Robert o. Keohane: “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?”
Keohane began his article with the claim that in order to look at world politics in the 1990s, one must analyze international institutions. He posed certain questions involving NATO, Iraq, the IMF, the wTo, and the Kyoto Protocol. The questions Keohane posed demonstrate the increasing importance of international institutions in the maintenance of world order. Superpowers need international institutions to implement general rules because of their desire to influence foreign events. Keohane thought that even a hegemon, like the United States, would be unable to accomplish their goals without the help of international institutions. Keohane laid out what he believed to be the the reason why some institutions are effective and others are not. Keohane classified the period of 1919-1989 as a period of theory and reality.
He gave a brief history of international institutions, beginning with the failed creation of the League of Nations (1919) to new scholarship in the 1980s. This scholarship was based largely on the linked ideas of uncertainty and credibility. Basically, states are less likely to enter into agreements when their partners are not transparent. International institutions can reduce this mistrust by encouraging transparent negotiations, by dealing with a set of issues over a longer length of time and with similar rules (thus promoting honesty in order to have a better future reputation), and by keeping an eye on whether governments keep their commitments. Keohane wrote that states are less likely to enter into trade negotiations with the United States because Congress is allowed to add to the agreements, giving the president a lack of negotiating credibility. The new school of thought argued that international institutions should be the answer to state demands for cooperative ways to solve their problems by reducing uncertainty and the costs of forming and complying to agreements, rather than imposing themselves on states.
Keohane classified 1989-1995 as yesterday's controversies. This new form of institutionalism was critiqued in three main ways. One, critics believed that international institutions are insignificant, based on the idea that only states have power in world politics. Any success of institutions was attributed to the great power backing them rather than they themselves. Keohane denies this with the argument that institutions back by the US make decisions that the US would not necessarily make. The second dispute centered around the “relative gains question.” Keohane responded to this by saying that the question only highlights the difficulties of cooperation rather than completely undermining its possibility. The third objection was that bargaining problems could make obstacles that would prevent achieving joint gains. Today's debates center around which structures, processes, and practices make international institutions more or less effective in the formation of desirable policies and outcomes. Keohane then examined the problem of overcoming the democratic deficit. Keohane stated that the best way to proceed is by maintaining robust democratic institutions, establishing formal structures for international delegation, and the role of transnational networks.
Keohane's form of institutionalism is an important facet of liberalism. International institutions espouse cooperation, an important tenet of liberalism. In addition, international institutions protect liberal ideas.
He gave a brief history of international institutions, beginning with the failed creation of the League of Nations (1919) to new scholarship in the 1980s. This scholarship was based largely on the linked ideas of uncertainty and credibility. Basically, states are less likely to enter into agreements when their partners are not transparent. International institutions can reduce this mistrust by encouraging transparent negotiations, by dealing with a set of issues over a longer length of time and with similar rules (thus promoting honesty in order to have a better future reputation), and by keeping an eye on whether governments keep their commitments. Keohane wrote that states are less likely to enter into trade negotiations with the United States because Congress is allowed to add to the agreements, giving the president a lack of negotiating credibility. The new school of thought argued that international institutions should be the answer to state demands for cooperative ways to solve their problems by reducing uncertainty and the costs of forming and complying to agreements, rather than imposing themselves on states.
Keohane classified 1989-1995 as yesterday's controversies. This new form of institutionalism was critiqued in three main ways. One, critics believed that international institutions are insignificant, based on the idea that only states have power in world politics. Any success of institutions was attributed to the great power backing them rather than they themselves. Keohane denies this with the argument that institutions back by the US make decisions that the US would not necessarily make. The second dispute centered around the “relative gains question.” Keohane responded to this by saying that the question only highlights the difficulties of cooperation rather than completely undermining its possibility. The third objection was that bargaining problems could make obstacles that would prevent achieving joint gains. Today's debates center around which structures, processes, and practices make international institutions more or less effective in the formation of desirable policies and outcomes. Keohane then examined the problem of overcoming the democratic deficit. Keohane stated that the best way to proceed is by maintaining robust democratic institutions, establishing formal structures for international delegation, and the role of transnational networks.
Keohane's form of institutionalism is an important facet of liberalism. International institutions espouse cooperation, an important tenet of liberalism. In addition, international institutions protect liberal ideas.