Domestic Politics and the Societal Approach

  • Stefan A. Schirm
Part of the Palgrave Handbooks in IPE book series (PHIPE)


Theories of domestic politics focus on ideational expectations, material interests, and regulatory institutions to explain governmental preference formation. While the possible relevancy of the international power, transnationalism, and regimes is not disputed, domestic politics theories argue that domestic actors and structures influence governmental preferences prior to international circumstances. The societal approach to International Political Economy (IPE) develops previous domestic politics theories further, especially by conceptualising the conditions under which either value-based ideas or material interests prevail in shaping governmental preferences and under which domestic institutions matter. This chapter discusses central domestic politics theories, presents the innovations of the societal approach, and exemplifies its explanatory power in a case study on the controversies between emerging and developed countries on global economic governance in the Group of 20 (G20).


  1. Cynamon, Barry Z. and Steven M. Fazzari. 2010. The End of the Consumer Age. Working Paper Washington University, St. Louis.
  2. Deutscher Industrie-und Handelskammertag (DIHK). 2010. “Das Spiel mit Wechselkursen birgt Gefahren”, Interview with DIHK President Hans Heinrich Driftmann in Manager Magazin 13 October.Google Scholar
  3. Federaçao das Industrias do Estado de São Paulo (FIESP). 2011. Diretor da Fiesp defende rodada da moeda no G20 papa evitar maior deterioração do cambio. Press release, São Paulo 14 October.Google Scholar
  4. Fioretos, Orfeo. 2001. The Domestic Sources of Multilateral Preferences: Varieties of Capitalism in the European Community. In Varieties of Capitalism, ed. Peter A. Hall and David Soskice, 213–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2010. Capitalist Diversity and the International Regulation of Hedge Funds. Review of International Political Economy 17 (4): 696–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frieden, Jeffry, and Ronald Rogowski. 1996. The Impact of the International Economy on National Policies: An Analytical Overview. In Internationalization and Domestic Politics, ed. Robert O. Keohane and Helen V. Milner, 25–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geithner, Timothy. 2009. US Treasury Secretary Quoted in The Economist. “The G20: Talking-Shop on Thames” 12 March.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2010a. Letter of the US Treasury Secretary. “Timothy Geithner’s Letter to G20 Finance Leaders.” The Guardian, 22 October.
  9. ———. 2010b. Treasury Secretary Geithner’s Testimony on China. Wall Street Journal, 16 September. testimony-on-china
  10. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane, eds. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, Peter A. 1997. The Role of Interests, Institutions, and Ideas in the Comparative Political Economy of the Industrialized Nations. In Comparative Politics. Rationality, Culture, and Structure, ed. Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, 174–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, Peter A., and David Soskice. 2001. An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. In Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantages, ed. Peter A. Hall and David Soskice, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartwich, Hans-Hermann. 1998. Die Europäisierung des deutschen Wirtschaftssystems. Alte Fundamente, neue Realitäten, Zukunftsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
  14. International Labour Organisation (ILO). 2010. G20 Statistical Update: Brazil’s Response to the Crisis. Geneva.
  15. Katzenstein, Peter J. 1978. Introduction. Domestic and International Forces and Strategies of Foreign Economic Policy. In Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein, 3–22. WI: Madison.Google Scholar
  16. Lavareda, Antonio. 2009. Crise e Opiniao Publica. Percepcoes sobre o Enfrentamento da Crise no Brasil. Presentation at Fundacao Getulio Vargas, “Impacto da Crise na Gestao Governamental”. São Paulo.
  17. Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51 (4): 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nölke, Andreas, Tobias ten Brink, Simone Claar, and Christian May. 2015. Domestic Structures, Foreign Economic Policies and Global Economic Order: Implications from the Rise of Large Emerging Economies. European Journal of International Relations 21 (3): 538–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD. 2010. Household Saving Rates – OECD Economic Outlook No. 88. Paris. doi:
  21. Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: e Logic of Two Level Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rajan, Raghuram G. 2010. Rebalancing the Global Economy. New Perspectives Quarterly 27 (4): 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenau, James N., ed. 1967. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rousseff, Dilma. 2011. Brazil will Fight Back against the Currency Manipulators. Financial Times, 21 September.Google Scholar
  25. Schäuble, Wolfgang. 2010. Quoted in The Economist, “The Ghost at the Feast” 12 November.Google Scholar
  26. Schirm, Stefan A. 2002. Globalization and the New Regionalism. Global Markets, Domestic Politics, and Regional Cooperation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2009. Ideas and Interests in Global Financial Governance. Comparing German and US Preference Formation. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (3): 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2010. Leaders in Need of Followers. Emerging Powers in Global Governance. European Journal of International Relations 16 (2): 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 2013. Global Politics are Domestic Politics. A Societal Approach to Divergence in the G20. Review of International Studies 39 (3): 685–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2016. Domestic Ideas, Institutions, or Interests? Explaining Governmental Preferences Towards Global Economic Governance. International Political Science Review 37 (1): 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steinbrück, Peer. 2009. German Finance Minister Quoted in Handelsblatt, 16 June.Google Scholar
  32. US Chamber of Commerce. 2011. International Trade and Investment: Policy Accomplishments for 2011, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  33. World Values Survey (WVS). 2006a. Values Survey Databank, V152 Democracy: Governments Tax the Rich and Subsidize the Poor.
  34. ———. 2006b. Values Survey Databank, V118 Government Responsibility.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan A. Schirm
    • 1
  1. 1.Ruhr University of BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations