The Neoliberal World: From Theory to Practice in International Organizations

The intricate tapestry of today's global landscape is significantly shaped by the principles of neoliberalism, an ideology that champions free-market economics and minimal government intervention. This intricate interplay between theory and practice, especially within the realms of international organizations, forms the crux of the topic 'The Neoliberal World: From Theory to Practice in International Organizations.' Central to this narrative is the journey of neoliberal thought from its intellectual inception to its tangible impacts on global economic policies, as seen through the workings of pivotal international institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. These bodies, initially forged to foster global cooperation and development, have often been perceived as conduits for neoliberal agendas – promoting deregulation, free trade, privatization, and austerity.

This exploration commences with a backdrop of the historical evolution of neoliberalism, tracing its roots from the post-war era, guided by the philosophies of figures such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. This theoretical foundation is crucial for understanding the subsequent translation of these ideas into the policies and operations of international organizations. A significant aspect of this discussion revolves around the varied implications of neoliberal policies. These include their impact on global economic disparities, social welfare, and the autonomy of nations, particularly in less developed regions. The role of international organizations in either perpetuating or challenging these policies is examined, weighing the complexities of global economic integration against the needs and rights of individual nations and communities. This topic invites a reflective examination of neoliberalism beyond its economic dimensions, considering its broader implications in shaping the contours of international governance and global relations. It's a discourse that encourages a critical appraisal of an ideology that, for better or worse, has been a defining force in shaping our world.

Exploring Neoliberalism

The Dynamics of International Cooperation under Neoliberalism

The recognition of the potential for cooperation among states and various actors in the international arena, despite the presence of significant challenges, is a key understanding within international relations and political science. This view is cognizant of the intricate and frequently demanding task of nurturing collaboration in an environment characterized by varying interests and power imbalances. Importantly, it underscores the vital function that international institutions and regimes perform in aiding this collaborative process.

International institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and regional alliances, offer essential platforms where states and other global actors can come together to discuss and address common issues. These institutions provide structured settings for dialogue and decision-making, allowing for the management of complex global concerns that surpass national boundaries, like environmental sustainability, economic development, and peacekeeping efforts. Similarly, international regimes — which include sets of norms, rules, and decision-making procedures in specific areas of international relations — play a pivotal role in standardizing behaviors and expectations. Examples include the regimes governing human rights, arms control, and climate change agreements. These frameworks contribute to a sense of predictability and order, encouraging states to align their actions with established norms and rules. In doing so, they help to mitigate the inherently anarchic nature of international relations by offering a guide for states' conduct.

This perspective on cooperation in international relations illustrates that while achieving collaboration among diverse and often competing entities is challenging, the structures and mechanisms of international governance have evolved to support and promote cooperative interactions. These institutions and regimes not only facilitate dialogue and consensus-building but also help in building trust, disseminating information, and incentivizing adherence to collective agreements. Thus, they are instrumental in transforming the global landscape into a more cooperative and orderly system, contributing significantly to international stability and collective progress. While the path to cooperation is fraught with challenges, the architecture of international governance has evolved to make it more attainable. These institutions and regimes not only provide the forums and frameworks for cooperation but also help build trust among states, facilitate the sharing of information, and create incentives for compliance. They play a pivotal role in transforming the international system into a more ordered and cooperative domain, thereby contributing to global stability and progress.

Crafting Global Solutions: The Role of International Institutions

The creation and refinement of international institutions, including prominent entities like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and various regional organizations, have played a crucial role in establishing forums for international engagement and cooperation. These institutions serve as vital platforms for dialogue, negotiation, and decision-making among states and other global actors.

In these structured environments, diverse entities can come together to address and deliberate on shared concerns, fostering a collaborative approach towards common objectives. The significance of these institutions lies in their ability to offer organized and consistent mechanisms for dealing with a range of global challenges. They facilitate conflict resolution, aid in the equitable distribution of resources, and assist in the development of cohesive policies. This is particularly important in the context of issues that cross national borders, such as environmental sustainability, international commerce, and maintaining international peace and security.

