International Organizations as Corporate Actors: Agency and Emergence in Theories of International Relations

In this paper, the implicit and explicit conceptualizations of international organizations found in the three major theories of international relations are outlined and compared. It turns out that in a neorealist framework, international organizations can be explained; however, they exhibit no autonomy and cannot therefore be conceptualized as a corporate actor. Principally, the same applies to rational choice institutionalism, although limited autonomy is conceivable. Both theories are reductionist in the sense that they do not allow a corporate actor beyond the nation-state. International organizations are at best instruments of state interests. Solely social constructivist theories allow a conceptualization of international organizations as partly autonomous corporate actors. The reason for this conceptual openness lies in its ontology that includes ideational factors such as knowledge and ideas. The concept of emergence gives the core explanation for international organization autonomy: identities and interests of states and international organizations constitute each other mutually. This is specified by referring to the generation of new knowledge within international organizations as the key feature which accounts for feedbacks to the member-states of international organizations. This power of international organizations to alter perceptions and identities of their own ‘founding fathers’ makes them more than state instruments. International organizations thereby gain autonomy, which justifies conceiving of them as high-order corporate actors in international relations.

Theorizing ideas and discourse in political science: intersubjectivity, neo-institutionalisms, and the power of ideas

Oscar Larsson’s (2015) essay condemns discursive institutionalism for the “sin” of subjectivism. In reality, however, discursive institutionalism emphasizes the intersubjective nature of ideas through its theorization of agents’ “background ideational abilities” and “foreground discursive abilities.” It also avoids relativism by means of Wittgenstein’s distinction between experiences of everyday life and pictures of the world. Contrary to Larsson, what truly separates post-structuralism from discursive institutionalism is the respective approaches’ theorization of the relationship of power to ideas, with discursive institutionalists mainly focused on persuasive power through ideas, while post-structuralists focus on the structural power in ideas or on coercive power over ideas

Different but equally plausible narratives of policy transformation: A plea for theoretical pluralism

Theories of institutional change help us to understand policy transformation, and provide us with a framework for presenting transformation narratives retrospectively. By telling the transformation narrative of a single case through the lenses of three different institutional change theories, this article highlights the potential shortcomings of a single lens, and the value of using complementary lenses. It argues for a pluralist approach to provide a richer understanding of policy transformation

The New Institutionalisms and European Integration

The European Union is without question the most densely institutionalisedinternational organization in the world, with a welter of intergovernmental andsupranational institutions and a rapidly growing body of primary and secondarylegislation, the so-called acquis communautaire. Small wonder, then, that the body ofliterature known under the rubric of the new institutionalism has been applied withincreasing frequency and with increasing success to the study of the Union as a polityand to European integration as a process. In fact, however, the new institutionalismin social theory has evolved into plural institutionalisms, with rational-choice,sociological and historical variants, each with a distinctive set of hypotheses andinsights about the EU. This chapter examines the new institutionalisms in rationalchoice and historical analysis and their contributions to EU studies, briefly summarizingthe core assumptions of each approach before discussing specific applications to thestudy of the European Union and the question of EU enlargement, and concluding withan analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of institutional approaches to the study ofEuropean integration.

New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens:Towards a Feminist Institutionalism?

New institutionalism (NI) may no longer qualify as being ‘new’, but since re-emphasizing institutions as a central explanatory variable in political analysis over two decades ago, it continues to provide scholars with a useful perspective through which to analyse political dynamics and outcomes that shape everyday life. The renewed focus on institutions has rebalanced the structure/agency scales back toward the former without losing important insights about the role and impact of political actors. NI has allowed for greater understanding about the co-constitutive nature of politics: the various ways in which actors bring about or resist change in institutions; and the way institutions shape the nature of actors’ behaviour through the construction of rules, norms and policies. <br/

The global legal order: an international lawyers' perspective inspired by institutionalism

--

Warren J. Samuels (1933-2011)

This paper examines the research and career of the late Warren J. Samuels (1933-2011), an influential institutionalist economist in the Wisconsin John Commons tradition and well-known historian and methodologist of economics. It discusses four main positions Samuels developed and held regarding the history of economic thought as intellectual history, the theory of economic policy, methodological pluralism, and the invisible hand doctrine. Among the views considered are: his matrix approach to meaningfulness, his characterization of intellectual systems, his emphasis on the centrality of the social order, his theory of economic policy as a neglected subject, his discourse analysis of language, his emphasis on the hermeneutic circle and critique of foundationalism, and argument that the invisible hand lacks ontological and epistemological credentials and functions as a means of social control and psychic balm. Much of the discussion is cast in terms of Samuels’ own reflections on what he believed is involved in being an historian of economics

(WP 2011-10) Obituary: Warren J. Samuels (1933-2011)

This paper examines the research and career of the late Warren J. Samuels (1933-2011), an influential institutionalist economist in the Wisconsin John Commons tradition and well-known historian and methodologist of economics. It discusses four main positions Samuels developed and held regarding the history of economic thought as intellectual history, the theory of economic policy, methodological pluralism, and the invisible hand doctrine. Among the views considered are: his matrix approach to meaningfulness, his characterization of intellectual systems, his emphasis on the centrality of the social order, his theory of economic policy as a neglected subject, his discourse analysis of language, his emphasis on the hermeneutic circle and critique of foundationalism, and argument that the invisible hand lacks ontological and epistemological credentials and functions as a means of social control and psychic balm. Much of the discussion is cast in terms of Samuels’ own reflections on what he believed is involved in being an historian of economics

Asian Regional Institutions and the Possibilities for Socializing the Behavior of States

Departing from the traditional yardsticks for measuring the performance and effectiveness of regional institutions, this paper proposes a new framework to investigate their effect in the socialization (i.e. internalization of group norms by newcomers) of new members. Called Type III internalization, it represents a middle ground between Type I (i.e. member states simply acting according to group expectations, even if they may not agree with them), and Type II (i.e. states transforming themselves by adopting the interests and identities of the group) internalization. In Type III internalization, states act both instrumentally and normatively. While their interests and values do not change permanently, there is enough change to induce substantially new kinds of cooperative behavior, in trade and security. Type III internalization is non-legalistic and consensual, moving at a pace in which everyone is comfortable, but there is no danger of backtracking. New members moderate their competitive instincts and pursue common objectives. The impact of institutional norms such as “open regionalism” and “cooperative security” transmitted through institutions such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the ASEAN Regional Forum on Viet Nam, India, and the People's Republic of China attests to the existence of a Type III internalization.Asia; regional institutions; Asian regional institutions; constructivism; socialization; institution-design; multilateralism