In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Correspondence1 History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look Elman Paul W. Schvoeder To the editors: At a time when international relations theorists are increasingly returning to history to confirm or challenge the neo-realist paradigm,' Paul Schroeder's article, "Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory," is an important addition to the ongoing debate.2Indeed, in a long and impressive series of scholarly works, Schroeder has consistently contributed to a fruitful dialogue between historians and political scientist^.^ In this latest article, Schroeder examines 300 years of international relations and concludes that neo-realism does not provide an adequate explanatory framework for the "general operation and dynamics of the modern European states system." He therefore advises historians "not to adopt the neo-realist paradigm," and international relations theorists "not to assume that the facts of international history support one" (p. 148). Colin Elman is a President's Fellow and Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.During 1995-96 he will be an O h Fellow in National Security at the JohnM. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University. Miriam Fendius Elman is a President's Fellow and Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University. In August 2995 she will join the faculty of the Department of Political Science at Arizona State University.During 1995-96 she will be on leave as a post-doctoral Research Fellow at the Centerfor Science and International Affairs (CSIA),Harvard University.The authors thank Columbia University and the Schiff Foundation for their generous financial support. They also thank David A. Baldwin, Richard K. Betts, Mark Blyth, Robert Jervis, Randall L. Schweller, and Jack Snyder for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the letter. Paul W. Schroeder is a member of the Department of History and the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois, Urbana. 1. See, for example, Ted Hopf, "Polarity, the Offense-DefenseBalance, and War," American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June 1991),pp. 475-493; Christopher Layne, "The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise," International Security, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Spring 1993), pp. 5-51; Markus Fischer, "Feudal Europe, 800-1300 Communal Discourse and ConflictualPractices," International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 427466; Eric J. Labs, "Do Weak States Bandwagon?" Security Studies, Vol. 1,No. 3 (Spring 1992),pp. 383416. 2. Paul W. Schroeder,"Historical Reality vs. Neo-realistTheory," International Security, Vol. 19,No. 1 (Summer 1994),pp. 108-148. 3. For example,see Paul W. Schroeder,"Quantitative Studies in the Balance of Power:A Historian's Reaction," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 21, No. 1 (March 1977), pp. S21; Schroeder, "The Nineteenth Century International System: Changes in the Structure," World Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (October1986),pp. 1-26; Schroeder,"The Nineteenth Century System: Balanceof Power or Political Equilibrium," Review of International Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (April 1989),pp. 135-153; Schroeder, "The Transformation of Political Thinking, 1787-1848," in Jack Snyder and Robert Jervis, eds., Coping With Complexity in the International System (Boulder:Westview, 1993);Schroeder,The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 (New York Oxford University Press, 1994). Znternational Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995),pp. 182-195 Elman letter 01995 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Schroeder letter @ 1995 by Paul W. Schroeder. 182 Correspondence I 183 Despite his protestations to the contrary, Schroeder’s main achievement in this article is in providing evidence that, in the aggregate, states do not balance and that balances do not generally form in the international system. This is a noteworthy and important finding. It is inconsistent with one of Kenneth N. Waltz’s predictions in Theory of International Politics, and should give proponents of that theory cause to reexamine their model and consider possible alternatives4 Nevertheless, Schroeder makes a series of conceptual and theoretical errors that inevitably undermine the article’smain contribution . If, as Schroeder notes, we have ”the right and duty . . . to weigh in from [our] side, evaluating the way historians use theory” (p. 112), then we cannot allow his caricature of neo-realism to stand. NEO...

pdf

Share