Through these institutions, states and other participants have access to a framework for constructive interaction. This framework is essential for managing the complexities inherent in global governance, where unilateral actions are often insufficient and sometimes counterproductive. By providing a means for collective problem-solving and decision-making, these institutions enhance the ability of the international community to respond effectively to challenges that require cooperative, multilateral solutions. This has not only contributed to the stability and progress of the international system but has also underscored the importance of shared responsibility and collaboration in addressing the global issues of our time.

The Influence of International Regimes in Neoliberalism

International regimes play a distinct and vital role in the fabric of global governance, representing the collective principles, norms, rules, and decision-making processes that guide state and non-state actors in various domains of international relations. These regimes, which can be explicit, like formal treaties, or implicit, like generally accepted behaviors, serve as crucial structures around which actors align their expectations and actions in specific areas.

Notable examples of such regimes include the international human rights regime, which is based on a set of universally recognized principles and norms that guide state behavior in the treatment of individuals. The non-proliferation regime, which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is another key example, consisting of treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and associated norms and verification mechanisms. Environmental regimes, like the Paris Agreement, focus on issues of global environmental concern, setting out rules and targets for states to follow in order to mitigate environmental challenges, particularly climate change.

These regimes contribute significantly to creating predictability and stability in international relations. By providing a set of agreed-upon norms and rules, they enable states to anticipate the actions of others, which is crucial in a system where uncertainty can lead to conflict or instability. This predictability encourages states to cooperate, as aligning their policies with these norms and rules often leads to mutual benefits and helps in avoiding conflicts.

Furthermore, international regimes help in mitigating the inherently anarchic nature of the international system. In the absence of a central global authority, these regimes offer a framework through which state and non-state actors can understand and manage their interactions. This framework not only guides behavior but also provides mechanisms for dispute resolution and enforcement, thereby facilitating a more ordered and cooperative international environment.

International regimes are fundamental in shaping how global issues are addressed, fostering a collaborative and coordinated approach among diverse international actors. They play a key role in transforming the often chaotic nature of international relations into a more structured and predictable system, enabling more effective and cooperative management of global challenges.

Foundational Assumptions of Neoliberal Thought

State-Centric Perspectives in Neoliberalism: A Comparative Analysis with Structural Realism

The Role of States as Principal Actors in International Relations

Neoliberalism and structural realism in international relations theory do indeed share some foundational views, especially regarding the nature of states as key actors in the international arena. Both theories see states as unitary and rational entities, primarily driven by the goal of maximizing their utility. However, the nuances in how they perceive cooperation and the role of international institutions mark a significant divergence in their theoretical frameworks.

In neoliberalism, the state is conceptualized as a cohesive entity that makes strategic decisions to maximize its national interests. These interests are often framed in terms of accumulating power, securing national security, and achieving economic growth. This perspective aligns closely with the structural realist or neorealist view, which posits that states, acting within an anarchic international system devoid of a central governing authority, are motivated primarily by the need to ensure their survival and to increase their relative power vis-à-vis other states.

However, neoliberalism differs from structural realism in its more optimistic view of the potential for cooperation among states. Neoliberals argue that despite the anarchic nature of the international system, states can and do engage in cooperative relations, particularly when it aligns with their self-interests. This cooperation is often facilitated by international institutions and regimes, which play a critical role in reducing transaction costs, establishing reliable information channels, and creating predictable environments for state interaction. Neoliberalism suggests that these institutions do not just reflect the power dynamics of the international system but can also influence state behavior and outcomes in their own right.

Structural realism, on the other hand, is more skeptical about the extent and durability of international cooperation. From this perspective, the absence of a central authority in the international system compels states to prioritize their security and power, often leading to competitive and conflictual relations. While structural realists do not deny the occurrence of cooperation, they view it as more ephemeral and always subordinate to the overriding concern of relative power gains.

While both neoliberalism and structural realism view states as unitary, rational actors in an anarchic international system, they diverge in their assessments of the nature and potential of state cooperation. Neoliberalism is more inclined towards recognizing the role of international institutions in facilitating cooperation, while structural realism remains focused on the constraints imposed by the anarchic system and the consequent prioritization of power and security by states.

Neoliberal Optimism: The Efficacy of International Institutions and Regimes

The distinction between neoliberalism and structural realism in the context of international relations theory becomes particularly pronounced when considering their respective views on international cooperation and the role of international institutions. Neoliberalism adopts a more optimistic stance regarding the capacity of international institutions and regimes to foster state cooperation, a viewpoint that differentiates it significantly from structural realism.

Neoliberalism posits that while states remain the primary actors in the international system, they are capable of engaging in cooperative behavior when it aligns with their interests. This perspective emphasizes the constructive role that international institutions play in facilitating such cooperation. According to neoliberal thought, these institutions help to lower the costs associated with cooperation, making it a more attractive option for states. By providing frameworks for information sharing, dispute resolution, and collective decision-making, international institutions reduce the uncertainty inherent in an anarchic international system. They create environments where states can align their actions toward mutual or collective goals, going beyond mere self-interest to address broader global challenges.

These institutions are seen not just as arenas for state interaction but as active agents that can shape the behavior of states. They contribute to creating norms and standards that guide state conduct, offering mechanisms for monitoring compliance and enforcing agreements. In doing so, they enhance the predictability and stability of international relations, encouraging states to adhere to agreed-upon rules and norms, which in turn facilitates ongoing cooperation.

In contrast, structural realism, while not entirely discounting the possibility of cooperation, tends to view it with more skepticism. Structural realists argue that the lack of a central authority in the international system leads states to prioritize their security and power. This focus on relative gains and survival can limit the scope and durability of cooperative endeavors, as states remain wary of becoming too dependent on or vulnerable to others. Consequently, structural realism sees international institutions primarily as reflections of the existing power structure, where more powerful states use these institutions to maintain their dominance.

The key distinction between neoliberalism and structural realism lies in their perceptions of international cooperation. Neoliberalism is more affirmative about the role of international institutions in enabling and sustaining cooperative state behavior, viewing these institutions as crucial facilitators and shapers of the international order. Structural realism, meanwhile, maintains a more cautious view, focusing on the constraints of the anarchic system and the ongoing competition for power and security among states.

The Strategic Value of Interdependence Among Nations

Neoliberalism's emphasis on the interdependence of states, particularly in economic matters, is a defining aspect that differentiates it from structural realism in the realm of international relations theory. This perspective underscores the interconnectedness of states in the global economy and posits that such interdependence fosters cooperative behaviors and adherence to international norms and agreements.

From the neoliberal viewpoint, economic interdependence among nations creates a scenario where states stand to gain more from cooperation than from unilateral action. This is because the intricate web of global trade, investment, and financial flows means that states are often reliant on each other for their economic well-being and growth. In such a context, adhering to international norms and agreements is not just a matter of diplomatic formality, but a practical necessity to ensure stable and predictable international economic relations. The argument is that when states recognize their mutual dependence, they are more likely to cooperate and seek solutions that are mutually beneficial, leading to outcomes that are more advantageous than those achievable through individual efforts.

Neoliberalism views international institutions as facilitators and guarantors of this cooperative framework. By establishing rules and norms for economic interaction and providing mechanisms for resolving disputes, these institutions help to sustain the global economic order and mitigate potential conflicts that may arise from interdependence.

In contrast, structural realism maintains a more cautious stance on the prospects and durability of international cooperation. It views the international system as inherently anarchic, where states, in the absence of a global authority, are primarily concerned with their security and relative power positions. This focus on power dynamics and relative gains leads to skepticism about the extent to which states can engage in sustained cooperation. Structural realists argue that even in a highly interdependent world, states will prioritize their security and power interests, and this may often lead them to engage in competitive behaviors, undermining long-term cooperation. They view cooperation as more episodic and contingent, largely dependent on the current balance of power and the immediate interests of states.

