What are the benefits in focusing on a structural level of analysis?
The relationship between structure and agency has long been a topic of debate in the field of
International Relations. During the 1950s and 1960s, amid the influx of behaviourialists into
U.S. domestic politics, a new scientific approach to the study of international politics was
demanded. Those coming from the natural sciences were dissatisfied with Han Morgenthau’s
account of politics as stemming from human nature, and sought to develop new scientific
concepts to explain political outcomes. Morton Kaplan’s ‘balance of power’ theory and
Thomas Schelling’s game theory are two examples of the influence of a more scientific
methodology.1 Against this backdrop, Kenneth Waltz wrote his ground-breaking book,
Theory of International Politics (1979). This book laid the foundation for the neorealist
school of thought. Different from classical realism, Waltz provided a systemic theory as to
how political outcomes are reached. In this essay, after providing an outline of the two main
strands of neorealism and their main elements, I will outline the benefits in focusing on a
systems level of analysis. I will do this through looking at the following points: the
explanation of political patterns such as war and peace; an explanation as to how the origins
of alliances are formed; and its ability to guide foreign policy practice.
To begin, neorealism is dominated by two prominent schools of thought: defensive realism
and offensive realism. Although different in their conclusions, both of these offshoots of
neorealism share the same core assumptions. For neorealists, states are the most important
actors in the International. This state-dominated arena operates under anarchy - there is no
overarching world state or Hobbesian-like Leviathan. Under anarchy, the system is one of
self-help. There is no unit-level variation because states, whether democratic or autocratic,
1
Chris Brown, and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding International Relations (Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 32-33.
The relationship between structure and agency has long been a topic of debate in the field of
International Relations. During the 1950s and 1960s, amid the influx of behaviourialists into
U.S. domestic politics, a new scientific approach to the study of international politics was
demanded. Those coming from the natural sciences were dissatisfied with Han Morgenthau’s
account of politics as stemming from human nature, and sought to develop new scientific
concepts to explain political outcomes. Morton Kaplan’s ‘balance of power’ theory and
Thomas Schelling’s game theory are two examples of the influence of a more scientific
methodology.1 Against this backdrop, Kenneth Waltz wrote his ground-breaking book,
Theory of International Politics (1979). This book laid the foundation for the neorealist
school of thought. Different from classical realism, Waltz provided a systemic theory as to
how political outcomes are reached. In this essay, after providing an outline of the two main
strands of neorealism and their main elements, I will outline the benefits in focusing on a
systems level of analysis. I will do this through looking at the following points: the
explanation of political patterns such as war and peace; an explanation as to how the origins
of alliances are formed; and its ability to guide foreign policy practice.
To begin, neorealism is dominated by two prominent schools of thought: defensive realism
and offensive realism. Although different in their conclusions, both of these offshoots of
neorealism share the same core assumptions. For neorealists, states are the most important
actors in the International. This state-dominated arena operates under anarchy - there is no
overarching world state or Hobbesian-like Leviathan. Under anarchy, the system is one of
self-help. There is no unit-level variation because states, whether democratic or autocratic,
1
Chris Brown, and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding International Relations (Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 32-33.
