The gains debate : framing state choice
By: BEREJEKIAN, Jeffrey
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, December 1997American Political Science Review 91, 4, p. 789-806Abstract: State attempts to secure international cooperation are confined by the distribution of power across relevant actors, the constraints imposed by the international system, and the intentions and actions of other states. Recently, the theoretical discussion surrounding state intentions has left us with two distinct and competing models of state choice. Liberalism asserts that "the existence of international regimes composed of sovereign entities who voluntarily eschew independent decision making" evidences a world in which states maximize absolute gains (Stein 1983, 134). Realism counters that "the fundamental goal of states in any relationship is to prevent others from achieving advances in their relative capabilities" (Grieco 1988, 498). The resulting debate has "dominated much of international relations theory for the last decade," to the extent that it is now often "commonplace for an article about some aspect of international theory to begin by locating itself in terms of this debate" (Powell 1994, 313). This polarization into competing camps has also meant that "these two approaches and the debate between them have failed to contribute as much as they might have to international relations theory" (Powell 1994, 313).(1) Structured discussion between adherents of both sides has not resolved the matter. Indeed, if anything, it has become acrimonious.(2)
State attempts to secure international cooperation are confined by the distribution of power across relevant actors, the constraints imposed by the international system, and the intentions and actions of other states. Recently, the theoretical discussion surrounding state intentions has left us with two distinct and competing models of state choice. Liberalism asserts that "the existence of international regimes composed of sovereign entities who voluntarily eschew independent decision making" evidences a world in which states maximize absolute gains (Stein 1983, 134). Realism counters that "the fundamental goal of states in any relationship is to prevent others from achieving advances in their relative capabilities" (Grieco 1988, 498). The resulting debate has "dominated much of international relations theory for the last decade," to the extent that it is now often "commonplace for an article about some aspect of international theory to begin by locating itself in terms of this debate" (Powell 1994, 313). This polarization into competing camps has also meant that "these two approaches and the debate between them have failed to contribute as much as they might have to international relations theory" (Powell 1994, 313).(1) Structured discussion between adherents of both sides has not resolved the matter. Indeed, if anything, it has become acrimonious.(2)
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.