Skip to main content Accessibility help

The global transformation: more than meets the eye

  • Paul Musgrave (a1) and Daniel Nexon (a2)


Buzan and Lawson’s The Global Transformation establishes that many of the basic parameters of world politics originated in the ‘long 19th century’. Despite finding much to admire in their book, we are concerned that it lacks an explicit theory of change. In its drive to highlight the novelty and exceptionalism of the 19th century, it offers insufficient guidance on two key issues: first, how international relations scholars should situate Buzan and Lawson’s ‘global transformation’ in existing debates over transhistorical processes; and, second, how they should apply lessons from that transformation to understanding emergent trends in the contemporary world. We argue that a more explicit study of causal factors might help account for why the 19th century was unusual. We conclude with thoughts about how the field should proceed after The Global Transformation. In particular, it points to how concatenating changes could profoundly alter international politics – an approach we term ‘Exotic International Relations’. Buzan and Lawson’s book therefore serves as a marker for the importance of systematically theorizing how radical potentialities for transformation might rearrange existing structural assemblages in world politics.


Corresponding author


Hide All
Anievas, Alexander. 2016. “History, Theory and Contingency in the Study of Modern International Relations: The Global Transformation Revisited.” International Theory 8(3):468480.
Branch, Jordan. 2011. “Mapping the Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and Systemic Change.” International Organization 65(1):136.
Braumoeller, Bear. 2016. “The Promise of Historical Dynamism for the American Study of International Relations.” International Theory 8(3):458467.
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2013. “The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 57(3):620–6634.
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, Charli. 2016. “The Future of Global Security Studies.” Journal of Global Security Studies 1:13.
Goldstone, Jack A. 1998. “The problem of the ‘early modern’ world.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41:249284.
Hall, Rodney Bruce. 1999. National collective identity: social constructs and international systems. Columbia University Press.
Holsti, Kalevi J. 2004. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kaufman, Stuart, Little, Richard, and Wohlforth, William, eds. 2007. The Balance of Power in World History. New York: Palgrave.
Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2013. “Singularity or Aberration? A Response to Buzan and Lawson.” International Studies Quarterly 57(3):637639.
Nexon, Daniel H. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Owen, John. 2012. The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Phillips, Andrew. 2013. “From Global Transformation to Big Bang – A Response to Buzan and Lawson.” International Studies Quarterly 57(3):640–6642.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2016. “Theory, History, and Great Transformations.” International Theory 8(3):422435.
Spruyt, Hendrik. 1994. The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Tilly, Charles. 1995. “To Explain Political Processes.” American Journal of Sociology 100(6):1594–11610.
Waltz, Kenneth. 1986. “Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics.” Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane, 322346. New York: Columbia University Press.

The global transformation: more than meets the eye

  • Paul Musgrave (a1) and Daniel Nexon (a2)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed