Both Gideon Rose's neoclassical realism and Andrew Moravcsik's liberalism attempt to solve the problem of how to incorporate domestic factors into international relations theory. They do so in very different ways, however. Liberalism is a “bottom-up” perspective that accords analytic priority to societal preferences; neoclassical realism is a “top-down” perspective that accords analytic priority to systemic pressures and treats domestic factors as intervening variables. These two approaches are not equivalent, and the choice between them has high stakes. Although it has gained rapidly in popularity, neoclassical realism is fundamentally flawed. Its intellectual justification is weak; it is logically incoherent; and it induces the commission of methodological errors. Realism can incorporate certain domestic factors without losing its theoretical integrity, but it does not need and should not use neoclassical realism to do so.

中文翻译：

---

论系统范式与国内政治：对最新现实主义的批判

吉迪恩·罗斯的新古典现实主义和安德鲁·莫拉维奇克的自由主义都试图解决如何将国内因素纳入国际关系理论的问题。然而，他们以非常不同的方式这样做。自由主义是一种“自下而上”的观点，它赋予社会偏好分析优先权；新古典现实主义是一种“自上而下”的观点，它对系统压力给予分析优先权，并将国内因素视为干预变量。这两种方法并不等价，它们之间的选择具有很高的风险。尽管它迅速流行起来，但新古典现实主义从根本上是有缺陷的。它的理智上的理由很弱；它在逻辑上是不连贯的；它会导致方法上的错误。