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
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bendor, J. and T.H. Hammond, ‘Rethinking Allison’s models’, American Political Science Review, vol. 86 (1992) 301–322.
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.
Evangelista, ML, Domestic Structure and International Change (forthcoming).
Haggard, S. and B.A. Simmons, ‘Theories of international regimes’, International Organization, vol. 41 (1987) 491–517.
Haggard, S. and R. Kaufman (eds), The Politics of Economic Adjustment. International Constraints Distributive Conflicts, and the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).
Hettne, B., ‘The Future of Development Studies’, Paper written for the Agenda 2000 Conference at The Hague, Institute for Social Studies, 1992.
Ikenberry, G.J., ‘Conclusion: an Institutional Approach to American foreign Economic Policy’, International Organization, vol. 42 (1988) 219–243.
Jervis, R., ‘Realism, Game theory, and Cooperation’, World Politics, vol. 40(1988) 317–349.
Keohane, R.O. (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).
Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye Jr., Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977).
Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye Jr., ‘Power and Interdependence revisited’, International Organization, vol. 41 (1987) 725–753.
McKeown, T.J., ‘The Limitations of ‘Structural’ Theories of Commercial Policy’, International Organization, vol. 40 (1986) 43–64.
Metze, M., Kortsluiting. Hoe Philips zijn talenten verspeelde [Short-circuit. How Philips wasted its talents] (Nijmegen: SUN, 1991)
Ness, G.D. and S.R. Brechin, ‘Bridging the Gap: International Organizations as Organizations’, International Organization, vol. 42 (1988) 246–271.
Orr Jr., R.M., The Emergence of Japan’s Foreign Aid Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
Stopford, J. and S. Strange with J. S. Henley, Rival States, Rival Markets. Competition for World Market Shares (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Strange, S., ‘Cave! Hic Dragones: a Critique of Regime Analysis’, International Organization, vol. 36 (1982) 479–496.
Strange, S., ‘The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony’, International Organization, vol. 41 (1987) 551–574.
Strange, S., States and Markets. An Introduction to International Political Economy (London: Pinter Publishers, 1988a).
Strange, S., ‘Defending Benign Mercantilism’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 25, (1988b) 273–277.
Strange, S., ‘Finance, Information and Power’, Review of International Studies, vol. 16 (1990) 259–274.
Strange, S., ‘Big Business and the State’, Millennium, vol. 20 (1991) 245–250.
Strange, ‘States, Firms and Diplomacy’, International Affairs, vol. 68 (1992a) 1–15.
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.
Tooze, R., ‘The Emergence of a New International Political Economy: a Realist View’, Millennium, vol. 16 (1987) 523–528.
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.
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).
Waltz, K.N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1979).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1993 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Verbeek, B. (1993). Beyond the Challenge of Neorealism: An Agenda for the Study of International Political Economy. In: Morgan, R., Lorentzen, J., Leander, A., Guzzini, S. (eds) New Diplomacy in the Post-Cold War World. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22738-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22738-9_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-22740-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-22738-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)