Regime theory

Last updated

Regime theory is a theory within international relations derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states or other international actors. [1] It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as regimes are, by definition, instances of international cooperation.

Contents

Stephen D. Krasner was a key figure in establishing Regime theory as a prominent topic of study in IR, in part through the 1983 edited collection International Regimes. [2] Robert Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemony has been described as regime theory's "fullest expression." [3]

Theoretical foundations

While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights, and collective security, among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition comes from Stephen Krasner, who defines regimes as "institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations". [4] Thus, the concept of regimes is broader than that of a formal organization. [5]

Not all approaches to regime theory, however are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Grieco developed hybrid theories which take a realism-based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that it's not the norm—a difference of degree).

In international political economy

As stated above, a regime is defined by Stephen D. Krasner as a set of explicit or implicit "principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given area of international relations". This definition is intentionally broad, and covers human interaction ranging from formal organizations (e.g., OPEC) to informal groups (e.g., major banks during the debt crisis). Note that a regime need not be composed of states. [6]

Within IPE there are three main approaches to regime theory: the dominant, liberal-derived interest-based approach, the realist critique of interest-based approaches, and finally knowledge-based approaches that come from the cognitivist school of thought. [7] The first two are rationalist approaches while the third is sociological.

Within regime theory, because regime theory is by definition a theory that explains international cooperation (i.e., it's a traditionally liberal concept) liberal approaches prevail within the literature.

Liberal approaches

Liberal interest-based approaches to regime theory argue that cooperation in anarchy is possible without a hegemon because there exists a "convergence of expectations". Regimes facilitate cooperation by establishing standards of behavior that signal to other members that they are in fact cooperating. When all states expect cooperation from the others, the probability of sustaining cooperation increases. Digvijay Mehra notes that regime theory lacks recognition of political parties and their role in altering the influence of international institutions, but Mehra's claims have generally been ignored in academic circles for their lack of evidentiary support and intellectual rigor.[ citation needed ]

Neoliberals believe that realists neglect the degree to which countries share interests and the iterative nature of state relations. Realists err by implicitly modeling the world using the classic single-play prisoner's dilemma, in which the payoff structure makes defection a dominant strategy for both players. The difference between this model and reality is that states are not like prisoners, states must continually cooperate whereas prisoners will never see one another again. One's decisions today, then, have future consequences. Mutual cooperation is thus rational: the sum of relatively small cooperative payoffs over time can be greater than the gain from a single attempt to exploit your opponent followed by an endless series of mutual defections [8] In The Evolution of Cooperation , Robert Axelrod referred to single-shot exploitation as the behavior whereby states avoided "tit for tat".

In the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the actors' behavior is determined by the following assumptions:

Neoliberal IR theorist Robert Keohane argues that international regimes can increase the likelihood of cooperation by:

Other authors such as Kenneth A. Oye claim that regimes can provide incentives to cooperate and deterrents to defect by altering the payoff structure of the regime. [9]

Realist approaches

Realists such as Joseph Grieco propose power-based theories of regimes based on hegemonic stability theory. Regime theory may appear to counter hegemonic stability theory sometimes, but realists also apply it within regime theory in order to explain change. When used in this way, realists conclude that a strong hegemon is what makes for a successful—i.e., robust, resilient—regime.

In brief, within regime theory, liberals and realists disagree on two things—the nature of international cooperation and the role of international institutions. Liberals believe that international institutions at most bring about an environment conducive to the convergence of state interests, which facilitates regime cooperation; and at least, facilitate cooperation that might otherwise not have been able to occur in an anarchic world. On the other hand, realists believe that regimes merely reflect the distribution of power in the international system, and that any cooperation that occurs under a regime would have occurred anyway. (Powerful states create regimes to serve their security and economic interests; regimes have no independent power over states, especially great powers; as such, regimes are simply intervening variables between power, the real independent variable, and cooperation, the dependent variable). [10]

Susan Strange had a five-fold critique of regime theory:

  1. It is a fad: regime theory is a temporary reaction to current events and it has cumulative value to knowledge
  2. The concept of regime is imprecise
  3. It is value-laden: it is pre-occupied with preserving U.S. hegemony and U.S.-led institutions, which are seen as benevolent
  4. It underemphasizes the dynamism of world politics: regime theory has a static view of politics
  5. it is state-centric: regime theory does not consider broader structural patterns and forms of power [11]

Cognitivist knowledge-based approaches

In contrast to the rationalist approaches above, cognitivists critique the rationalist theories on the grounds that liberals and realists both use flawed assumptions such as that nation-states are always and forever rational actors; that interests remain static, that different interpretations of interests and power are not possible. The cognitivists also argue that even when the rationalist theories employ iterated game theories where future consequences affect present decisions, they ignore a major implication of such iteration—learning. Consequences from an iterated game look backwards to the past as well as forward to the future. So one's decisions today are not the same as one's decisions tomorrow, not only because the actors are taking the future into account but because each is taking the past into account as well. Finally cognitivists use a post-positivist methodology which does not believe that social institutions or actors can be separated out of their surrounding socio-political context for analytical purposes. The cognitivist approach then, is sociological or post-positivist instead of rationalist. In sum, for the cognitivists, it's not only interests or power that matters but perceptions and environment as well.