Therefore, while neoliberalism highlights economic interdependence as a driving force for state cooperation and a more integrated global order, structural realism emphasizes the constraints imposed by the anarchic nature of the international system and the perpetual quest of states for power and security, often to the detriment of long-term cooperative arrangements.

Liberal Foundations and the Prospect of Human Progress in Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism, particularly within the context of international relations and political economy, is indeed rooted in liberal assumptions that posit the possibility of cumulative progress in human affairs. This perspective is anchored in a belief in the potential for continuous improvement and advancement in various aspects of human life, including economic development, political governance, social welfare, and international relations. The neoliberal paradigm reflects an optimistic view of human progress, underpinned by the belief in the efficacy of free markets, the importance of individual freedoms, and the potential for cooperative international relations. It posits that through the application of these principles, continuous and cumulative progress in human affairs is attainable.

Economic Growth through Free Markets and Limited Government: A Neoliberal Approach

Neoliberalism, particularly as it pertains to economic theory and policy, centers around a deep-seated belief in the efficacy of free markets and limited government intervention as key drivers of economic growth and, consequently, broader human progress. This school of thought champions a set of economic policies and principles that collectively aim to create an environment where market forces operate with minimal state interference.

Key tenets of neoliberalism include deregulation, privatization, free trade, and a general reduction in the role of the state in economic matters. Deregulation involves scaling back government rules and restrictions, with the view that this will free businesses to operate more efficiently and innovatively. Privatization shifts the responsibility of running various enterprises or services from the public to the private sector, based on the belief that private companies can manage these more effectively and responsively than government entities. Free trade advocates for the removal of barriers to international trade, such as tariffs and quotas, to foster a global market where goods and services can move freely across borders.

The reduction of state influence in the economy is another cornerstone of neoliberalism. This involves minimizing state control over economic activities and allowing market mechanisms – such as supply, demand, and price – to dictate the allocation of resources. The rationale behind this approach is that markets, when left to operate without excessive government control, are the most efficient means of distributing resources and fostering economic growth.

The overarching belief in neoliberalism is that economic growth spurred by these policies will lead to a cascade of positive outcomes, including improved living standards, reduced poverty, and greater opportunities for individuals. It posits that an efficiently functioning market not only stimulates economic development but also promotes individual freedom by reducing the scope of state intervention in personal and business affairs.

However, it's important to note that while neoliberalism has been influential in shaping economic policies across the globe, it has also been subject to criticism. Critics argue that this approach can lead to increased inequality, reduced social welfare, and environmental degradation. They contend that the focus on market efficiency and economic growth may overlook the importance of equitable resource distribution, social safety nets, and environmental sustainability.

Fostering a Stable and Prosperous World through Economic Interdependence and Global Governance

In international relations, neoliberalism extrapolates its core liberal economic principles to a global context, proposing that the same mechanisms promoting prosperity and stability within states can be effective internationally. This extension hinges on the concept of economic interdependence and the role of international institutions and regimes in fostering a cooperative, stable, and mutually beneficial global order.

Economic interdependence is a central tenet in this worldview. Neoliberalism posits that as states become more economically interconnected — through trade, investment, and financial flows — their incentives for cooperative behavior increase. This interdependence creates a situation where the economic fortunes of one country are closely tied to those of others, making isolationist or conflictual policies less attractive. The rationale is that when states are economically linked, they have more to lose from conflicts and more to gain from cooperation. This interconnectedness is seen as a driving force for peace and stability, as the cost of conflict becomes prohibitively high in an interdependent world.

International institutions and regimes are viewed as vital in supporting this interdependent system. These entities, which include organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and various regional bodies, as well as agreements like the Paris Agreement on climate change, provide frameworks for cooperation. They offer platforms for dialogue, negotiation, and decision-making, allowing states to address shared challenges and manage their interdependent relationships more effectively. These institutions help set and enforce rules and norms that guide state behavior, reduce transaction costs, and provide mechanisms for conflict resolution.

