The Rationale of States

Grieco writes that "Neoliberal Institutionalists assume that states define thier interests in strictly indicidualistic terms." Grieco cites Axelrod who argues that "the prisoner dillema is a useful to study states in anarchy because it is assumed in the game that the object is to do as well as possible, regardless of how well the other player does" in support of his claim that actors "who pursue their own interests may nevertheless work together."However the only way they will be in accordance with this claim is if they made the choice from which they will both benefit (in the dilemma they would remain silent) however this has proven no to be the "rational" decision that states make. And if states are as Keohane states "rational egoists" than two states will not mutually benefit from a decision based on the rational choice of the Prisoner's dillemma. It seems that some aspects of neorealism may be in contradiction with eachother and in accordance with what realists argue. The realist argument is that "the fundamental goal of states in any relationship is to precent others from achieveing advances in their relative capabilities." Which is precisely what the prisoner's dillemma points out. Neither state will choose to "remain silent" because if the other is to "talk" than the silent state will be punished while the other goes free. Therefore they both choose the option that ensures they do not suffer the max. punishment. However this is not the greatest benefit and therefore they are not working together by pursuing their own intrests. Unless ofcourse what neoliberals are arguing is that by working together states can achieve mediocracy instead of what could potentially be greatness. However by pointing out the behavior of states, realists are also making the same claim.