Rational Choice and International Institutions

This week’s lecture about agency and structure helped me view the creation of different institutions and the unfolding of certain international events, by way of actors, in new ways. By using the 2x2 model Professor Jackson was able to convey the different levels of agency each type of actor possesses and what drives them to change and what factors constrain them. Actors in Box 1 (hard autonomy) are not capable of much change because of the Hobbesian state of nature. This line of thought coincides with the realist belief which views the rise and fall of great powers as inevitable. The only change that is possible in this box is complete change which implies no longer having states in anarchy. Since structure here is strong there is less possibility for change. Box 2 (hard attunement) implies that our institutions are rationally chosen and that change occurs based on our interests. Thus, change is basically a recalculation of costs and benefits. Box 3 (soft autonomy) implies that change occurs through a shift in values. Thus, interest are not important but rather what is “right” which is culturally determined to some degree.

In “The Rational Design of International Institutions”, the authors claim that states create institutions to advance their goals through rational-choice. They claim, “the most direct implication is that design differences are not random. They are the result of rational, purposive interactions among states and other international actors to solve specific problems. (Koremenos 762)” While institutional change is not all consciously made the authors believe it is the “overriding mechanism guiding the development of international institutions”. One way this occurs is by vertical nesting. For example, policymakers ensured that NAFTA trading rules conformed to those of GATT. Therefore, it can be said that institutions who deal with particular regions and/or topics are actually within a larger global institution. Moreover, the authors convey that change is possible and that it is the result of rational and purposive interactions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more

Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...
Read more