Besides the role of sharing information, neoliberalism and structural realism have their similarity in belief in anarchy and differences on perceptions of international cooperation and the driving forces behind it. Both think that anarchy influences how states behave toward each other. They are different because neoliberalists believe that international cooperation is possible because states value economic interests too, not only military power, while structural realists think that this is difficult to achieve. Mearsheimer explained that realists believe that the state is the principal actor in international politics and states are concerned of balance of power. State activities are connected to their position in the balance of power, specifically use of military power (University of California Television, 2008). Structural realists do not think it is possible to have successful international cooperation in this context of desire for hegemony through military power. Neoliberalism disagrees because international regimes can make this attainable, especially when economic interests through international cooperation are also essential for states.
Neoliberalism assumes that states want to attain international cooperation primarily because of economic interests, while structural realism disagrees because world governmental authority cannot effectively enforce agreements among states. Neoliberalism believes that states want to share quality information through international organizations.