By promoting and facilitating cooperation, international institutions and regimes are seen as key to advancing global governance. Neoliberalism advocates for a world order where shared norms and values, underpinned by economic ties and institutional frameworks, guide international relations. This approach suggests that such a system not only reduces conflicts but also enhances the ability of states to collectively address global challenges like climate change, economic instability, and security threats.

This perspective contrasts with more skeptical views of international cooperation, such as those offered by realist theories, which emphasize power dynamics and the pursuit of national interest in an anarchic international system. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on the positive role of economic interdependence and international institutions, offers a more optimistic view of the potential for a cooperative and integrated global order.

Democracy and Human Rights: Core Elements in Neoliberal Advocacy for Political Freedom and Economic Progress

Neoliberalism, in its broader ideological scope, often intertwines with the promotion of democracy and human rights, positing that political freedom and open societies are crucial catalysts for economic development and overall progress. This perspective extends beyond mere economic policies and touches upon the fundamental aspects of governance and societal organization.

The association between neoliberalism and the advocacy for democratic governance stems from the belief that political freedoms and economic freedoms are deeply interconnected. Neoliberal thought suggests that a democratic system, characterized by political pluralism, free elections, rule of law, and protection of individual rights, creates an environment conducive to economic growth. It argues that when individuals have the freedom to express themselves, participate in governance, and have their rights protected, it fosters innovation, entrepreneurship, and a dynamic economy.

Furthermore, neoliberalism views the spread of democracy as beneficial not just for individual nations but for international relations as well. The idea is that democratic nations are more likely to engage in peaceful and cooperative relationships with one another. This notion, often referred to as the democratic peace theory, posits that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other due to shared norms, mutual respect for sovereignty, and the habit of resolving conflicts through dialogue rather than violence.

In this context, the promotion of democracy and human rights is seen as a goal in itself, reflecting a commitment to individual freedom and dignity. At the same time, it is viewed as a means to achieving broader objectives like global stability, prosperity, and the mitigation of conflicts. Democracies are thought to be more predictable in their international dealings, more reliable as trading partners, and more committed to upholding international agreements and norms.

However, it is important to note that the neoliberal emphasis on democracy and human rights has been subject to criticism. Critics argue that the promotion of these ideals, especially by powerful Western nations, has sometimes been inconsistent and entangled with economic and strategic interests. Additionally, the rapid implementation of market reforms in transitioning democracies has, in some cases, led to social upheaval and economic inequality, challenging the notion that neoliberal policies always lead to positive outcomes in democratic settings.

Neoliberalism often aligns itself with the promotion of democracy and human rights, advocating that open and democratic societies create fertile ground for economic development, contribute to global stability, and are integral to human progress. This viewpoint underscores the interdependence of political freedom, economic freedom, and overall societal well-being.

The Emergence of Neoliberalism

Key early influence on neoliberalism was the pluralism-literature, which argued that a variety of non-state actors were breaking down the barriers between domestic and international affairs

The ascent of neoliberalism as a dominant paradigm in international relations and political economy during the late 20th century was significantly shaped by the burgeoning field of pluralism literature. Pioneering works in this area, such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s “Power and Interdependence” (1977), challenged the conventional state-centric models of international relations. Their perspective was instrumental in acknowledging the influential role played by a wide spectrum of non-state actors, thereby dissolving the rigid demarcations between domestic and international affairs. Keohane and Nye, along with other scholars like James Rosenau in his seminal work “The Study of Global Interdependence” (1980), posited that multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international non-state actors, and even influential individuals were pivotal in shaping the landscape of global politics and economics. This shift in perspective was reflective of the changing nature of global dynamics in the post-World War II era, particularly during the Cold War, when the influence of multinational corporations and international institutions became increasingly apparent in the global order.

