A Competition of Ideas: An Analysis of the Role of International Organizations from the Perspectives of Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism

Abstract

In the process of globalization, global interdependence continues to deepen, and global issues become increasingly complex. Ideological competition has gradually surpassed traditional power struggles to become a core variable shaping the evolution of the international order. As the two dominant ideologies in contemporary international governance, the differences in their ideologies not only influence the foreign policy choices of various countries but also have profound and differentiated impacts on the role positioning, functional boundaries, and practical effectiveness of international organizations. This article, taking the core differences between these two ideologies as a starting point, systematically analyzes the core propositions of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in three dimensions: the value logic of international cooperation, the cognitive boundaries of state sovereignty, and the relationship between the market and the state. It then explores their differentiated approaches to shaping the role of international organizations: Based on the demands of multilateral governance, neoliberalism assigns international organizations the complex role of "rule-maker," "multilateral coordinator," and "rule-monitor," promoting them as stabilizers of the global order. Neoconservatism, driven by the supremacy of national interests, positions international organizations as "instruments of great power interests," weakening their multilateral nature and autonomous authority. Research has found that this ideological competition not only triggers inherent tensions in the role definition of international organizations but also entangles them in three interrelated dilemmas: legitimacy, efficiency, and autonomy. The key to overcoming these dilemmas lies in building a multi-ideological dialogue mechanism to build consensus, strengthening inclusive rule design to balance demands, and enhancing organizational autonomy to free themselves from power manipulation. The theoretical value of this article lies in expanding the analytical dimension of international organization role research from the perspective of ideological interaction, addressing the limitation of existing research on implicit ideological variables. Its practical significance lies in providing an operational framework for international organizations to address ideological differences and optimize governance effectiveness in areas such as global economic governance and public health collaboration amidst the countercurrents of globalization.