In 1974 I was an associate professor at Stanford University and a member of the editorial board of International Organization. After beginning life in 1946 as an integral part of the World Peace Foundation in Boston, IO had largely devoted itself to descriptive studies of formal international organizations. The late Harold K. Jacobson at the University of Michigan and Joseph S. Nye, then as now at Harvard, along with the late Alexander Dallin at Columbia and myself, joined the board in 1968 and were effectively in control of its direction. In the winter of 1974---75 Nye was the chair of the board. It became evident to us during the fall that something was wrong. It turned out that the journal’s editor was in the process of resigning from his university and was no longer performing his editorial duties. I volunteered to investigate and then to serve what was originally a two-year term as editor, which later was extended to six years.
Peter J. Katzenstein
Winter 1976 - Volume 30, Issue 1
Recent writings on problems of the international economy have focused attention primarily on changes in the international system. This paper attempts to show that foreign economic policy can be understood only if domestic factors are systematically included in the analysis. The paper's first part groups the recent literature into three paradigms which distinguish between three international effects. The second part offers a comparison of the differences between a state-centered policy network in France and a society-centered network in the United States. The third part of the paper combines the arguments of the first two and analyzes French and American commercial, financial, and energy policies as the outcome of both international effects and domestic structures. These case studies show that domestic factors must be included in an analysis of foreign economic policies. The paper's main results are analyzed further in its fourth part.
Autumn 1978 - Volume 32, Issue 4
The international system is not only an expression of domestic structures, but a cause of them. Two schools of analysis exploring the impact of the international system upon domestic politics (regime types, institutions, coalitions, policies) may be distinguished: those which stress the international economy, and those which stress political-military rivalry, or war. Among the former are such arguments as: late industrialization (associated with Gershenkron); dependencia or core-periphery arguments (Wallerstein); liberal development model (much American writing in the 50s and 60s); transnational relation-modernization (Nye, Keohane, Morse); neo-mercantilists (Gilpin); state-centered Marxists (Schurmann). Arguments stressing the role of war include those which focus on the organizational requirements of providing security (Hintze, Anderson), the special nature of foreign relations (classical political theory), territorial compensation (diplomatic history), and strains of foreign involvement (analysis of revolutions). These arguments provide the basis for criticism of much of the literature which uses domestic structure as an explanation of foreign policy, in particular those which (such as the strong-state weak-state distinction) tend, by excessive focus on forms, to obscure the connection between structures and interests, and the role of politics. These arguments also permit criticism of the notion of a recent fundamental discontinuity in the nature of international relations.
James R. Kurth
Winter 1979 - Volume 33, Issue 1
What explains the continuing stagnation in the industrial economies of the West? What will be the impact of such stagnation upon domestic politics and upon international relations? Are there domestic and foreign policies which the state can undertake to bring about a return to sustained economic prosperity and a recapitulation of that lost golden age of 1948–1973? These are now the central questions for scholars in the emerging field of international political economy. A recent special issue of International Organization, edited by Peter Katzenstein, has presented some of the most useful and sophisticated approaches to these questions and analyses of the international political economy of the West during the period of the last thirty years.
Robert O. Keohane is Professor of Public and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He has served as Editor of International Organization and as President of the International Studies Association and the American Political Science Association. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the American Philosophical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences; and he is a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. His publications include Power and Interdependence (with Joseph S. Nye, Jr., originally published in 1977), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984), Designing Social Inquiry (with Gary King and Sidney Verba, 1994), and Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World (2002). His recent work focuses on a variety of related topics, including multilateralism, climate change, and anti-Americanism. Recent articles include “Contested Multilateralism” (with Julia C. Morse), Review of International Organizations, December 2014; and “Organizational Ecology and World Politics,” International Organization, Spring 2016.