Pluralism, as a theory, argues that these varied groups and entities hold significant power in influencing policies, crafting international norms, and driving the transnational exchange of ideas, resources, and people. Historical instances, such as the role played by multinational oil companies in shaping the politics of the Middle East or the influence of international advocacy groups in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, exemplify the impact of non-state actors in global affairs. The involvement of NGOs in the creation and enforcement of international human rights treaties, as seen in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, further illustrates the crucial role these actors play in international politics. Moreover, the growth of global communication networks and the rise of transnational activism, as analyzed in works like “Transnational Relations and World Politics” (1972) by Keohane and Nye, demonstrate the expanding influence of non-state actors. These developments have not only contributed to the rise of neoliberal thought but have also reshaped the very fabric of international relations, emphasizing a more interconnected and interdependent world where power is diffused and sovereignty is redefined. The pluralism literature has been fundamental in broadening the understanding of international relations, moving beyond the traditional state-centric view to include the diverse and dynamic roles played by non-state actors. This expansion of perspective has been crucial in the development and evolution of neoliberalism, providing a more nuanced and comprehensive view of global political and economic interactions.

The pluralism literature, a pivotal force in reshaping the field of international relations, extends beyond the traditional state-centric narrative by emphasizing the influential role of a diverse array of non-state actors. This approach, markedly different from earlier theories, has been vital in acknowledging the complexities and multifaceted nature of global politics and economics. Pioneering works in this field, such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s seminal text "Power and Interdependence," first published in 1977, have underscored the significance of various players like multinational corporations, international organizations, advocacy groups, and transnational networks in shaping international dynamics. The influence of multinational corporations is evident in cases like the role of oil companies in the geopolitics of the Middle East or the impact of tech giants in global data governance. Additionally, pluralism recognizes the increasingly porous boundaries between domestic and international affairs, a phenomenon clearly illustrated by the global financial crisis of 2008. Originating from the housing market collapse in the United States, the crisis rapidly transcended national borders, affecting financial markets and economies worldwide, thus highlighting the interconnectedness of domestic and international spheres.

The impact of diverse actors on policy and governance is another critical aspect of pluralism. International NGOs, for instance, have played a significant role in shaping international norms and agreements, such as the involvement of groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in the formulation of international human rights treaties. This influence is also seen in environmental policy, where NGOs have been instrumental in drafting agreements like the Paris Agreement, emphasizing the global community's response to climate change. Lastly, the rise of non-state actors has profound implications for democratic accountability and representation, as these entities often operate across national borders and outside the realm of traditional electoral politics. This development challenges conventional notions of sovereignty and democratic control, as seen in the influence of transnational advocacy networks in advancing democratic norms and human rights policies globally.

The pluralism literature, with its expansive and intricate approach, has significantly deepened our comprehension of international relations. By recognizing the dynamic interactions among a myriad of actors and the intricate network of interdependencies that characterize the global stage, it offers an enriched, inclusive, and realistic portrayal of modern global affairs. This body of work has profoundly influenced neoliberalism, particularly evident in its emphasis on international cooperation, the crucial role of economic interdependence, and the significant influence of international institutions and regimes. The impact of pluralism is discernible in how neoliberalism approaches global dynamics, acknowledging the role of not just states but also non-state actors in shaping the international arena. This perspective resonates with the realities observed in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond, where the influence of multinational corporations, international organizations, and transnational advocacy groups became increasingly apparent. For example, the role of multinational corporations in economic globalization and their influence on international trade policies, or the impact of NGOs and transnational networks in environmental and human rights advocacy, exemplifies the diverse actors recognized by pluralism.

Neoliberalism's adaptation of pluralism’s insights is reflected in its advocacy for free trade, open markets, and the reduction of barriers to international economic interaction, underlining the belief in the mutual benefits of economic interdependence. Moreover, the neoliberal emphasis on the role of international institutions – from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization – mirrors the pluralist acknowledgment of the significance of these entities in facilitating cooperation, establishing norms, and managing global issues that transcend national borders. In summary, the pluralism literature has not only reshaped our understanding of international relations by highlighting the roles of various actors and their interconnections but has also significantly influenced the development of neoliberal thought. It has led to a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of global affairs, aligning with the complex realities of contemporary international relations and influencing the policies and practices of nations and international bodies alike.

