English School vs. Neoliberalism

Attribute	English School	Neoliberalism
Origin	19th century Europe	20th century United States
Focus	International relations	Economics
Key Figures	Hedley Bull, Martin Wight	Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman
State Role	Important actor in international system	Minimal state intervention in economy
Global Governance	Supports international institutions	Emphasizes free market principles

Introduction

The English School of international relations theory and neoliberalism are two prominent approaches that offer different perspectives on global politics and economics. While the English School focuses on the importance of international society and norms, neoliberalism emphasizes the role of markets and individual actors in shaping international relations. In this article, we will compare the attributes of these two approaches to better understand their differences and similarities.

Core Principles

The English School, also known as the international society approach, emphasizes the importance of international norms, institutions, and values in shaping global politics. It argues that states are not just self-interested actors but are also bound by shared norms and values that form an international society. In contrast, neoliberalism focuses on the role of markets, competition, and individual actors in shaping international relations. Neoliberalism advocates for free trade, deregulation, and privatization as key principles for promoting economic growth and prosperity.

State Behavior

According to the English School, states are not just concerned with maximizing their own interests but also with upholding international norms and values. States are seen as members of an international society that share common goals and responsibilities. In contrast, neoliberalism argues that states are primarily self-interested actors that seek to maximize their own economic interests. Neoliberalism emphasizes the importance of competition and market forces in shaping state behavior.

International Institutions

The English School places a strong emphasis on international institutions as key actors in shaping global politics. Institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Trade Organization play a crucial role in upholding international norms and values. Neoliberalism also recognizes the importance of international institutions but focuses more on economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Neoliberalism advocates for the liberalization of trade and investment through these institutions.

Globalization

Both the English School and neoliberalism acknowledge the impact of globalization on international relations. Globalization has led to increased interconnectedness and interdependence among states, making it necessary for them to cooperate on various issues. The English School argues that globalization has strengthened international norms and values, while neoliberalism sees it as an opportunity for economic growth and development through free trade and investment.

Power and Influence

In terms of power and influence, the English School emphasizes the importance of both material capabilities and normative influence in shaping state behavior. States with greater power can influence others through coercion or persuasion, but they are also constrained by international norms and values. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, focuses more on economic power and the ability of states to leverage their economic resources to achieve their goals. Neoliberalism sees economic interdependence as a key factor in shaping state behavior.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the English School and neoliberalism offer different perspectives on global politics and economics. While the English School emphasizes the importance of international norms and values in shaping state behavior, neoliberalism focuses on the role of markets and individual actors. Both approaches acknowledge the impact of globalization on international relations but differ in their emphasis on power and influence. By understanding the attributes of these two approaches, we can gain a better insight into the complexities of global politics and economics.