Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures and tables
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction: three perspectives on international regimes
- 2 Conceptual issues: defining international regimes
- 3 Interest-based theories: political market failure, situation and problem structures, and institutional bargaining
- 4 Power-based theories: hegemony, distributional conflict, and relative gains
- 5 Knowledge-based theories: ideas, arguments, and social identities
- 6 Conclusion: prospects for synthesis
- References
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
4 - Power-based theories: hegemony, distributional conflict, and relative gains
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures and tables
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction: three perspectives on international regimes
- 2 Conceptual issues: defining international regimes
- 3 Interest-based theories: political market failure, situation and problem structures, and institutional bargaining
- 4 Power-based theories: hegemony, distributional conflict, and relative gains
- 5 Knowledge-based theories: ideas, arguments, and social identities
- 6 Conclusion: prospects for synthesis
- References
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Summary
Neoliberal theories of regimes may be characterized in terms of their “dialectical” relationship to realism. Neoliberals not eschewing Hegelian jargon could describe their approach as a “synthesis” of realism and its traditional antithesis, liberalism, which “preserves” elements of “truth” to be found in the two opposing perspectives on international relations. Thus, neoliberals can adhere to the realist tenet that states are the most important actors on the world scene which act out of self-interest in an anarchical environment, without needing to renounce the liberal insight that states are able to realize common interests through cooperation and use international institutions to this end. Such a description, of course, implies that neoliberalism as theory is superior to both realism and more traditional forms of liberalism. Not surprisingly, realists (Mearsheimer 1995) as well as liberals (Moravcsik 1992) have taken up this challenge and defended their preferred theoretical perspectives against the pretensions of neoliberalism.
What is more important in this context, however, is that the realist contribution to the debate about international regimes can by no means be reduced to restatements of orthodox realist interpretations of international politics as a state of war which militates against any significant role for international institutions. In this chapter we examine three formulations which are self-consciously realist and yet take international cooperation and regimes, both in the security realm and beyond, seriously as significant phenomena to be accounted for by international relations theory.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Theories of International Regimes , pp. 83 - 135Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1997