International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order
Международные режимы, трансакции и изменения: встроенный либерализм в послевоенном экономическом порядке
1982-01-01
SCID: 54.1/tx52yah6
Discuss with AI
embedded liberalisminternational economic regimesintersubjective frameworkpostwar economic orderstate-society relations
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
The prevailing model of international economic regimes is strictly positivistic in its epistemological orientation and stresses the distribution of material power capabilities in its explanatory logic. It is inadequate to account for the current set of international economic regimes and for the differences between past and present regimes. The model elaborated here departs from the prevailing view in two respects, while adhering to it in a third. First, it argues that regimes comprise not simply what actors say and do, but also what they understand and find acceptable within an intersubjective framework of meaning. Second, it argues that in the economic realm such a framework of meaning cannot be deduced from the distribution of material power capabilities, but must be sought in the configuration of state-society relations that is characteristic of the regime-making states. Third, in incorporating these notions into our understanding of the formation and transformation of international economic regimes, the formulation self-consciously strives to remain at the systemic level and to avoid becoming reductionist in attributing cause and effect relations. The article can therefore argue that the prevailing view is deficient on its own terms and must be expanded and modified. Addressing the world of actual international economic regimes, the article argues that the pax Britannica and the pax Americana cannot be equated in any meaningful sense, and that the postwar regimes for money and trade live on notwithstanding premature announcements of their demise.
Key Findings
1
Economic regimes’ meaning frameworks derive from regime-making states’ state-society relations rather than being deduced solely from material power distributions.
2
International regimes include actors’ intersubjective understandings and notions of acceptability, not only their stated positions and observable actions.
3
Pax Britannica and pax Americana are not meaningfully equivalent, while postwar monetary and trade regimes persist despite premature claims of their demise.
4
The prevailing positivist, material-capabilities model inadequately explains the configuration and historical differences of international economic regimes.
5
The proposed framework remains systemic while incorporating ideational and state-society factors, avoiding reductionist causal explanations.
Research Object
Postwar international economic regimes (regimes for money and trade) and the broader set of international economic regimes
Research Subject
The intersubjective and state–society-relational foundations of the formation, transformation, and persistence of international economic regimes
Publication Details
Publication Date
1982-01-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest