REALISM/REALIST THEORY

(CHỦ NGHĨA HIỆN THỰC)

Nguyễn Thành Trung, Ph.D.
Overview of the lecture
■ Realist Assumptions
■ Balance of power
■ Variations of realism
- Classical Realism
- Neorealism/Structuralism
- Defensive Realism
- Offensive Realism
 Realism
■ Realism has been easily the most influential theory of international
relations.
■ Most diplomats, politicians and professors have, implicitly or
explicitly, believed that realism provides the best account of how
international relations work.
■ It is a quite simple commonsense theory.
 Realism: Major Actors and Assumptions
Based on four key assumptions :

1.States are the principal actors and most important actors. States are the key
unit of analysis. The study of IR is the study of relations among these units.

■ Why? Because only the state, given its claim to sovereignty, possesses the
monopoly of legitimate force to resolve conflicts between individuals and groups
within its territory and also between itself and other states and international actors.
Non-state actors like international organizations (UN), Multi-National
Corporations, and transnational actors are acknowledged by realists, but they are of
secondary importance. States are the dominant actors.
 Second Assumption of Realism
■ State is viewed as a unitary actor. For realists a country faces the outside world
as an integrated unit.
■ A common assumption among realists is that political differences within the state
are ultimately resolved, namely the government speaks with one voice for the
state as a whole.
■ On any particular issue, realists assume that state as a unitary actor has one policy.
Of course there may be exceptions, but realists support the argument that state is
an integrated actor. For instance, when a foreign ministry expresses policies
different from ministry of defense, action is taken to bring these alternative
positions to a common position.
■ If the issue is not so much important, alternative views can remain, but if it is
important, higher authorities will intervene to prevent alternative views.
Third Assumption of Realism
■ State is a rational actor. States are goal oriented and their goals
are consistent. Also, states are assumed to derive strategies to
achieve their goals and they are cost sensitive.
■ States make cost-benefit analysis of every alternative, they
evaluate alternatives and select the ones that maximizes their
benefits. Thus, states can change their strategies in the face of
changes in external constraints and opportunities.
■ Realists are aware of the limit of this claim: Practically,
governmental decision- makers may not have all the information
and knowledge they will need for achieving their objectives.
Fourth Assumption of Realism
■ The context of action: the anarchy
■ States coexist in a context of international anarchy which refers to the
absence of a centralized authority to protect states from one another, each
state has to survive on its own. Thus, states are by definition self-help
agents.
■ They assume that within the hierarchy of international relations issues,
national security tops the list. For them, military and related political issues
dominate world politics.
Realism and domestic politics
■ Realists also argue that the domestic regimes of states are not
relevant to their international relations.
■ For example, realists believe that it does not matter whether a
country is democratic or authoritarian.
■ The behavior of states can simply be explained by the amount
of power they possess, and by the relative distribution of power
in the international system.
Basic Concept of Realism:Power

■ No consensus even among realists how to define it. Some understand it to

be the sum of military, economic, technological, diplomatic and other
capabilities at the disposal of states. Others see it as capabilities relative
to others. The power of the USA is evaluated in terms of its capabilities
relative to those of others.
■ Alternative definition, dynamic definition of power: a state’s influence is
determined not only by its capabilities, but also by its willingness to use
capabilities, and its control and influence over other states.
How Can States Achieve Power?
■ By the state’s own means/self-help:
Population
Industrialization
Science and Technology, etc…
■ By alliances:
All alliances are conditional: they apply only if they remain in
the power interests of the state.
Measurement, Indicators of Power
■ Defense expenditures
■ Military Personnel
■ Iron & Steel Production
■ Energy Consumption
■ Total Population
■ Gross National Product (GNP)
■ Which is more important, military or economic power?
■ David Singer emphasizes military, industrial and demographic capabilities as crucial
indicators.
■ Power of a state is dependent on the issue involved. For instance, Japan is
economically powerful but militarily weak in comparison. Opponents say that
economic power of Japan as a global trader is related with its military ties with the
US. This ensures Japan’s freedom to engage in commerce.
Balance of power mentality

■ For realists, the tendency of states to balance against

challengers through the formation of defensive alliances is a
strong behavioral expectation about the effects of anarchy on
states.
■ All states, according to realists, are then obliged to pursue a
balance of power strategy
VARIATIONS OF REALISM
Classical Realism
■ The realist worldview was shaped by the ancient Greek historian
Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli in the 16th century, Thomas
Hobbes in the 17th century.
■ They focused on national security and state survival and
portrayed international politics as power politics: an arena of
rivalry, conflict and war between states
■ Defending the national interest and ensuring the survival of the
state repeat themselves permanently
Thucydides (471-400 BC)

■ Greek historian. He is considered as the founding father of realism.

