Neoclassical realism(s) vis-à-vis other theories of foreign policy: taking the indistinguishability problem seriously

Neoclassical realism (NCR)'s opponents have considered it an incoherent and indistinctive approach because of its interest in addressing ideational and institutional factors. Specifically, they have denounced NCR's fuzzily established internal and external conceptual boundaries, corresponding to central dimensions of this approach's 'indistinguishability' problem. Even though NCR has responded in a sophisticated manner to its critics, such a response still falls short of advancing some subtle strategies to forge NCR's theoretical identity and research design. To fill this gap, I distinguish several neoclassical realist theories (Types I, II, IIA, IIB and III) to clarify NCR works' common ground and the several options available to the analyst to cope with the indistinguishability problem's internal dimension. Furthermore, I compare neoclassical realist theories with organizational, bureaucratic, realist, liberal and constructivist approaches to foreign policy to discuss the indistinguishability problem's external dimension. Dealing with this dimension entails acknowledging that neoclassical realist theories provide a top-down, as compared to a bottom-up approach to explain foreign policy as a policy rather than a process. It also provides a thorough explanation rather than a parsimonious account aimed at distinguishing independent and intervening variables. With different intensities, neoclassical realist theories embrace specific, refined logics of consequentialism rather than appropriateness to explain distinct state preferences rather than assuming power maximization or security seeking as pre-fixed state goals.