Kenneth+Waltz

[[|hide]]
 * Kenneth Neal Waltz** (born 1924) is a member of the faculty at [|Columbia University] [|[1]] and one of the most prominent scholars of [|international relations] (IR) alive today. He is one of the founders of [|neorealism], or structural realism, in [|international relations theory].
 * ==Contents==
 * [|1] [|Biography]
 * [|2] [|Levels of analysis]
 * [|3] [|Neorealism]
 * [|4] [|Criticism of Waltz's Theory]
 * [|5] [|Bibliography]
 * [|6] [|Awards]
 * [|7] [|Honorary Doctorates]
 * [|8] [|See also]
 * [|8.1] [|Classical realists]
 * [|8.2] [|Neorealists]
 * [|8.3] [|Neoclassical realists]
 * [|8.4] [|Issues and theory]
 * [|9] [|References]
 * [|10] [|External links] ||

[[|edit]] Biography
Waltz is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at [|UC Berkeley] and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at [|Columbia University]. He is also a past President of the [|American Political Science Association] (1987–1988) and a Fellow of the [|American Academy of Arts and Sciences]. Waltz, who is also a veteran, received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1954.

[[|edit]] Levels of analysis
Waltz's initial contribution to the field of political science was his 1959 book, "Man, the State, and War", which classified theories of international relations into three categories, or levels of analysis. The first level explained international politics as being driven primarily by actions of individuals, or outcomes of psychological forces. The second level explained international politics as being driven by the domestic regimes of states, while the third level focused on the role of systemic factors, or the effect that international anarchy was exerting on state behavior. "Anarchy" in this context is meant not as a condition of chaos or disorder, but one in which there is no sovereign body that governs nation-states.

[[|edit]] Neorealism
Main article: [|Neorealism (international relations)] Waltz's key contribution to the realm of political science is in the creation of neorealism (or //structural realism//, as he calls it), a theory of International Relations (IR) which posits that states' actions can often be explained by the pressures exerted on them by international competition, which limits and constrains their choices. Neorealism thus aims to explain recurring patterns of state behavior, such as why the relations between Sparta and Athens resembled in important ways the relations between the US and the USSR. Waltz argues that the world exists in a state of perpetual international [|anarchy]. Waltz distinguishes the anarchy of the international environment from the order of the domestic one. In the domestic realm, all actors may appeal to, and be compelled by, a central authority - 'the state' or 'the government' - but in the international realm, no such source of order exists. The anarchy of international politics – its lack of a central enforcer – means that states must act in a way that ensures their security above all, or else risk falling behind. This is a fundamental fact of political life faced by democracies and dictatorships alike: except in rare cases, they cannot count on the good will of others to help them, so they must always be ready to fend for themselves. Like most neorealists Waltz accepts that [|globalization] is posing new challenges to states, but he does not believe states are being replaced, because no other non-state actor can equal the capabilities of the state. Waltz has suggested that globalization is a fad of the 1990s and if anything the role of the state has expanded its functions in response to global transformations. Neorealism was Waltz's response to what he saw as the deficiencies of classical realism. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, neorealism and realism share a number of fundamental differences. The main distinction between the two theories is that classical realism puts human nature, or the urge to dominate, at the center of its explanation for war, while neorealism stakes no claim on human nature and argues instead that the pressures of anarchy shape outcomes regardless of human nature or domestic regimes. Waltz's theory, as he explicitly makes clear in "[|Theory of International Politics]", is not a theory of foreign policy and does not attempt to predict or explain specific state actions, such as the collapse of the [|Soviet Union]. The theory explains only general principles of behavior that govern relations between states in an anarchic international system, rather than specific actions. These recurring principles of behavior include balancing of power (the theory was revised by Stephan Walt, modifying the "balance of power" concept to "balance of threat"), entering into individually sub-optimal arms races, and exercising restraint in proportion to relative power. In //Theory of International Politics// (1979:6) Waltz suggests that explanation rather than prediction is expected from a good social science theory, since social scientists cannot run controlled experiments that give the natural sciences so much predictive power.

[[|edit]] Criticism of Waltz's Theory
Since its appearance in 1979 and until the end of the Cold War neorealism was the dominant theory of international relations. Its inability to explain the sudden and peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union put into question Waltz's argument that bipolar systems should be more stable than multipolar systems. Waltz has argued that stability has been misunderstood to mean duration rather than peace, and that the bipolar system was indeed more stable in the latter sense. Another major criticism of neorealism (and classical realism in general) is its inability to account for lasting great-power peace since [|World War II] and increasing cooperation among states. Alternative explanations that focus on the roles of institutions, norms, and domestic regimes have continued to offer an alternative to the realist approach, although realist theories continue to have a major influence on current work and theory. Other critics have argued that states do not engage in balancing behavior as neorealism predicts, and instead often prefer to bandwagon, or side with the more powerful side in an international crisis. Waltz responds that his theory explains the actions of middle and great powers, and that small vulnerable states indeed often bandwagon instead of balance, but that ultimately their actions do not shape the course of international relations to a significant extent.
 * [[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.png width="40" height="40"]] || **This [|biography of a living person] does not [|cite] any [|references or sources].** Please help by adding [|reliable sources]. Contentious material about living people that is un-sourced or poorly sourced **must be removed immediately**. //(May 2010)// ||