The neorealist-neoliberal institutionalism debate develops along a number of criticisms, primary among which is the realist or neorealist assertion that international institutions play a minimal role in shaping international politics and that the prospects for cooperation in anarchy are bleak. Neoliberal institutionalism questions these claims, challenging the logical coherence of the neorealist argument and arguing that the explanatory power of neorealism is weak because it fails to move beyond an emphasis on the primacy of states as key actors in international relations.
In this general background, the purpose of the present report is to consider the strengths and weaknesses of neoliberal institutionalism. The prisoner's dilemma is significant in this discussion in that it holds that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one cooperates, the player who defects gains more. Robert O. Keohane argues instead that a mutually cooperative outcome can occur in equilibrium in an infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma if the actors do not discount the future too much.
The fundamental difference between realists and neoliberal institutionalists is that neoliberal institutionalists see cooperation as essential in a world of economic interdependence and the belief that shared economic interests create a demand for international institutions and rules. Realists, in contrast, emphasize the role played by states as the dominant actors in international relations. Realists also tend to discount the efforts of institutions and non-state actors and to emphasize the probability of hegemony as a necessary precondition to international stability.
Strengths of Neoliberal Institutions
Five specific strengths associated with the theory of neoliberal institutionalism will be presented in this section of the report. First, Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye have pointed out that a major strength of this approach to studying i...