| Summary/Abstract |
This article anchors neoclassical realism (NCR) as a solid theoretical framework which departs from Wendtian constructivism, Moravcsik's liberal theory, and Putnam's two-level game liberalism. NCR moves away from these other approaches by bridging three divides: the spatial (domestic–international), the cognitive (matter-ideas), and the temporal (present–future). What matters is not what states have to do because the structure compels them so (as Waltz and Wendt would want us to believe). Looking at what domestic interest groups want states to do (as Moravcsik and Putnam suggest) is also unsatisfactory. Rather, what can states do to represent domestic economic interests within the predefined geopolitical context? The argument here is that a version of geopolitical structure is external to the state and binds. However, a perceptual layer at the level of state policymaker affects the operationalization of that structure. Domestic economic forces make themselves felt through state-level policymakers, but only within the predefined context of binding structural factors that constrain. The findings from this study are vastly different from previous studies, suggesting that NCR's triple bridging identity distinguishes it from other IR theories.
|