regime theory


  • 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.

  • In brief, within regime theory, liberals and realists disagree on two things—the nature of international cooperation and the role of international institutions.

  • 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[edit] 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Liberal approaches[edit] Liberal interest-based approaches to regime theory argue that cooperation in anarchy is possible without a hegemon because there exists a “convergence
    of expectations”.

  • 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”.

  • 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.

  • Regime theory may appear to counter hegemonic stability theory sometimes, but realists also apply it within regime theory in order to explain change.

  • 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.

  • o By creating iteration and the belief that interaction will continue for the foreseeable future, regimes increase the importance of reputation and allow for the employment
    of complex strategies.

  • 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.

  • 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”.

  • (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).

  • 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.

  • [citation needed] Neoliberals believe that realists neglect the degree to which countries share interests and the iterative nature of state relations.

  • 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.

  • [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.

  • [1] It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as regimes are, by definition, instances of international cooperation.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • “[3] Theoretical foundations While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy.


Works Cited

[‘1. Rittberger, Volker. Mayer, Peter (1993). Regime theory and international relations. Clarendon Press. ISBN 1280813563.
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.
Photo credit:’]