An example of a useful application of this approach to the study of international regime theory, is exemplified in a doctoral dissertation by Edythe Weeks, wherein she demonstrates that we can apply this type of analysis to explain and highlight key actors, unfolding political dynamics and historical-ideological shifts, related to commercial activities concerning outer space and its resources. [12]

Alternative approaches

Alternative approaches to liberal or realist regime theory tend to treat the debates over the normative bases of cooperation or otherwise as epiphenomenal. They emphasize instead the complex intersection of social forces, including changing values, that gave rise to ongoing political and economic regimes of power in the first place. For example, they emphasize the rise of modern bureaucratic regimes of negotiation or the normalizing of the global system of nation-states and multinational corporations as key players on the global stage:

In order to understand the nature of globalizing institutions and regimes it is crucial to locate them in their social-relational context, rather than just concentrating on the organizational mechanics and policy-making content of a few peak institutions. Understanding the process, historical context, and contemporary relations of institutionalization is fundamental for making sense of the more empirical task of documenting the activities of this or that institution. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation. The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their security, thus prompting them to engage in power politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International relations</span> Study of relationships between two or more states

International relations (IR), are the interactions between sovereign states. The scientific study of those interactions is called international studies or international affairs. In a broader sense, it concerns all activities between states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organisations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain causal and constitutive effects in international politics. Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The three most prominent schools of thought are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I and the instability of the interwar period.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen D. Krasner</span>

Stephen David Krasner is an American academic and former diplomat. Krasner has been a professor of international relations at Stanford University since 1981, and served as the Director of Policy Planning from 2005 to April 2007 while on leave from Stanford.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Keohane</span> American academic

Robert Owen Keohane is an American academic working within the fields of international relations and international political economy. Following the publication of his influential book After Hegemony (1984), he has become widely associated with the theory of neoliberal institutionalism in international relations, as well as transnational relations and world politics in international relations in the 1970s.

An international regime is the set of principles, norms, rules and procedures that international actors converge around. Sometimes, when formally organized, it can transform into an intergovernmental organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Realism (international relations)</span> Belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing power

Realism is one of the dominant schools of thought in international relations theory, theoretically formalising the Realpolitik statesmanship of early modern Europe. Although a highly diverse body of thought, it is unified by the belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing wealth and power. The theories of realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism in international relations.

Reflectivism is an umbrella label used in International Relations theory for a range of theoretical approaches which oppose rational-choice accounts of social phenomena and positivism generally. The label was popularised by Robert Keohane in his presidential address to the International Studies Association in 1988. The address was entitled "International Institutions: Two Approaches", and contrasted two broad approaches to the study of international institutions. One was "rationalism", the other what Keohane referred to as "reflectivism". Rationalists — including realists, neo-realists, liberals, neo-liberals, and scholars using game-theoretic or expected-utility models — are theorists who adopt the broad theoretical and ontological commitments of rational-choice theory.

Marxist and neo-Marxist international relations theories are paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation, instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It purports to reveal how the economy trumps other concerns, which allows for the elevation of class as the focus of the study.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Strange</span> British international relations and political theorist

Susan Strange was a British scholar who was "almost single-handedly responsible for creating international political economy." Notable publications include Sterling and British Policy (1971), Casino Capitalism (1986), States and Markets (1988), The Retreat of the State (1996), and Mad Money (1998).

In international relations, constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

Offensive realism is a structural theory in international relations that belongs to the neorealist school of thought and was put forward by the political scholar John Mearsheimer in response to defensive realism. Offensive realism holds that the anarchic nature of the international system is responsible for the promotion of aggressive state behavior in international politics. The theory fundamentally differs from defensive realism by depicting great powers as power-maximizing revisionists privileging buck-passing and self-promotion over balancing strategies in their consistent aim to dominate the international system. The theory brings important alternative contributions for the study and understanding of international relations but remains the subject of criticism.

Robert Gilpin was an American political scientist. He was Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University where he held the Eisenhower professorship.

In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Complex interdependence</span>

Complex interdependence in international relations and international political economy is a concept put forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in the 1970s to describe the emerging nature of the global political economy. The concept entails that relations between states are becoming increasingly deep and complex. These increasingly complex webs of economic interdependence undermine state power and elevate the influence of transnational non-state actors. These complex relationships can be explored through both the liberal and realism lenses and can later explain the debate of power from complex interdependence.

Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.

<i>After Hegemony</i> 1984 English-language book by Robert Keohane

After Hegemony is a book by Robert Keohane first published in 1984. It is a leading text in the liberal institutionalist international relations scholarship. The book challenges neorealist claims that meaningful international cooperation is not possible, as well as hegemonic stability theory claims that international cooperation is only possible under hegemony. The book applies insights from new institutional economics to international relations. The book shows how realist assumptions about actors and the international system can logically lead to the conclusion that meaningful cooperation is possible.

Liberalism is a school of thought within international relations theory which revolves around three interrelated principles:

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

  1. ↑ Rittberger, Volker. Mayer, Peter (1993). Regime theory and international relations. Clarendon Press. ISBN   1280813563.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ↑ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 96, 100. ISBN   978-0-691-13569-4.
  3. ↑ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. p. 101. ISBN   978-0-691-13569-4.
  4. ↑ Krasner, Stephen D. (ed). 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  5. ↑ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 96, 100. ISBN   978-0-691-13569-4.
  6. ↑ James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications.
  7. ↑ Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  8. ↑ Robert Axelrod 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation . New York: Basic Books.
  9. ↑ Kenneth A. Oye, 1986. "Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies" In Kenneth A. Oye (ed.) Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 1–24.
  10. ↑ Krasner, Stephen D. 1982. "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables." International Organization 36/2 (Spring). Reprinted in Stephen D. Krasner, ed., International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983.
  11. ↑ Strange, Susan (1982). "Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis". International Organization. 36 (2): 479–496. doi:10.1017/S0020818300019020. ISSN   0020-8183. JSTOR   2706530. S2CID   55022602.
  12. ↑ Weeks, Edythe E., Doctoral Dissertation, "The Politics of Space Law in a Post Cold War Era: Understanding Regime Change", Northern Arizona University, Department of Politics and International Affairs, 2006.
  13. ↑ James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications. p. xii.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.