constructivism in international relations
Critical Realism versus Social Constructivism in International Relations
Roxana Bobulescu
Abstract: This article discusses the methodological differences between the
British school and the American school of international relations. It attempts to demonstrate that Susan Strange, representative of the British school, could be considered a critical realist. The aim of the article is to show that her vision of international political economy fulfills the methodological reorientation initiated in economics by Tony Lawson at the end of the 90s.
Strange’s radical ontology claims that structural power determines human actions. The paper contrasts Strange’s approach with that of John Ruggie, from the American school, who identifies himself as a social constructivist.
Ruggie emphasizes the role of ideational factors in international relations and the constructed nature of social reality.
Keywords: international political economy, international organisation, structuralism, neo-utilitarianism
Introduction
Critical international political economy is a heterodox approach of international relations (IR) which addresses the relationship between States and
Firms, by assuming that States are creating the structure in which Firms are acting as agency. The field of IR has evolved since the 1970s through a redefinition of the ontology. Susan Strange called for a more “economic” view of
IR, States and Firms being the main actors on the international stage. States are not only confronting on political or security matters, but more on economic issues, concerning development and financing.
The Journal of Philosophical Economics IV:2 (2011)
37
Critical Realism versus Social Constructivism in international relations
What is interesting is the way in which this ontological shift, pioneered by
Strange, reflected in the rise of a new discipline, called international political economy (IPE). I will show in this paper that the important ontological move
Roxana Bobulescu
Abstract: This article discusses the methodological differences between the
British school and the American school of international relations. It attempts to demonstrate that Susan Strange, representative of the British school, could be considered a critical realist. The aim of the article is to show that her vision of international political economy fulfills the methodological reorientation initiated in economics by Tony Lawson at the end of the 90s.
Strange’s radical ontology claims that structural power determines human actions. The paper contrasts Strange’s approach with that of John Ruggie, from the American school, who identifies himself as a social constructivist.
Ruggie emphasizes the role of ideational factors in international relations and the constructed nature of social reality.
Keywords: international political economy, international organisation, structuralism, neo-utilitarianism
Introduction
Critical international political economy is a heterodox approach of international relations (IR) which addresses the relationship between States and
Firms, by assuming that States are creating the structure in which Firms are acting as agency. The field of IR has evolved since the 1970s through a redefinition of the ontology. Susan Strange called for a more “economic” view of
IR, States and Firms being the main actors on the international stage. States are not only confronting on political or security matters, but more on economic issues, concerning development and financing.
The Journal of Philosophical Economics IV:2 (2011)
37
Critical Realism versus Social Constructivism in international relations
What is interesting is the way in which this ontological shift, pioneered by
Strange, reflected in the rise of a new discipline, called international political economy (IPE). I will show in this paper that the important ontological move
References: Bhaskar, Roy (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism, Brighton, UK: Boyd. Cooper, Richard (1968), The Economics of Interdependence, New York, US: McGraw-Hill. Dessler, David (1989), ‘What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate?’, International Organisation, 43 (3), 441-473. Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (2001), ‘Taking stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Giddens, Anthony (1981), The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, London, UK: Hutchinson. Gramsci, Antonio (1971), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, New York, US: International Publishers. Katzenstein, Peter (eds) (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York, US: Columbia University Press. Kellner, Douglas and Best, Steven (1991), Postmodern theory: critical interrogations, Guilford Press. The Journal of Philosophical Economics IV:2 (2011) 63 Critical Realism versus Social Constructivism in international relations Krasner, Stephen (eds) (1983), International Regimes, Ithaca, US: Cornell Lawson, Tony (1997), Economics and Reality, London, UK: Routledge. Lawson, Tony (2003), Reorienting Economics, London, UK: Routledge. Lewis, Paul (eds) (2004), Transforming Economics, London, UK: Routledge. Murphy, Craig and Nelson, Douglas (2001), ‘International Political Economy: A Tale of Two Heterodoxies’, British Journal of Politics and International Palan, Ronen (1999), ‘Susan Strange 1923-1998: A Great International Relations Theorist’, Review of International Political Economy, 6(2), 121-132. Ruggie, John (1998), ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neoutilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organisation, 52(4), 855-885. Searle, John (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, New York, US: The Free Press. Strange, Susan (1994) [1988], States and Markets, 2nd edn. London, UK: Pinter. Tooze, Roger (2000), ‘Susan Strange, Academic International Relations and the Study of International Political Economy’, New Political Economy, 5(2), 280289. Underhill, Geoffrey (2000), ‘State, Market and Global Political Economy: Genealogy of an (Inter-?) Discipline’, International Affairs, 76(4), 805-824. Weber, Max (1949), The Methodology of Social Sciences, New York, US: The Free Press. Wendt, Alexander (1987), ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organisation, 41(3), 335-370.