Advertisement

Beyond the Challenge of Neorealism: An Agenda for the Study of International Political Economy

  • Bertjan Verbeek

Abstract

The demystification of erroneous fashions has been an important element in Susan Strange’s contribution to the study of international relations: her efforts to point out the dangers of uncritically accepting the theory of hegemonic leadership and, consequently, the apparent decline of American power are well known (Strange, 1987; 1990). The same is true for her warning against embracing the concept of international regimes as the panacea for the ailing field of study of international organisations (Strange, 1983). In this chapter I will show how Strange’s attempts to furnish the tools for the study of international political economy challenge yet another myth within the field of international relations: the idea that most events in world politics can still be explained by making use of rational, utility-maximising actors, usually nation-states. Secondly, I will argue that the adoption of Strange’s framework allows for taking account of the condition of bounded rationality under which international actors have to act. I will thus make clear how the field of international political economy could benefit from the incorporation of such variables as domestic political structure, bureaucratic politics, and the cognitive belief systems of political elites.

Keywords

International Relation Belief System Bounded Rationality World Politics Complex Interdependence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bendor, J. and T.H. Hammond, ‘Rethinking Allison’s models’, American Political Science Review, vol. 86 (1992) 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bueno de Mesquita, B., ‘The Contribution of Expected Utility Theory to the Study of International Conflict’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 18 (1988) 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Evangelista, ML, Domestic Structure and International Change (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  4. Haggard, S. and B.A. Simmons, ‘Theories of international regimes’, International Organization, vol. 41 (1987) 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haggard, S. and R. Kaufman (eds), The Politics of Economic Adjustment. International Constraints Distributive Conflicts, and the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  6. Hettne, B., ‘The Future of Development Studies’, Paper written for the Agenda 2000 Conference at The Hague, Institute for Social Studies, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. Ikenberry, G.J., ‘Conclusion: an Institutional Approach to American foreign Economic Policy’, International Organization, vol. 42 (1988) 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jervis, R., ‘Realism, Game theory, and Cooperation’, World Politics, vol. 40(1988) 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keohane, R.O. (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye Jr., Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977).Google Scholar
  11. Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye Jr., ‘Power and Interdependence revisited’, International Organization, vol. 41 (1987) 725–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKeown, T.J., ‘The Limitations of ‘Structural’ Theories of Commercial Policy’, International Organization, vol. 40 (1986) 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Metze, M., Kortsluiting. Hoe Philips zijn talenten verspeelde [Short-circuit. How Philips wasted its talents] (Nijmegen: SUN, 1991)Google Scholar
  14. Ness, G.D. and S.R. Brechin, ‘Bridging the Gap: International Organizations as Organizations’, International Organization, vol. 42 (1988) 246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Orr Jr., R.M., The Emergence of Japan’s Foreign Aid Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  16. Stopford, J. and S. Strange with J. S. Henley, Rival States, Rival Markets. Competition for World Market Shares (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Strange, S., ‘Cave! Hic Dragones: a Critique of Regime Analysis’, International Organization, vol. 36 (1982) 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strange, S., ‘The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony’, International Organization, vol. 41 (1987) 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strange, S., States and Markets. An Introduction to International Political Economy (London: Pinter Publishers, 1988a).Google Scholar
  20. Strange, S., ‘Defending Benign Mercantilism’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 25, (1988b) 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Strange, S., ‘Finance, Information and Power’, Review of International Studies, vol. 16 (1990) 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Strange, S., ‘Big Business and the State’, Millennium, vol. 20 (1991) 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strange, ‘States, Firms and Diplomacy’, International Affairs, vol. 68 (1992a) 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strange, S., ‘Traitors, Double Agents or Rescuing Knights? The Managers of Transnational Enterprise’, paper delivered at the Round Table Conference Les individus dans la politique internationale at Paris, Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1992b, mimeo.Google Scholar
  25. Tooze, R., ‘The Emergence of a New International Political Economy: a Realist View’, Millennium, vol. 16 (1987) 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tooze, R., ‘Economic Belief Systems and Understanding International Relations’, in R. Little and S. Smith (eds), Belief Systems and International Relations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell) 109–126.Google Scholar
  27. Verbeek, B., Anglo-American Relations 1945–1956. A Comparison of Neorealist and Cognitive Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Relations (Dissertation at the European University Institute, Florence, 1992).Google Scholar
  28. Waltz, K.N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bertjan Verbeek

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations