Talk:Neoliberalism (international relations)

Not a Realist Theory

Neoliberalism is NOT a "realist" theory. They do share a state-central view of IR, however neoliberalism does not intrinsically state that the system is anarchic, which is the major defining charachteristic of Realism. It is also true that they both have Constructivist strains, that is not a defining characteristic of either. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. While the question of whether or not Neoliberalism should be considered a variant of Neorealism is up for debate, Neoliberalism does undoubtedly accept both state-centrism and systemic anarchy. Keohane, as well as others, has made this clear in numerous texts (cf. After Hegemony, for one). Regardless, this article is in serious need of reworking; it's appalling. So appalling, in fact, that it prompted me to create a Wikipedia account just so I could write about how appalling it is. Philozine 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Whereas it is true that Neoliberalism shares several methodological and epistemological commitments with Neorealism, it is not true that it should be considered as a variant of the latter. Even severe critics of both paradigms, as Ole Waever and Steve Smith, recognize that they differ ontologically. Furthermore, even if one considered that both evolved onto a "neo-neo syntesis", there are several considerations regarding what should be discussed by IR Theory - for instance, the role of international regimes and even normative consideration as whether interdependence should be avoided by states - that separate them. --Andregoes (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, several IR theorists consider Keohane's neoliberalism a variant of neorealism, for example Danilo Zolo. Indeed I believe that this in part motivated Moravcsik to develop his model of international relations as an authentically liberal theory. Ebethron (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disturb here, but reading the article, I believe it is higly centered around criticism against neorealism when in fact there are important dimensions of neoliberalism that should have a special section like Institutional, Economic, Repubican (aka Democratic) and Sociological theories within neoliberalism. Just a humble suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.205.24.2 (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of "Criticisms"

This article initially had a section entitled "Criticisms," but then went on to list not critiques of neoliberal theory, but rather its contentions, i.e. the points it makes when criticizing others. I thought this was pretty confusing, so I renamed the section "Contentions". Incidentally, the article remains a major mess. Nicolasdz 17:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Realism in international relations - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is Mearsheimer featured so prominently in an article on neoliberalism?

Just saw this on Stephen Saideman's blog (http://saideman.blogspot.com/2019/10/proxy-madness.html) and have to agree:

"I am kind of disturbed that half of the wikipedia entry about Neo-Liberalism focuses on John Mearsheimer who is hostile to Neo-Liberalism. But that is something for another day."

FoolishSophist (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Neoliberalism (international relations) into Institutional liberalism (which I've proposed to rename "Liberal institutionalism". These are broadly the same thing. It makes no sense having two separate articles about virtually the same scholarship. The term Institutional liberalism is more precise and is the term used by advocates for the theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, these are just two terms for the same theory. Both articles are very short and it should be easy to merge them. Worldlywise (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, @Snooganssnoogans: pretty obvious these are the same.--WMrapids (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)