A Need For Neoclassical Realist Approach in Internatinoal Political Economy: The Eurasian Economic Union
Abstract
This study refers to the importance of the neoclassical realist approach in international
political economy studies. The domestic structures of the states will be emphasized in order to
understand the reasons for the varieties of capitalist models and hybrid economic systems that
emerged after the Cold War. In this sense, the article argues that neoclassical realism could be
useful to understand the regional differences in international political economy, despite the critics.
Accordingly, the dominant view of the international system, which is liberalism, is the independent
variable and the domestic variables of states are the intervening variables. The outcomes that are the
hybrid systems are the dependent variable. The theoretical part of the study will examine these
variables in detail. The Eurasian Economic Union will be taken in the last section of the work as the
case study to test the validity of the model.
References
- KAYNAKÇA Acharya, A. (2005). Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia's regional order. The Pacific Review, 18(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740500047199
- Acharya, A. (2017). After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941700020X
- Barkin, J. S. (2010). Realist constructivism. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Bayramov, V., Breban, D., & Mukhtarov, E. (2019). Economic effects estimation for the Eurasian Economic Union: Application of regional linear regression. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 52(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2019.07.001
- Bello, W. (2009). States and markets, states versus markets: the developmental state debate as the distinctive East Asian contribution to international political economy. In M. Blyth (Ed.), Routledge international handbooks. Routledge handbook of international political economy (IPE): IPE as a global conversation (pp. 180–200). London: Routledge.
- Cooley, A. (2019). Ordering Eurasia: The Rise and Decline of Liberal Internationalism in the Post-Communist Space. Security Studies, 28(3), 588–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2019.1604988
- Gilpin, R. (1983). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gilpin, R. (1984). The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287–304.
- Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton, Guildford: Princeton University Press.
- Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. W. (Eds.) (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hirschman, A. O. (1980). National power and the structure of foreign trade (Expanded ed.). The Politics of the international economy: Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Hyde, S. D., & Saunders, E. N. (2020). Recapturing Regime Type in International Relations: Leaders, Institutions, and Agency Space. International Organization, 74(2), 363–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000365
- Kirkham, K. (2018). The formation of the Eurasian Economic Union: How successful is the Russian regional hegemony? Journal of Eurasian Studies, 7(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2015.06.002
- Kirshner, J. (2009). Realist political economy: Traditional themes and contemporary challenges. In M. Blyth (Ed.), Routledge international handbooks. Routledge handbook of international political economy (IPE): IPE as a global conversation (pp. 36–47). London: Routledge.
- Kitchen, N. (2010). Systemic pressures and domestic ideas: A neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 117–143.
- Legro, J. W., & Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 24(2), 5–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130
- Libman, A., & Vinokurov, E. (2018). Autocracies and regional integration: The Eurasian case. Post-Communist Economies, 30(3), 334–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2018.1442057
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2003). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- Narizny, K. (2017). On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism. International Security, 42(2), 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00296
- Nölke, A. (2018). Comparative Capitalism. In T. M. Shaw, L. C. Mahrenbach, R. Modi, & Y.-C. Xu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of contemporary international political economy (pp. 135–154). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2020). The New Age of Hybridity and Clash of Norms: China, BRICS, and Challenges of Global Governance in a Postliberal International Order. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 97(4), 030437542092108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420921086
- Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. New York NY: Oxford University Press.
- Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. New York, NY: Norton.
- Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814
- Rowl, E., & Novak, R. (1993). Russia's 'Monroe Doctrine'. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/02/26/russias-monroe-doctrine/d5fca486-5011-4417-bd49-6046c41a805d/
- Schweller, R. L. (2004). Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing. International Security, 29(2), 159–201.
- Smith, N. R. (2018). Can Neoclassical Realism Become a Genuine Theory of International Relations? The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 742–749. https://doi.org/10.1086/696882
- Stronski, P., & Sokolsky, R. (2020). Multipolarity in Practice.
- Stubbs, R. (2018). Order and Contestation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Liberal vs Developmental/Non-interventionist Approaches. The International Spectator, 53(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2018.1402581
- Taliaferro, J. W., Lobell, S. E., & Ripsman, N. M. (2009). Introduction: Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. In S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman, & J. W. Taliaferro (Eds.), Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy (pp. 1–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Troitskiy, E. (2020). Dead-Letter Regimes in the Post-Soviet Space: Strategies and Communication. Global Society, 34(2), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2019.1700934
- Vakulchuk, R., & Knobel, A. (2018). Impact of non-tariff barriers on trade within the Eurasian Economic Union. Post-Communist Economies, 30(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2018.1442054
- Vinokurov, E., & Libman, A. (2014). Do economic crises impede or advance regional economic integration in the post-Soviet space? Post-Communist Economies, 26(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2014.937094
- Wallerstein, I. M. (1984). The politics of the world-economy. Studies in modern capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43.
- Waltz, K. N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
- Xiao, R. (2015). A reform-minded status quo power? China, the G20, and reform of the international financial system. Third World Quarterly, 36(11), 2023–2043. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1078232
- Yılmaz, S. (2015). Neoklasik Realizm: İlerletici mi? Yozlaştırıcı mı? Lakatosyan bir Değerlendirme. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. (46), 1–18.
