Neither neorealism nor institutionalism explains domestic support, an unwarranted omission.

Evidence

What neither adequately addresses, however, is that these costs must have domestic support. Neorealism, with its state-level assumptions and predictions, assumes leaders will act to meet threats. It does not address the internal prerequisites for such action. Likewise, institutionalist theories do not consider the impact of domestic coalitions and factions on the freedom of state leaders to pursue international policies. Unless one assumes autonomous leaders, this is an unwarranted premise. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 139

Categorization

• XREF: Directly engages the reader’s purpose: both paradigms miss how domestic politics bounds institutional persistence — the missing link in the NATO-survives-its-enemy puzzle. — connects to: A theory must explain overall outcomes, the standard neorealism fails. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 149
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Related

• Both realism and institutionalism ignore the domestic prerequisites of alliance costs (similarity 0.92)
• alliance persistence requires domestic political support that international relations theories overlook (similarity 0.90)
• A theory must explain overall outcomes, the standard neorealism fails. (similarity 0.87)
• Theoretical frameworks beyond realism are needed to explain NATO’s survival. (similarity 0.86)
• NATO survived the cold war’s end due to institutionalization, not merely threats (similarity 0.86)
• Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations (similarity 0.86)
• Theories should be judged by explaining outcomes and causal mechanisms, which neorealism fails at (similarity 0.85)
• An institutionalist view holds alliances survive only while states value their benefits. (similarity 0.85)
• NATO’s institutionalization beyond mutual defense explains its persistence after its founding threat vanished. (similarity 0.85)
• High institutionalization distinguishes NATO from traditional alliances. (similarity 0.84)
• NATO stayed cohesive despite neorealist predictions of its collapse (similarity 0.84)
• Explaining alliance persistence requires nonrealist unit-level theory. (similarity 0.83)
• NATO’s dense institutionalization beyond mutual defense is what made it survive its founding threat. (similarity 0.82)
• Alliance commitments generate durable domestic constituencies that resist their abandonment. (similarity 0.82)
• NATO’s survival hinges on member states continuing to benefit from it (similarity 0.81)