The transatlantic divide in (undergraduate) international relations
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.See, for example, Benjamin J. Cohen, ‘The Transatlantic Divide: Why are American and British IPE so Different?’ Review of International Political Economy 14, no. 2 (2007): 197–219; and Ole Waever, ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 687–727.Google Scholar
- 2.Ole Waever, ‘A Not So International Discipline’, 696–703; Daniel Maliniak and Michael J. Tierney, ‘The American School of IPE’, Review of International Political Economy 16, no. 1 (2009), 6–33; and Thomas Biersteker, ‘The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for “American” International Relations’, in International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. Arlene Tickner and Ole Waever (New York: Routledge, 2009), 308–27.Google Scholar
- 4.See, for example, David Lake and Robert Powell, Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Jeffry Frieden and David Lake, ‘International Relations as a Social Science: Rigor and Relevance’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (2005): 136–56; Lake, ‘Why “ISMS” Are Evil’; David Lake, ‘TRIPS across the Atlantic: Theory and Epistemology in IPE’, Review of International Political Economy 16, no. 1 (2009): 47–57; and David Lake, ‘Open Economy Politics: A Critical Review’, Review of International Organizations 4, no. 3 (2009): 219–44.Google Scholar
- 5.On open economy politics, see David Lake, ‘Open Economy Politics’. On the bargaining model, see Dan Reiter, ‘Exploring the Bargaining Model of War’, Perspectives on Politics 1, no. 1 (March 2003), 27–43. For Frieden and Lake’s description of these approaches as the ‘current frontiers of research on international relations’, see Frieden and Lake, ‘International Relations as a Social Science’, 136.Google Scholar
- 6.I reserve judgement on this point. As I noted above, there are strong arguments for not presenting plural analytic frameworks in an undergraduate textbook and for not defending ‘bad’ social science in the name of pluralism. On the latter point, see David D. Laitin, ‘The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science’, Politics & Society 31, no. 1 (March 2003), 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2014