International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

Self-Study (3)
Reflect on what you have learned in this unit and fill in the missing blanks 
in the key aspects. 
Self-study (4) 
Re-read Unit 2 of Part 1 and then return to this unit: Why, from a philoso-
phy of science perspective, can neorealist, neoinstitutionalist and new lib-
eral theory all claim to be based on ontological individualist and methodo-
logical individualist assumptions? Why can all three theories of IR claim 
to offer methodological individualist, agency-centered explanations of in-
ternational politics? 
Required reading 
Moravcsik, Andrew 1997: Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international 
politics, in: International Organization 51, 512-553. 
Matthew/Zacher 1995: Liberal international theory: Common threads, divergent strands, 
in: Kegley, Charles (ed.): Controversies in International Relations Theory. Realism and 
the Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 107-150. 
Putnam, Robert D. 1988: Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games, 
in: International Organization 42, 427-460. 
Supplementary reading 
Doyle, Michael W. 1986: Liberalism and world politics, in: American Political science Re-
view 80, 1151-69. 
Long, David 1995: The Harvard School of Liberal International Theory: A case for closure, 
in: Millenium 24: 3, 489-505. 
Moravcsik, Andrew 2003: Liberal international relations theory: a scientific assessment, in: 
Elman/Elman (eds.): Progress in International Relations theory: Appraising the Field. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 159-204. 
Schimmelfennig, Frank 2004: Liberal Intergovernmentalism, in: Wiener, Antje/Diez, 
Thomas (eds.): European Integration Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75-94. 
Schieder, Siegfried 2013: New liberal theory, in: Schieder, Siegfried/Spindler, Manuela 
(eds.): Theories of International Relations. London and New York: Routledge (forth-
coming). 

---

173 
Further reading
Evans, Peter B./Jacobson, Harold K./Putnam, Robert D. (eds.) 1993: Double-Edged Di-
plomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press. 
Gourevitch, Peter 1978: The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic 
politics, in: International Organization 32, 881-912. 
Ikenberry, John 2006: Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition: Essays on American Power 
and International Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. 
Milner, Helen 1988: Trading places: Industries for free trade, in: World Politics 40, 350-
376. 
Milner, Helen 1997: Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and Interna-
tional Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
Moravcsik, Andrew 2005: The European Constitutional Compromise and the neofunction-
alist legacy, in: Journal of European Public Policy 12, 349-386. 
Moravcsik, Andrew 1998: The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from 
Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 
Moravcsik, Andrew 1993: Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal-
intergovernmentalist approach, in: Journal of Common Market Studies 31: 4, 473-524. 
Richardson, James 1997: Contending Liberalisms. Past and Present, in: European Journal 
of International Relations 3: 1, 5-33. 
Risse-Kappen, Thomas 1994: Ideas do not float freely. Transnational coalitions, domestic 
stuctures and the end of the Cold War, in: International Organization 48: 2, 185-214. 
References in the text 
Allison, Graham 1971: Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New 
York: Longman. 
Czempiel, Ernst-Otto 1979: Amerikanische Außenpolitik. Gesellschaftliche Anforderungen 
und politische Entscheidungen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 
Czempiel, Ernst-Otto 1981: Internationale Politik. Ein Konfliktmodell. Paderborn: Schö-
ningh. 
Deutsch, Karl 1957: Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press. 
Moravcsik, Andrew 2008: The New Liberalism, in: Reus-Smit, Christian/Snidal, Duncan 
(eds.): The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 234-254. 
Moravcsik, Andrew 1997: Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international 
politics, in: International Organization 51, 512-553. 
Matthew/Zacher 1995: Liberal international theory: Common threads, divergent strands, 
in: Kegley, Charles (ed.): Controversies in International Relations Theory. Realism and 
the Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 107-150. 
Keohane, Robert O./Nye, Joseph (eds.) 1970: Transnational Relations and World Politics. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Putnam, Robert D. 1988: Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games, 
in: International Organization 42, 427-460. 

---

174 
Milner, Helen 1988: Trading places: Industries for free trade, in: World Politics 40, 350-
376. 
Risse-Kappen, Thomas 1994: Ideas do not float freely. Transnational coalitions, domestic 
structures and the end of the Cold War, in: International Organization 48: 2, 185-214. 
Lijphart, Arend 1999: Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in 
Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

---

175 
8.
World-systems analysis 
Learning steps 
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 
176 
Step 1: 
World-systems analysis: ontological, epistemological and 
methodological claims ................................................................................... 
178
Step 2: 
World-systems analysis .................................................................................. 
181 
2.1. 
The historical social system as a unit of analysis ................................... 
181 
2.2. 
Social times: structural time/the longue durée ....................................... 
182
2.3.
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 
183 
Step 3: 
The modern world-system ............................................................................ 
184 
3.1. 
The modern world-system: a capitalist world-economy ........................ 
184 
3.2. 
Structures and processes of the capitalist world-economy ..................... 
185 
3.2.1. Core-periphery and cyclical rhythms ..................................................... 
185 
3.2.2. Political structures and processes: states, the inter-state system and 
hegemonic cycles ................................................................................... 
186 
3.3. 
Crises and transition ............................................................................... 
189 
Step 4: 
Check your understanding: 
key aspects and review questions ................................................................ 
191 
Step 5: 
Final self-study and consolidation .............................................................. 
192 

---

176 
Introduction 
After our learning units on neorealist, neoinstitutionalist and new liberal the-
ory in IR, you are now familiar with three examples of theoretical approaches 
based on a positivist philosophy of (social) science. With regards to philoso-
phy of science criteria, these theories share an individualist ontology, meth-
odological individualism, and a strong commitment to causal explanation. 
However, as could be demonstrated, variances in the underlying (ontological-
ly positivist) assumptions have implications for how outcomes in internation-
al politics are explained and for the policy advice that would be given based 
on each perspective.
Having discussed these three theories, Unit 8 and Unit 9 will introduce 
two approaches that differ with regard to their major ontological as well as 
epistemological and methodological assumptions: world-systems analysis 
and social constructivist theory. In accordance with our criteria for the struc-
tured learning of theoretical approaches to IR, you will now learn about the 
specifics of world-systems analysis as a holistic and structuralist approach to 
the social reality of international politics. 
Before we start please re-read Unit 2, Step 2 (Positivism as an example 
for a philosophy of science) and Unit 4, Step 2.3. (Assumptions about agency 
and structure). Review the features that define positivism as a philosophy of 
science, i.e. its ontological, epistemological and methodological claims, and 
the different solutions to the agent-structure problem in the social sciences.