Dr Panagiotis Vasileiadis

Neoclassical Realism’s (NCR) theoretical relevance is on the line. The structural realist variant of the paradigm, tasked to explain why states react inefficiently to systemic stimuli is threatened with triviality by being assigned to explain a few cases of deviance. This is given the usual lack of ability on the part of those stimuli to point to a single optimal state response. In acknowledgement of the permissiveness of systemic stimuli, a second generation of NCR scholarship has proposed the development of a general theory of explaining foreign policy as the joint result of the limits imposed by them and the function of non-systemic factors – ideas and domestic politics – in selecting outcomes from within those limits. But this endeavour has been charged with the ‘crime’ of striping NCR of its theoretical distinctiveness, based on the argument that both types of causes are prima facie symmetrical. Accepting the view that NCR faces such an impasse, this article points towards a third pathway, termed transitive NCR. What is proposed under the latter is the longitudinal study of policy trends and patterns as the outcome of the transitive interplay between systemic and non-systemic factors; that is, the careful study of the ways in which systemic factors activate a number of non-systemic causal mechanisms, leading to the explained trends and patterns. In this way, the paradigm acquires distinctiveness and sufficient explanatory breadth while building bridges with other paradigms committed to the multicausal study of long-time periods.