Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #111173 in Books
• Published on: 1979-01-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 250 pages

Customer Reviews

(Half a) Theory of International Politics
A very mixed bag. Although praised as a classic in the field and credited as the founding text of neo-realism, Waltz's 1979 manifesto is uneven and sometimes puzzling.

Realists are often criticised for being basically conservative but when Waltz makes a fairly strong case for understanding the international in systemic terms, rather than by the intentions and actions of individual states, he doesn't necessarily imply anything normative. The argument against reductionist theories and the elucidation of theory in the first chapter are the strongest elements of the book, even if they do suffer from an occassional lack of clarity and some over-simplification. The attack on endlessly proliferating research in International Relations that never says anything new or aspires to building theory is also apt and the dismantling of other 'systemic' theories adept.

Much more worrying is the perplexing change of tone about half way through the book, when we are treated to several chapters on the balance of power, interdependence, the Cold War, and the role of great powers. Each contains interesting insights, but the approach frequently contradicts Waltz's earlier position, not only because we get much more unit-level than system-level analysis, but also because hypotheses are justified by historical anecdote and economic analogy. The rigourous tests promised as the stall of theory was being set out are now nowhere to be seen. Much of this part of the book reads like an essay on America's role in the Cold War and the world of the 1970s for a US audience, which would be perfectly acceptable (despite now being very dated) if it didn't so contradict the avowed intention to provide some solid theory.

Overall, essential to understanding where International Relations has come from, and worth reading before moving on to the critiques (I would recommend the sections in Hollis and Smith, 'Explaining and Understanding International Relations' and Rosenberg, 'The Empire of Civil Society'). But surprisingly lacking and empty, even on its own terms.