Which synthesis? Strategies of theoretical integration and the neorealist-neoliberal debate

International Political Science Review

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 207-227

  Andreatta, Filippo ^a   Koenig Archibugi, Mathias ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

International relations theory; Neoliberalism; Neorealism; Relative gains; Theoretical synthesis

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953168647     PISSN: 01925121     EISSN: 1460373X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0192512110364258     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Baldwin, David A., ed. (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
2. Berejikian, Jeffrey (1997). The Gains Debate: Framing State Choice, American Political Science Review 91(4): 789-806.
3. Bernard, Paul P. (1965). Joseph II and Bavaria: Two Eighteenth-Century Attempts at German Unification. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
4. Blanning, Timothy C.W. (1986). The Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars. London: Longman.
5. Brecher, Michael (1999). International Studies in the Twentieth Century and Beyond: Flawed Dichotomies, Synthesis, Cumulation, International Studies Quarterly 43: 213-64.
6. Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Duchhardt, Heinz (1997). Balance of Power und Pentarchie: Internationale Beziehungen 1700-1785. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöning.
8. Fearon, James D. (1998). Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation, International Organization 52(2): 269-305.
9. Friedrich der Große (Frederick the Great) (1986). Politisches Testament 1752, in Richard Dietrich (ed.), Die politischen Testamente der Hohenzollern. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.
10. George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Glassl, Horst (1969). Der Rechtsstreit um die Zips vor ihrer Rückgliederung an Ungarn, Ungarn-Jahrbuch 1: 23-50.
12. Goddard, Stacie E. (2006). Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy, International Organization 60(1): 35-68.
13. Góralski, Zbigniew (1971). Die Grenzdemarkationen in Polen nach der dritten Teilung (1795-1797), Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 19: 212-38.
14. Grieco, Joseph (1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism, International Organization 42(3): 485-507; reprinted in David Baldwin, ed. (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
15. Grieco, Joseph (1990). Cooperation among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-tariff Barriers to Trade. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16. Grieco, Joseph (1993). Understanding the Problem of International Cooperation: The Limits of International or Neoliberal Institutional and the Future of Realist Theory, in David Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
17. Grundig, Frank (2006). Patterns of International Cooperation and the Explanatory Power of Relative Gains: An Analysis of Cooperation on Global Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and International Trade, International Studies Quarterly 50(4): 781-801.
18. Hasenclever, Andreas, Meyer, Peter, and Rittberger, Volker (2000). Integrating Theories of International Regimes, Review of International Studies 26(1): 3-33.
19. Hassner, Ron E. (2003). 'To Halve and to Hold': Conflicts over Sacred Space and the Problem of Indivisibility, Security Studies 12(4): 1-33.
20. Hochedlinger, Michael (2000). Krise und Wiederherstellung: Österreichische Großmachtpolitik zwischen Türkenkrieg und Zweiter Diplomatischer Revolution 1787-1791. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
21. Jupille, Joseph, Caporaso, James A., and Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2003). Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism and the Study of the European Union, Comparative Political Studies 36(1/2): 7-40.
22. Kaplan, Herbert H. (1962). The First Partition of Poland. New York: Columbia University Press.
23. Keck, Otto (1993). The New Institutionalism and the Relative-Gains-Debate, in Frank R. Pfetsch (ed.), International Relations and Pan-Europe. Münster: Lit.
24. Keohane, Robert O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Keohane, Robert O. (1986). Reciprocity in International Relations, International Organization 40(1): 1-28.
26. Keohane, Robert O. and Martin, Lisa L. (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory, International Security 20(1): 39-51.
27. Keohane, Robert O. and Martin, Lisa L. (2003). Institutional Theory as a Research Program, in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Krasner, Stephen D. (1991). Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier, World Politics 43(3): 336-56.
29. Kydd, Andrew (2000). Trust, Reassurance and Cooperation, International Organization 54(2): 325-57.
30. Lake, David (2002). Progress in International Relations: Beyond Paradigms in the Study of Institutions, in Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey (eds), Millennial Reflections on International Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31. Liberman, Peter (1996). Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains, International Security 21(1): 147-75.
32. Lord, Robert H. (1915). The Second Partition of Poland. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Lord, Robert H. (1925). The Third Partition of Poland, Slavonic Review 3(9): 481-98.
34. Luard, Evan (1992). The Balance of Power: The System of International Relations, 1648-1815. London: Macmillan.
35. Lukowski, Jerzy (1999). The Partitions of Poland: 1772, 1793, 1795. London and New York: Longman.
36. Martin, Lisa L. (1992). Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Mastanduno, Michael (1991). Do Relative Gains Matter? America's Response to Japanese Industrial Policy, International Security 16(1): 73-113.
38. Matthews, John C. (1996). Current Gains and Future Outcomes: When Cumulative Relative Gains Matter, International Security 21(1): 112-46.
39. Mearsheimer, John J. (1994/5). The False Promise of International Institutions, International Security 19(3): 5-49.
40. Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
41. Moritz, Erhard (1968). Preussen und der Kościuszko-Aufstand 1794. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
42. Morrow, James D. (1997). When Do 'Relative Gains' Impede Trade? Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(1): 12-37.
43. Mosher, James S. (2003). Relative Gains Concerns When the Number of States in the International System Increases, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47(5): 642-68.
44. Oye, Kenneth A., ed. (1986). Cooperation under Anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. Powell, Robert (1991). Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory, American Political Science Review 85(4): 1303-20.
46. Rathbun, Brian C. (2007). Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory, International Studies Quarterly 51(3): 533-57.
47. Roider Jr, Karl A. (1982). Austria's Eastern Question 1700-1790. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48. Roider Jr, Karl A. (1987). Baron Thugut and Austria's Response to the French Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Rousseau, David L. (2002). Motivations for Choice: The Salience of Relative Gains in International Politics, Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(3): 394-426.
50. Schroeder, Paul W. (1994). The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
51. Smith, Steve (2003). Dialogue and the Reinforcement of Orthodoxy in International Relations, International Studies Review 5: 141-3.
52. Snidal, Duncan (1991). Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation, American Political Science Review 85(3): 701-26.
53. Sutherland, Lucy S., ed. (1960). The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54. Thies, Cameron G. (2004). Are Two Theories Better Than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist- Neoliberal Debate, International Political Science Review 25(2): 159-83.
55. Thomas, Marvin E. (1989). Karl Theodor and the Bavarian Succession, 1777-1778. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
56. Vezirgiannidou, Sevasti-Eleni (2008). The Kyoto Agreement and the Pursuit of Relative Gains, Environmental Politics 17(1): 40-57.
57. von Aretin, Karl Otmar (1992). Tausch, Teilung und Länderschacher als Folgen des Gleichgewichtssytems der europäischen Grossmächte, in Karl Otmar von Aretin (ed.), Das Reich: Friedensordnung und europäisches Gleichgewicht 1648-1806. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
58. von Aretin, Karl Otmar (1997). Das Alte Reich 1648-1806, Vol. 3: Das Reich und der österreichisch-preußische Dualismus (1745-1806). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
59. Wæver, Ole (1996). The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
60. Wallander, Celeste A. (1999). Mortal Friends, Best Enemies: German-Russian Cooperation after the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
61. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
62. Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.