■ Focused on the competitions and conflicts between Greek city-states.
■ In Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC) , he analyzes the war between
Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC. He dealt with the nature of war
and why it continually recurs. For him, the past was the guide for the
future. His work is a study of the struggle for military and political power.
■ He emphasizes the limited room for manoeuvre available to statesmen.
 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
■ In the 16th Century Machiavelli had argued in
The Prince that:
– “it is far better to be feared than loved”
– “he ought not to quit good courses if he can help
it, but should know how to follow evil courses if
he must”
– “he will prosper most whose mode of acting best
adapts itself to the character of the times; and
conversely that he will be unprosperous, with
whose mode of acting the times do not accord”
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
■ He wrote about power, balance of power, formation of alliances, causes of
conflicts. His primary focus was on national security.
■ Survival of the state is crucial. The main responsibility of the rulers is always
to defend the interests of the state and ensure its survival.
■ Power (Lion) and deception (Fox) are two essential means for the conduct of
foreign policy. If necessary, a ruler must be ruthless and deceptive while
defending self-interest.
■ His famous work “The Prince” deals with how to gain, maintain and expand
power.
■ A responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics such as be peaceful,
avoid war, share your wealth... If states follow these values, they will
disappear in the end.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679):

■ He had a pessimistic view of human nature. He emphasizes the necessity of

having a powerful, centralized political authority.
■ Human beings lived in a condition of war ‘every one against every one’.
■ He tried to show in order to escape from this situation, he suggested placing
all power to a sovereign state or Leviathan (a state authority or supreme ruler)
that would maintain order and end anarchy. Without order, no economic
development, art, knowledge…
Hans Morgenthau

■ Hans Morgenthau was one of the leading twentieth-century figures in the

study of international politics. Hans Morgenthau is considered one of the
"founding fathers" of realist approach.
■ For him, humanbeings are evil by nature. They are born to pursue power
and enjoy the benefits of power.
■ The final political space within which security is ensured is the
independent state. Beyond the state, security is impossible.
■ The lust for power brings people into conflict with each other.
■ For Moregnthau, politics is a struggle for power.
Human nature
■ According to Morgenthau, the most important fact about human nature is that
human beings are selfish, and they have a desire to dominate.
■ In Latin this is referred to as an animus dominandii (the desire for power).
■ States are groups of human beings, operating in a world of anarchy and
scarcity.
■ It is therefore reasonable to expect that states will compete in a selfish manner
for prestige and resources, according to realists.
■ According to realists, then, we live in a world of anarchy and scarcity, and
humans are motivated by an animus dominandii.
 Relation between power and national
interest
■ For Morgenthau, IR is a discipline which is based on the concepts of national
interest and power.
■ Interests of states should be defined in terms of their power. Statesmen
should determine and defend their interests in accordance with the power they
have.
■ For Morgenthau, politics is a skill of harmonizing endless needs (interests)
and scarce resources (power)
■ Realists think within the framework of the national interest defined in terms
of power.
Do States Cooperate?

■ Each of the 5 individuals has to decide whether to collaborate

in hunting of a stag necessary to meet the hunger needs of all
five or to defect from the group to capture a hare.
■ Deciding to capture a hare would serve one’s self interest at the
expense of others. If the individual prefers to serve the
common interest (go after stag), can he trust the others to do
so? If one cannot trust others, is not it rational to go for the
hare before the others?
■ Uncertainty of knowing whether the others are good, moral
and rational.
 Do States Cooperate?
■ Anarchical, self-help system makes cooperation difficult to
achieve. What is the rational thing to do, to promote short term
and self-interest or common interests?
■ If a state is concerned in absolute gains, it is indifferent to the
gains of others. As long as I am doing better, I don’t care if
others are also increasing their wealth or military power.
■ In relative gains, it is not satisfied with simply increasing its
power or wealth but also how much others gained.
■ Different assumptions about a state’s preferences lead to
different expectations about prospects for IR conflict and
cooperation. For neo-realists relative gains assumptions makes
international cooperation difficult to attain.
Difficulty of Cooperation

