The book “Neoliberalism, Neorealism and world politics in Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Robert O. Keohane (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)” by David Baldwin have presented six focal points that’s characterize the debate between neoliberalism and neorealism. In the first part of this essay I’ll compare and contrast both of the approach, by followed David Baldwin’s six focal points; the nature and consequences of Anarchy, International cooperation, Relative versus absolute gains, priority of state goals, intention versus capabilities, Institutions and regimes to build the full picture of similarities and differences. In the second part of this essay I will evaluate which method is more plausible and effective approach in international …show more content…
Neoliberalist and neorealist both agree that National security and economic welfare are important, but the differences is in emphasis. The priority of state goals in neorealist is emphases in security issue, Grieco stated that anarchy requires states to be preoccupied with relative power, security, and survival. The priority of state goals in neoliberal is emphases in political economy. Fifth, is the concept of ‘intention versus capabilities’. Neorealism likely to emphasize capabilities more than intentions, because the uncertainties make state pay attention to capabilities. Kransner, the neorealist claimed that neoliberalist are over emphasizing intention and underemphasizing distribution of capabilities. Conflictingly, Keohane stated that the relative gains of other states is significantly influenced by perceptions of intentions of such are states. Sixth, is the concept of ‘Institutions and regimes’. Neoliberalist and neorealist both recognized that international regimes and institutions are overabundance. Neorealist wanted to lessen the roles of institutional and international regimes. For neoliberal, international regimes and institutions are significant to world politics, however neorealist believed that neoliberal exaggerate the extent of