To understand the conditions under which cooperation
can take place, one must understand how international institutions operate and
how they come into being. All cooperation take place in somehow an
institutional way. Cooperation is a contested term, the way Keohane uses it, it
is distinguished from discord and harmony. Cooperation requires that the
actions of separate individuals or organizations must be brought in conformity
with each other.
The impact of cooperation can be measured by looking
at the difference between the impact of the outcome of it and the impact of
outcome when there would be no cooperation. Cooperation knows different views:
rationalistic and reflectivist. The chief argument of the article is as follow:
Students of
international relations should direct their attention to the relative merits of
two those approaches. Until we understand the strengths and weaknesses of both,
we will be unable to design research strategies that are sufficiently
multifaceted to encompass our subject-matter, and our empirical work will
suffer accordingly.
The article and this summary will be build as follow:
1. Definitions of international institutions.
2. Rationalist approach
3. Reflective approach.
4. Conclusion.
1. Definitions.
after mentioning different forms of institutions, Keohane mentions the
following: ‘’I will focus on institutions that can be identified as related
complexes of rules and norms, identifiable in time and space.’’
He means that we have to look at institutions
that are auctioning particular activity and have general norms that can be
attached to any number of rule complexes. In this way, he can focus on specific institutions and on practices. Specific institutions can be
defined in terms of their rules. Those have to be durable and must prescribe
behavioural roles for actors that are constrained by it.
He calls it summary rules. They summarize the past and predict what will happen
in the future. Those rules are comprehended by practices: the mark of a
practice that being taught how to engage in it involves being instructed in the
rules that define it, and that appeal is made to those rules to correct the
behaviour of those engaged in it. Those engaged, should not oppose to these,
because that will be punished (Rawls). According to Rawls, sovereignty is a
practice because it contains a set of rules that define it and that can be used
to correct states’ behaviour.
2. Rationalist.
assumption: scarcity and competition as well as rationality from the actors.
It is the combination of potential value and the
difficulty of making them that renders international regimes significant. The
view them as patterns of cost. If transaction costs (transferring info about
cooperation partner) are negligible, it won’t be necessary to create new
institutions to facilitate mutually beneficial exchange. According to this
theory, transaction costs are never negligible, so one should expect
institutions when the costs of communication, monitoring and enforcement are
relatively low compared to benefits generated from it. They can’t be
politically neutral though.
It does not account though why they occur in
only some fields. There are hypotheses though: some are not created because the
benefits are not high enough. Hegemony is a necessary condition. The slowing
away of a hegemon can create a reason for the diminishing of an institution.
So it does account how they occur and when, but
why and what kinds will and won’t develop. It is good at posing questions, but
not in giving answers. Rationalism also needs to extend its vision on history.
To overview the history, you can conclude why some occurred. Theories of
path-dependence in economics might account for reasons why they occur. Some
organisations still exist (GATT), though they are not efficient. Why? Sunk
costs might able to remain them or considerations of power are involved over
the years. This shows the importance of history.
3. Reflectivist.
This focusses on processes and sociological
effects. It is not only about human beings shaping them, it is also about
changing environments. The critique on rationalist comes back here by saying
that a lack of focus on history is filled up by reflectivist approaches.
Sociological changes are also important and institutions are not only shaped
from the outside. There is lack of consideration in context. Learning and
consciousness should also be taken into account.
Keohane mentions the criticism on rationalist:
- the assumption of equilibrium is often misleading
- Rationalists account better for strange in strength than in change of
cultural values.
- It does not take into account social processes of reflection and
learning.
- It has little to say about the evolution of practices and its origins.
Though, Keohane argues that these critiques are not
devastating. No social science is complete and this is a perfect explanatory
framework. Reflective is not that good since it has no clear cut data to use.
Neither does pay attention to domestic politics.
4. Conclusions.
- International institutions are important, but without cooperation we are
lost.
-. Rationalistic approach needs to be
contextualized historically, they do need an explanation that is not embedded
in practices that are not entirely explicable through rationalistic analysis.
- reflective needs to develop own theories
instead of omitting rationalistic theories.
- we hope for a synthesis between both.
*ATTENTION: KEOHANE PRESENTS IT LIKE HE IS
EVALUATING BOTH APPROACHES, BUT IS CLEARLY MORE FOND OF RATIONAL APPROACH ABOVE
REFLECTIVE. THIS IS BECAUSE OF LACK OF DATA USE IN REFLECTIVE APPROACH*
see also: The Demand for International Regimes / Robert Keohane
see also: The Demand for International Regimes / Robert Keohane