Key neoliberal texts sought to challenge realist pessimism, but adopted the realists assumption of self-interested egocentric actors

Key texts in neoliberal thought indeed set out to counter the pessimistic view of international relations often associated with realism, particularly its emphasis on conflict and power struggles. However, while challenging certain realist assumptions, neoliberalism notably retains the realist conception of states and actors as fundamentally self-interested and egocentric.

This shared assumption about the nature of actors in international relations is crucial to understanding both perspectives:

1. Self-Interested Actors: Neoliberalism, like realism, posits that states and other actors in the international arena are primarily driven by self-interest. This principle is central to their analysis of international politics, where states are seen as rational actors seeking to maximize their utility, which could include power, security, economic gains, or other national interests.
2. Rational Choice: Both theories assume that actors make decisions based on rational calculations aimed at optimizing their outcomes. This rational-choice framework is used to analyze and predict the behavior of states and other entities in the international system.
3. Differences in Emphasis: Despite these shared assumptions, neoliberalism diverges from realism in its outlook on the international system. While realism tends to emphasize conflict, power dynamics, and the inevitability of competition in an anarchic world, neoliberalism focuses more on the potential for cooperation, the role of international institutions, and the benefits of interdependence. Neoliberalism argues that, although states are self-interested, their interdependent relationships and the frameworks provided by international institutions can lead to cooperative and mutually beneficial outcomes.
4. Role of International Institutions: A significant point of divergence is the neoliberal belief in the efficacy of international institutions. Neoliberalism holds that these institutions can shape and constrain the behavior of states, encouraging them to cooperate and abide by international norms and agreements, despite their self-interested nature.

In summary, while key neoliberal texts sought to challenge the pessimistic and conflict-centric view of international relations as portrayed by realism, they adopted the fundamental realist assumption of states and actors as self-interested entities. The distinction lies in how neoliberalism explores the potential for cooperation and the positive role of international institutions, despite the underlying egocentric motivations of states.

‘Neo-neo’ debates between structural (or neo)realists (Grieco, Krasner) and neoliberals (Keohane) were heated in the 1980s and 1990s

The 'Neo-neo' debates of the 1980s and 1990s marked a significant era in the field of international relations, characterized by intellectual exchanges between structural (or neo)realists and neoliberals. These debates were particularly influential in shaping contemporary understandings of international politics and the dynamics of state behavior.

Key figures in these debates included structural realists like Joseph Grieco and Stephen Krasner, and neoliberals like Robert Keohane. Their discussions revolved around several core issues:

1. Nature of the International System: Both camps agreed on the anarchic nature of the international system but diverged in their interpretations of its implications. Structural realists emphasized the lack of a central authority and the resulting security dilemma, where states must primarily focus on survival and power. Neoliberals, while acknowledging anarchy, focused on how states could overcome its limiting effects through cooperation and institutions.
2. State Behavior and Motivations: Structural realists viewed states as security-maximizing actors in a self-help system, constantly seeking to ensure their survival in a competitive environment. Neoliberals, on the other hand, saw states as utility-maximizing actors that could pursue cooperation when it aligns with their interests, especially in an interdependent world.
3. Role of International Institutions: A major point of contention was the role and effectiveness of international institutions. Neorealists argued that institutions are limited in their ability to mitigate anarchy and are often used by powerful states to maintain their interests. Neoliberals countered by highlighting how institutions can facilitate cooperation, reduce transaction costs, and create norms that guide state behavior.
4. Relative vs. Absolute Gains: The debates also centered on whether states are more concerned with relative gains (as structural realists suggest) or absolute gains (as neoliberals argue). Relative gains focus on power dynamics and the importance of not falling behind other states, while absolute gains emphasize the overall benefits that can be achieved through cooperation.
5. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Models: These debates were also marked by discussions about the empirical validity of each theory and the usefulness of their respective models in explaining historical and contemporary international events.

The 'Neo-neo' debates significantly advanced the field of international relations by clarifying the distinctions and overlaps between neorealism and neoliberalism. They fostered a more nuanced understanding of international politics, emphasizing the complexity of state behavior and the multifaceted nature of the international system. These discussions continue to influence scholars and policymakers in the field of international relations to this day.