Absolute and Relative Gains
Introduction
Historically, states see international arena from different point of views. Hence, this paper shows the differences between absolute and relative gains. Debate between relative and absolute gains is the key that distinguishes two most influential theories in the international relations neoliberal institutionalism and structural realism. The neoliberal institutionalism establishes on the fact that states are primarily concentrated on absolute gains and highlight the prospects for cooperation and economic development. On the other hand, the structural realism claims that states are largely concerned with relative gains and concentrate on prospects for conflict (Powell, 1991). Since in the international system, anarchy plays a significant role in the states’ decision for cooperation or conflict. However, detecting different possibilities about the likelihood of conflict and cooperation to the different assumptions about states preferences presents a huge complexity in the international politics theory (Jervis, 1988). Therefore, realists and institutionalists particularly disagree whether institutions distinctively affect the prospects for international stability. Nevertheless, the debate between neoliberals and neorealist continues about the extent of cooperation between states.
Absolute gains
One of the most politically essential statements liberals have generally made is that states that pursue shared aims in cooperative effort can increase the welfare of all. In other words, states can address rather than worry about relative gains. Moreover, absolute gains define states can assess their gains independently from gains or losses of other states. It is very important to note the fact after the World War 2, liberal capitalist states pursued and achieved large absolute gains from cooperation (Bromley,