This paper compares the assumptions of three approaches to the study of international relations - neorealism, power transition, and the "two-good theory." We show that neorealism is an underspecified theory that has limited empirical support. While there are significant differences between them, power transition and the two-good theory have much in common. The paper illustrates the differences between power transition and the two-good theory by applying the later to the recent American foreign policy. Generally, the two-good theory predicts an activist US attempting to impose its preferences in the international arena - are consistent with what we observe.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Political Science and International Relations