I.

(Ruggie, 1982) International Regimes, Transactions, and change: Embedded

liberalism
3 main arguments:
1. Structure of political authority: power plus legitimate social purpose
2. International economic regimes provide the environment that helps states
determine what kinds of transaction flows fit the power + purpose of the regime.
3. Two potential sources of change: power and social purpose ( do not necessarily
covary)
Social purpose matters more than specific hegemon in shaping character of world
economic regime. Post WWII regime is embedded liberalism (multilateral
and domestic interventionism). Norm-governed change is more common than
fundamental discontinuity with shifting power distribution.
Keywords: Intersubjective, embedded, legitimate social purpose
Read with; (Polanyi, 2001) Draws on specifically for idea of embedded and disembedded
economic orders
Read against: (Waltz, 2010)
II.
(Ruggie, 1998) What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the
Social Constructivist Challenge
1. Constitutive vs. regulative rules
2. Ideational causation
3. Collective intentionality
+
Read with: (Durkheim & Halls, 1984) and (Weber, Gerth, & Mills, 1958)
Durkheim, E., & Halls, W. D. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.
International Organization, 52(4), 887-917. doi: 10.1162/002081898550789
Lake, D. A. (2007). Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics.
International Security, 32(1), 47-79. doi: 10.1162/isec.2007.32.1.47
Lake, D. A. (2009). Hierarchy in international relations. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Legro, J. W. (1997). Which norms matter? Revisiting the failure of internationalism.
International Organization, 51(1), 31-63. doi: 10.1162/002081897550294
Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the
postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379-415. doi:
10.1017/S0020818300018993
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social
Constructivist Challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855-885. doi:
10.1162/002081898550770
Wallerstein, I. M. (1979). The capitalist world-economy: essays. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press.

Weber, M., Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1958). From Max Weber: essays in sociology. New
York U6 - ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book
&rft.genre=book&rft.title=From+Max+Weber&rft.au=Weber%2C+Max%2C+18641920&rft.au=Gerth%2C+Hans+Heinrich%2C+1908-1979&rft.au=Mills%2C+C.
+Wright+1916-1962+%28Charles+Wright%29&rft.date=1958-0101&rft.pub=Oxford+University+Press&rft.externalDocID=b11041730&paramdict=enUS U7 - Book U8 - FETCH-gt_catalog_b110417302: Oxford University Press.

(Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change
constructivist
Renewed interest in norms: Ideational return
-norms are standards of behavior for actors within certain identity group
-institutions: collection of rules and practices that define appropriate behavior for groups
(aggregation up, inter-relation)
-regulative and constitutive norms: constitutive
-origins of norms: Stage model: norm emergence norm entrepreuners frame norms in such a
way to make care. Epistemic community. Stage two, norm cascade after tipping point. Widely
adopted. Stage three: internalization becomes standard and common behavior.
Norm cascade specifics mechanism of influence: Demonstration effects imitating behavior.
Socialization Could be ridiculed, punished, or excluded
Conditions:
why norms matter: adopt certain norms to appear legitimate
Prominance: see good things happen to others
Compared to adopting norms for utility maximization
Not all norms adopted are in a countries material self-interest (child-soldiers)
Read with: (Legro, 1997) Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the Failure of Internationalism
(Wallerstein, 1979) Marx Lenin - (Lake, 2007, 2009) and contrast of
Marx and Lenin interests defined in terms of power and wealth (similar to Realism)
dichotomy of historical materialism surplus value of what is produced Wallerstein translates
the rhetoric to international level. Core capitalist states own the capital and take advantage of
periphery
Wallerstein one world system capitalist: Core exploits both semi-periphery and periphery.
Uses semi-periphery to exercise control and as a market for exports.
Core has been stable over past 2 centuries because core retains most of military power, even
though major states in core may change over time. Capitalist ideology is accepted.
Divisions both across units and within units.
Lenins Imperialism written before Wallerstein
State is captured by the finance capital: which is fusion between industrial and banking capital
Finance capital combined the previously separate forms
Masses cannot afford flow of goods, so capitalist states seek new markets for exports

For Lenin not distinct system and sub-categories (for Lenin the state is captured)
Labor as commodity (Polanyi wrote about fictionalized aspect of labor as commodity)
Equilibrium between components
Wallerstein Welfare state distributes enough to keep revolution at bay
while Cox says core states adopt counter-hegemonic ideas to stave off revolution
Lake system is more hierarchical than anarchical
States can band together to escape the danger of state of nature, can opt for hierarchy replace
coercion by authority
authority is relational mutual consent
hierarchal: based on legitimacy and bargaining between a dominant and subordinate
regional hierarchies
Economic and military indicators as measurement of hierarchy: varying degrees. US hierarchy.
Krasner: statist image state is autonomous actor and cannot be reduced to summation of private
desires. Still unitary actor from president as final decider
Absence of private interest on national behavior government has own particular interests and
goals (material or ideological goals). State is whole of interest.