Structures Do Not Come with an Instruction Sheet: Interests, Ideas, and Progress in Political Science

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Blyth
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Historical Institutionalism ◽  
The Past ◽  
Instruction Sheet

This article questions the centrality of interest-based explanation in political science. Through an examination of the “turn to ideas” undertaken in the past decade by rationalist and nonrationalist scholars in both comparative politics and international relations, it seeks to make three points. First, interests are far from the unproblematic and ever-ready explanatory instruments we assume them to be. Second, the ideational turn of historical institutionalism and constructivist international relations theory marks a substantive theoretical shift in the field precisely because it problematizes notions of action that take interest as given. Third, such scholarship emerged from, and in reaction to, the inherent limits of rationalist treatments of interests and ideas. That it did so suggests that progress in the discipline may be more dialectic—rather than linear or paradigmatic—than we realize.

Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen V. Milner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International System ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Strategic Interactions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Separate Discipline

International relations has often been treated as a separate discipline distinct from the other major fields in political science, namely American and comparative politics. A main reason for this distinction has been the claim that politics in the international system is radically different from politics domestically. The degree of divergence between international relations (IR) and the rest of political science has waxed and waned over the years; however, in the past decade it seems to have lessened. This process has occurred mainly in the “rationalist research paradigm,” and there it has both substantive and methodological components. Scholars in this paradigm have increasingly appreciated that politics in the international realm is not so different from that internal to states, and vice versa. This rationalist institutionalist research agenda thus challenges two of the main assumptions in IR theory. Moreover, scholars across the three fields now tend to employ the same methods. The last decade has seen increasing cross-fertilization of the fields around the importance of institutional analysis. Such analysis implies a particular concern with the mechanisms of collective choice in situations of strategic interaction. Some of the new tools in American and comparative politics allow the complex, strategic interactions among domestic and international agents to be understood in a more systematic and cumulative way.

The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 673-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin R. Graham ◽  
Charles R. Shipan ◽  
Craig Volden
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Policy Diffusion ◽  
Network Analyses ◽  
The Past ◽  
Political Science Journals

Over the past fifty years, top political science journals have published hundreds of articles about policy diffusion. This article reports on network analyses of how the ideas and approaches in these articles have spread both within and across the subfields of American politics, comparative politics and international relations. Then, based on a survey of the literature, the who, what, when, where, how and why of policy diffusion are addressed in order to identify and assess some of the main contributions and omissions in current scholarship. It is argued that studies of diffusion would benefit from paying more attention to developments in other subfields and from taking a more systematic approach to tackling the questions of when and how policy diffusion takes place.

THE FIRST MODERN REALIST: FELIX GILBERT'S MACHIAVELLI AND THE REALIST TRADITION IN INTERNATIONAL THOUGHT

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICOLAS GUILHOT
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Historical Scholarship ◽  
Global Power ◽  
The Us ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
International Thought

In the disciplines of political science and international relations, Machiavelli is unanimously considered to be “the first modern realist.” This essay argues that the idea of a realist tradition going from the Renaissance to postwar realism founders when one considers the disrepute of Machiavelli among early international relations theorists. It suggests that the transformation of Machiavelli into a realist thinker took place subsequently, when new historical scholarship, informed by strategic and political considerations related to the transformation of the US into a global power, generated a new picture of the Renaissance. Focusing on the work of Felix Gilbert, and in particular hisMachiavelli and Guicciardini, the essay shows how this new interpretation of Machiavelli was shaped by the crisis of the 1930s, the emergence of security studies, and the philanthropic sponsorship of international relations theory.

scholarly journals The Communication of Ideas across Subfields in Political Science

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 468-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin R. Graham ◽  
Charles R. Shipan ◽  
Craig Volden
Keyword(s):  
Network Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Diffusion Processes ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Levels Of Integration

ABSTRACTWhat factors inhibit or facilitate cross-subfield conversations in political science? This article draws on diffusion scholarship to gain insight into cross-subfield communication. Diffusion scholarship represents a case where such communication might be expected, given that similar diffusion processes are analyzed in American politics, comparative politics, and international relations. We identify nearly 800 journal articles published on diffusion within political science between 1958 and 2008. Using network analysis we investigate the degree to which three “common culprits”—terminology, methodological approach, and journal type—influence levels of integration. We find the highest levels of integration among scholars using similar terms to describe diffusion processes, sharing a methodological approach (especially in quantitative scholarship), and publishing in a common set of subfield journals. These findings shed light on when cross-subfield communication is likely to occur with ease and when barriers may prove prohibitive.

