Legro, J. & Moravcsik, A., 1999. Is anyone still a realist? International Security, 24(2), 55-106.
Realism is in trouble. “The central problem is instead that the theoretical core of the realist approach has been undermined by its own defenders—in particular so-called defensive and neoclassical realists—who seek to address anomalies by recasting realism in forms that are theoretically less determinate, less coherent and less distinctive to realism” (6).
New versions of realism try to take into consideration what earlier realists had tried to argue against, like economic interdependence, etc. It would be a great boon to realism if it could be shown that, from Machiavelli to Morgenthau the structural pushes and pulls were the same. For example, minimalist realism only retains anarchy and rationality as assumptions and thus waters down the school of thought beyond recognition.
“We begin by elaborating the desirable qualities of a theoretical paradigm in international relations and, guided by these criteria, propose a formulation of realism that we believe captures its enduring essence. We then document the theoretical degeneration of recent ‘minimalist realist’ theory. We conclude by highlighting the practical advantages for theoretical debate and empirical research of consistently adhering to a narrower and more rigorous reformulation of the realist paradigm” (8-9).
Realism as a Theoretical Paradigm: realism is a paradigm because it is coherent and distinct. There are four paradigms in IR: realism, institutionalism, liberalism and the epistemic paradigm.
Three core assumptions of realism:
1-the nature of the actors: rational, unitary political units in anarchy (13)
2-the nature of state preferences: fixed and uniformly conflictual goals (14)
3-international structure: the primacy of material capabilities (16)
Minimalist realists only keep anarchy and rationality. Power can be assumed to be fluid, thus also undermining realist assumptions.
Snyder and Grieco are bad realists, among others.