neoliberal Institutionalists apply this to the international system by looking at the role of institutions and examining how much states value the legitimacy of them. Jervis writes that, “The best situation is one which a state will not suffer greatly if others exploit it… (that is, the costs of CD are low); but it will pay a high long-run price if cooperation with others breaks down… (that is, the costs of DD are …show more content…
Neorealists are more pessimistic in their view that cooperation is unlikely unless it is essential to the security and survival of a state; cooperation may take the form of balancing against or bandwagoning with a state that is posing a threat. Instead of viewing cooperation as an unlikely occurrence, Neoliberal Institutionalists consider cooperation a tool to advance a state’s own interests of economic gain. Both theories are an attempt to make sense of the international system and analyze how states behave within the anarchic