This article compares constructivism and neoliberal institutionalism and argues that in their reification as paradigms in competition, the IO theoretical community is making far too much of what are relatively small differences between them in the metatheoretical scheme of things. These claims are substantiated by comparing functionalism, neofunctionalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism. Such an examination reveals that they all depend on the same mechanism of functional institutional efficiency in order to account for social change. Thus when constructivism has been utilized as an explanation for change and transformation, it has tended to reach many of the same conclusions, and in the same manner, as other variants of liberal IR theory. In addition, this comparison reveals that, despite its assumption of exogenous interests, neoliberal institutionalism relies implicitly on an identity transformation in order to account for cooperation's maintenance. Such a transformation is entirely consistent with constructivist expectations. The choice between neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism is not paradigmatic and is merely a choice between explaining short-term, behavioral cooperation in the moment or its development into communal cooperation in the future. The article concludes with some general observations regarding why this parallel has occurred and what its implications are for our understanding of IO.Since the end of the Cold War the study of international organization~IO! has witnessed a renewed interest in subjects such as norms, ideas, learning, and identity-formation. 1 The accumulated study of these subjects has produced what one reviewer has called "the constructivist turn in IR theory" in which theorists open up "the black box of interest and identity formation," and argue that "state interests emerge from and are endogenous to interaction with structures" ~Checkel, 1998:326!. 2 This constructivist turn has elicited a great deal of attention, and Author's note: For their insights, comments, and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this article, I would like to thank Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Yale Ferguson, the editors of International Studies Quarterly, and several anonymous reviewers. Any errors or omissions are my own.1 Several authors provide overviews of prior theorizing on each of these subjects.

This article examines the deductive basis upon which domestic-level theorizing may be combined with liberal and realist systemic-level theory in order to account for international outcomes. It is particularly concerned with whether existing systemic theory can incorporate domestic-level variables in a causally consistent rather than ad hoc manner. In addressing such a concern, it confronts the widely held assumption in the IR theory literature that liberalism is more accommodating of domestic-level variables and their potential causal impact than is realism. When the deductive logic of systemic liberal and realist theory is examined, however, it becomes clear that domestic-level variables can be consistently causal in systemic realist theory, but are accorded little causal weight in systemic liberal theory. The article concludes that realism is actually more accommodating of domestic-level variables and theorizing than is liberalism. Given the common misconceptions within the field regarding the relationship between systemic theories and domestic-level theorizing, issues of theoretical causal compatibility must be considered if domestic-level variables are going to be incorporated in a rigorous rather than ad hoc manner.The theoretical literature on international conflict and cooperation has been dominated by the assumption of systemic determinacy in recent years. Domesticlevel variables have often been ignored or relegated to a secondary explanatory status in this literature, and an increasing number of scholars have begun to argue for a return to research on the role and impact of such variables. 1 Most have not called for the complete rejection of systemic explanations, but instead for some combination of existing systemic theory with domestic-level theorizing because, as Zakaria has observed, "a good account of a nation's foreign policy should include systemic, domestic, and other influences, specifying what aspects of the policy can be explained by what factors" and the editors of ISQ for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.

oes realism have nothing to say about change in the actors, identities, social practices, and institutions that constitute the present or any future global order? Constructivism has given renewed impetus to this perspective on realism due to its almost universal characterization as a challenge to realism's emphasis on structure at the expense of history. 1 Because the reintroduction of "change" as an analytical concept into international relations (IR) theorizing proper is the constructivist goal, many constructivists believe realism is the very antithesis of constructivist theorizing. If the widely accepted claim that realism is incapable of accounting for dynamism in global politics is correct, it is hard to fathom how realism has managed to survive so long as a general theoretical category, let alone dominate the field, as its critics continue to claim.Realists have been just as content to ignore the development of constructivism on the grounds that it is a passing fad. Yosef Lapid's and Friedrich Kratochwil's review of initial realist reactions to the constructivist challenge confirms a realist penchant for elaboration and revision rather than "reconstruction," which involves "significant changes in theoretical cores without an intention . . . to sever all links with the established theoretical tradition." 2 Beyond a 1 In this context, the term "constructivism" includes what John Gerard Ruggie has termed in

No abstract

This collection of essays seeks to theorize the politics of the COVID-19 pandemic in international relations (IR). The contributions are driven by questions such as: How can theorizing help us understand these unsettled times? What kind of crisis is this? What shapes its politics? What remains the same and what has been unsettled or unsettling? In addressing such questions, each of the participants considers what we may already know about the pandemic as well as what might be ignored or missed. Collectively, the forum pushes at the interdisciplinary boundaries of IR theorizing itself and, in so doing, the participants hope to engender meaningful understandings of a world in crisis and encourage expansive ways of thinking about the times that lie beyond.

No abstract

This article is about the analytical divide that separates realism and postmodernism in International Relations. Written by a realist (Sterling-Folker), and a postmodernist (Shinko), it seeks to traverse the divide between them through a discussion of how the perspective of each represents and makes sense of power. It does so within the context of an empirical case study: the China-Taiwan relationship. Comparing and contrasting how each perspective conceptualises power in its empirical practice and application forces both to grapple with the possibility of a simultaneity of stasis and change, and thus forces both to confront the relationship of constitutive structure and history in their own representations of the world. If our goal is to understand power and the discursive frames we choose to describe it, then the philosophical avenues obscured by the standard realist-postmodern divide are worth traversing.

This chapter examines the neoliberalist argument that international institutions promote international cooperation. While neoliberalism acknowledges that cooperation can be difficult to achieve in anarchic conditions, it insists that institutions allow states to overcome a variety of collective action impediments. The central concern of neoliberal analysis is how institutions do so, and how they might be redesigned to more efficiently obtain cooperative outcomes. This chapter considers three questions that are relevant for understanding neoliberal contributions: How did neoliberalism emerge? What are the barriers to international cooperation? How does neoliberalism study international institutions. The chapter uses the World Trade Organization as a case study to illustrate the importance of institutional design for international free trade cooperation. Along the way, various concepts such as interdependence, hegemonic stability, hegemon, bargaining, defection, compliance, autonomy, and principal–agent theory are discussed, along with the game known as Prisoner's Dilemma.