■ states are unwilling to cooperate and maintain that cooperation due

to:
■ fears of cheating
■ dependency
■ concerns about relative gains
 Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist theory/ structuralism:

■ “It is not possible to understand world politics simply by looking inside of

states." (p. 65) This is because every new observed phenomenon would
require the addition of new unit-level variables, which leads to the highly
subjective addition and wild proliferation of variables.
■ By focusing on the structure, or "set of constraining conditions," (p. 74) of
the international system one can parsimoniously explain why dissimilar units
may behave in similar ways.
■ Structures, however, are not direct causes—they act "through socialization of
the actors and through competition among them." (p. 74)
 Systemic Explanation of State Behavior

■ The central determining cause of state behavior is the system of nation-states:

anarchy
– This anarchical system imposes an imperative of security and survival on
each state
– States seek their survival, not power
– States that ignore their relative power will be subordinated to other states
– no supreme authority  self-help system: no other state can be relied upon
to defend another state at the risk of its own power
– Neorealist claim that their conception of international relations achieves the
level of a scientific proposition
System as Anarchy

■ Many realists considered anarchy and distribution of power among

states as critical components of the international system. They argue
that anarchy and distribution of power among states, namely the
structure constrain decision-makers. Anarchy contributes distrust and
conflict.
■ Anarchy: refers to violence, destruction, and chaos. When we use this
term, we are referring to the absence of hierarchy. Due to anarchy
states must rely on power.
Defensive Realists
■ States maximize security
■ Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz and Stephen Walt focus on
a structural concept known as the offence-defence balance.
■ They maintain that military power at any point in time can be
categorized as favoring either offence or defence. If defence has a
clear advantage over offence great powers will have little incentive to
use force to gain power and vice versa.
■ Defensive realists respond that offence-defence balance is usually
tilted towards defence.
Defensive Realism

■ Jack Snyder:
■ states attain security in the anarchical system by
accumulating an appropriate amount of power in balance
with others
■ excessive amount of power may lessen security
by setting off the dynamics of a security dilemma
■ the international system ‘rewards’ states maintaining a
status quo – not those with the ambition to dominate
Offensive Realists
■ states maximize power not security
■ Randall Schweller in his analysis of revisionist states mainly
opposes the neorealist assumption that states merely seek
to survive in favor of the status quo because of the
existence of aggressive revisionist states.
■ He criticizes Kenneth Waltz and Stephen Walt for seeing the
world solely through the eyes of a satisfied status quo
states.
■ He argues that at least some states want to change their
status in the system and will want to advance their relative
power position.
Offensive Realism

■ John Mearsheimer
■ power is difficult to measure:
– states do not know when their power is sufficient
– are driven to accumulate as much power and capabilities as
possible
■ this leads them to pursue aggressive, expansionist policies
■ the objective is to become a regional, if not global, hegemon
Waltz’s neorealist theory:

■ restricts the scope of theory to ‘international system’:

– impossible to understand the international system
through unit-level theories: that would amount to
reductionism
– IR theory should be focus on the systemic level
– in an anarchical system, units must be structurally
similar (although their capabilities may vary)
 Review questions
1. What/who are the most important actors in global politics according to realism?
A. International Organizations B. States C. MNCs D. Individuals
2. According to realists, the defining feature of international relations is
A. Interdependence B. Anarchy C. Class inequality D. Security
3. Balance of power is:
A. A process by which groups of people make decisions
B. Examines the acquisition and application of power
C. A situation where two powerful states, or group of states are equal in power
D. The idea that people need to transform on the inside as well as on the outside in order to create a meaningful
change in the world.
4. The global level of analysis concerns the influence of the international system upon outcomes
A. True B. False
5. The sum of the assets that enable a state to achieve its goals, even when they clash with goals and wills of other
international actors, is the definition of a country’s
A. Power B. Capability C. Nationalism D. National interest
6. Realists tend to portray power as being
A. A zero-sum game B. a non-zero-sum game
C. A positive-sum game D. Unimportant in the international system

7. Power is determined only on the basis of a country’s military capabilities

A. True B. False

8. To say that Germany is more powerful than Ghana but less powerful than the United States
reflects the fact that power is
A. Relative B. Dynamic C. Situational D. Multidimensional

9. For realists, states’ behavior is driven by

A. National interests B. Cooperation C. Values D. Changes in the global system