Studying Contemporary Europe

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Wallace
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Review Article ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Opening Up

The study of contemporary Europe has attracted growing attention in mainstream political science and international relations. Both studies of the European Union and cross-country comparisons of various political phenomena in different European countries are beginning to enrich our understanding of the process and limitations of integration. This growth of interest has also been stimulated by the opening up of central and eastern Europe which has encouraged scholars to address the issues of transformation using the tools of comparative politics. In addition, studies of Europeanisation are now being more systematically related to broader international developments and to the process of globalisation. British scholars, and British-based scholars, are making important contributions to the debates in political science and international relations. This review article traces some of the strands of this development.

Emergent Flexibility in Institutional Development: How International Rules Really Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 821-833
Author(s):  
Zoltán I Búzás ◽  
Erin R Graham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Rational Design ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Institutional Development ◽  
Historical Institutionalism ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Formal Design

Abstract How do formal international institutions change and adjust to new circumstances? The conventional wisdom in international relations, outlined by rational design, is that the answer lies in designed flexibility, which allows states to adjust agreements. Drawing on rich but disparate literatures across subfields of political science—especially constructivism and historical institutionalism—we propose an alternative, which we call “emergent flexibility.” Emergent flexibility is a property of international institutions that is not intentionally crafted by rule-makers when a rule is formally established, but is subsequently discovered, activated, and accessed by creative rule-users in ways unintended by designers. Rich case studies trace how rule-users have accessed emergent flexibility through the legal interpretive strategy of subsequent practice to change rigid rules of the UN Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. A key implication of emergent flexibility is that, contrary to rational design expectations, international institutions designed to be rigid can adjust to unforeseen circumstances even in the absence of formal redesign, allowing cooperation to continue. The broadening of flexibility from designed to emergent reveals the politics of flexibility between formal design moments, provides a more nuanced notion of intentionality, and equips us to better address fundamental positive and normative questions of institutional development.

International theory: new directions?

1981 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Great Debate ◽  
International Theory ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
The 1960S

The last ‘great debate’ in international relations theory occurred in the 1960s, was concerned primarily with matters of method rather than substance, and eventually was called off due to lack of interest. The battle between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘scientists’ was short-lived. The so-called ‘post-behavioural’ revolution in political science conceded some part of the traditionalist case, but the more significant factor in the conclusion of the debate was the prevalence of an attitude of live and let live. Tolerance over method is a virtue in a relatively underdeveloped discipline, for who can predict the shape of future knowledge or the potential sources of insight? Unfortunately, a by-product of tolerance over methodological issues has been the development of such differences over matters of substance that the existence of a coherent discipline is called into question. Perhaps a new ‘great debate’ is called for, this time on matters of substance.

Excellence and Its Recognition: The Dissertation Awards in Political Science

1980 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 286-291
Author(s):  
William D. Richardson ◽  
Albert Somit
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Doctoral Dissertation ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
American Government ◽  
General Field ◽  
Memorial Award ◽  
American Political Science

How many things by season season'd are.To their right praise and true perfection!Merchant of Venice, i, 107In 1958 the American Political Science Association initiated the first of what were to be a number of awards for outstanding dissertations. In that year the Leonard D. White Memorial Award was established “… for the best doctoral dissertation within the general field of public administration.” This was followed, in turn, by the Edward S. Corwin Award (1973) “… for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of public law,” the Helen Dwight Reid Award (1965) “… for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of international relations,” and the E. E. Schattschneider Award (1971) “… for the best dissertation completed and accepted in the general field of American Government and Politics.” More recently, the Leo Strauss (1974), the William Anderson (1975), and the Gabriel A. Almond (1976) Awards have been established for the best dissertations in the fields of political philosophy, international relations and comparative politics, respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document