Abstract
Bu çalışma uluslararası ekonomi politik çalışmalarında neoklasik yaklaşımın önemine değinmektedir. Çalışmada farklı kapitalist modellerin ve özellikle Soğuk Savaş sonrasında ortaya çıkan hibrit ekonomik sistemlerin sebebini anlamak için devletlerin iç yapılarının önemli olduğuna vurgu yapılacaktır. Buna göre uluslararası sistemin hâkim anlayışı olan liberalizm bağımsız değişken, devletlerin iç yapıları da ara değişkendir. Ortaya çıkan hibrit sistemler de bağımlı değişkendir. Modelin geçerliliğini göstermek için Avrasya Ekonomi Topluluğu vaka çalışması olarak ele alınacaktır.
References
- KAYNAKÇA Acharya, A. (2005). Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia's regional order. The Pacific Review, 18(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740500047199
- Acharya, A. (2017). After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941700020X
- Barkin, J. S. (2010). Realist constructivism. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Bayramov, V., Breban, D., & Mukhtarov, E. (2019). Economic effects estimation for the Eurasian Economic Union: Application of regional linear regression. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 52(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2019.07.001
- Bello, W. (2009). States and markets, states versus markets: the developmental state debate as the distinctive East Asian contribution to international political economy. In M. Blyth (Ed.), Routledge international handbooks. Routledge handbook of international political economy (IPE): IPE as a global conversation (pp. 180–200). London: Routledge.
- Cooley, A. (2019). Ordering Eurasia: The Rise and Decline of Liberal Internationalism in the Post-Communist Space. Security Studies, 28(3), 588–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2019.1604988
- Gilpin, R. (1983). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gilpin, R. (1984). The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287–304.
- Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton, Guildford: Princeton University Press.
- Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. W. (Eds.) (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hirschman, A. O. (1980). National power and the structure of foreign trade (Expanded ed.). The Politics of the international economy: Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Hyde, S. D., & Saunders, E. N. (2020). Recapturing Regime Type in International Relations: Leaders, Institutions, and Agency Space. International Organization, 74(2), 363–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000365
- Kirkham, K. (2018). The formation of the Eurasian Economic Union: How successful is the Russian regional hegemony? Journal of Eurasian Studies, 7(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2015.06.002
- Kirshner, J. (2009). Realist political economy: Traditional themes and contemporary challenges. In M. Blyth (Ed.), Routledge international handbooks. Routledge handbook of international political economy (IPE): IPE as a global conversation (pp. 36–47). London: Routledge.
- Kitchen, N. (2010). Systemic pressures and domestic ideas: A neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 117–143.
- Legro, J. W., & Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 24(2), 5–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130
- Libman, A., & Vinokurov, E. (2018). Autocracies and regional integration: The Eurasian case. Post-Communist Economies, 30(3), 334–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2018.1442057
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2003). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- Narizny, K. (2017). On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism. International Security, 42(2), 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00296
- Nölke, A. (2018). Comparative Capitalism. In T. M. Shaw, L. C. Mahrenbach, R. Modi, & Y.-C. Xu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of contemporary international political economy (pp. 135–154). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2020). The New Age of Hybridity and Clash of Norms: China, BRICS, and Challenges of Global Governance in a Postliberal International Order. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 97(4), 030437542092108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420921086
- Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. New York NY: Oxford University Press.
- Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. New York, NY: Norton.
- Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814
- Rowl, E., & Novak, R. (1993). Russia's 'Monroe Doctrine'. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/02/26/russias-monroe-doctrine/d5fca486-5011-4417-bd49-6046c41a805d/
- Schweller, R. L. (2004). Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing. International Security, 29(2), 159–201.
- Smith, N. R. (2018). Can Neoclassical Realism Become a Genuine Theory of International Relations? The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 742–749. https://doi.org/10.1086/696882
- Stronski, P., & Sokolsky, R. (2020). Multipolarity in Practice.
- Stubbs, R. (2018). Order and Contestation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Liberal vs Developmental/Non-interventionist Approaches. The International Spectator, 53(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2018.1402581
- Taliaferro, J. W., Lobell, S. E., & Ripsman, N. M. (2009). Introduction: Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. In S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman, & J. W. Taliaferro (Eds.), Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy (pp. 1–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Troitskiy, E. (2020). Dead-Letter Regimes in the Post-Soviet Space: Strategies and Communication. Global Society, 34(2), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2019.1700934
- Vakulchuk, R., & Knobel, A. (2018). Impact of non-tariff barriers on trade within the Eurasian Economic Union. Post-Communist Economies, 30(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2018.1442054
- Vinokurov, E., & Libman, A. (2014). Do economic crises impede or advance regional economic integration in the post-Soviet space? Post-Communist Economies, 26(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2014.937094
- Wallerstein, I. M. (1984). The politics of the world-economy. Studies in modern capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43.
- Waltz, K. N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
- Xiao, R. (2015). A reform-minded status quo power? China, the G20, and reform of the international financial system. Third World Quarterly, 36(11), 2023–2043. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1078232
- Yılmaz, S. (2015). Neoklasik Realizm: İlerletici mi? Yozlaştırıcı mı? Lakatosyan bir Değerlendirme. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. (46), 1–18.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Makaleler |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 23, 2020 |
| Acceptance Date | October 12, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2020 Issue: 57 |
Cited By
AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NE KATILIM SÜRECİNİN TÜRKİYE SİYASETİNE YANSIMASI: ALTERNATİF ÖRGÜTLER
Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Diplomasi
https://doi.org/10.51763/uid.895475
Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.
No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.
Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.
Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.
Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.