Talk:Regime theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Shouldn't it be Robert O. Keohan instead of his wife Nannerl O. Keohane? --- haha... yeah probably. looks like someone fixed that already.

[edit] restructuring and expansion of this article

I just wanted to say I totally restructured this entry on regime theory. I'm a grad student and I'm reading Hasenclever's (1997) book for my IPE class and it's a really, really, really useful explanation of the three main approaches to regime theory, of which the liberal, interest-based approach is only one. So the main problem I had with the way the article was written is that it explained regime theory as if it were only that particular approach. So those things that were particularly liberalist (interest-based) I moved to fall under that subcategory and then I added other subcategories for non-liberalist approaches to regime theory such as realist power-based approaches and cognitivist approaches.

I do have a couple of questions to throw out there if anyone's interested.... why do we have a subheading for regime theory within IPE? Is there regime theory that's not within IPE??? If so, I don't know what it would be but if you do, please write it. Otherwise regime theory IS a theory within IPE.

The other is that hegemonic stability theory isn't just a counter argument to regime theory. It's used by the realists WITHIN regime theory. From Hasenclever (1997):

"Given that hegemonic stability theory has been employed as a structural explanation of changes in international regimes (including their formation and demise) it would seem that it is best regarded as a specific theoretical account of regimes among others. Nevertheless, regime theory could be portrayed and, indeed to a considerable extent, has been developed as a conscious alternative (emphasis in the original to the theory of hegemonic stability and its implications for international cooperation" (86).

Personally I think it's logically inconsistent, how can theory Y both be an alternative to theory X and part of it at the same time? Also how can it explain what it doesn't even believe in (cooperation) (see page 90 of Hasenclever's book, which seems to argue realism generally and HST specifically see regimes as just reflections of power capabilities of the hegemon, which hardly seems like cooperation at all. It'd be like me trying to explain why the sky is chartreus when I don't even believe the sky is chartreus, I think it's blue!

But maybe this is just because I don't understand these details yet myself. Have plans to ask my prof. in class next week.

Regardless of these questions I still think the article is much better organized and thorough now, but if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will let me know.

thanks very much, barb howe gainesville