1 The Inter-Paradigm Debate

M ic h a e l B a n k s
L o n d o n S c h o o l o f E co n o m ics a n d P o litica l S cien ce a n d C A C

Everyone w h o studies in tern a tio n a l relations ( IR) must co n fro n t the

problem o f trying to u n d e r s ta n d the world society as a whole. T o do
this is to theorize. All discussion o f world affairs rests upo n
as s u m p tio n s ab o u t w hich things are the o n e s that really matter. This
applies to everything in IR: from the causes o f w a r to h u m a n rights;
from P a ra g u a y a n foreign policy to n u clear w e a p o n d e p lo y m en t in
Europe; from e c o n o m ic san ctio ns to the reform o f the UN. T h e
im p o rta n c e o f p rior as s u m p tio n s is self-evident if the topic itself is
theoretical, like conflict resolution o r decision-m aking. But it is not
so obvious in the case o f statem ents that seem at first to be explicitly
factual, such as a reference to terrorism in Ire lan d o r to the rise o f a
m ark et e c o n o m y in C h in a . U p o n reflection, it b ecom es clear that
terrorism is extremely h a r d to define, a n d th a t a m ark et econom y
d e p e n d s o n a w hole series o f c o n d itio n s in clu d in g mobility o f labour,
freedom o f in form ation, an en tre p ren e u rial class a n d so on.
Terrorism, therefore, can only be properly identified in the context o f
a theory o f social stability a n d change; a n d a m arket econom y only
w ithin a theory that deals with politics a n d culture, not just
economics.
It follows that it is w ro n g to th in k o f ‘theory' as s o m e th in g that is
o p p o s e d to ‘reality. T h e two c a n n o t be separated. Every statem ent
that is in te n d e d to describe o r ex p lain a n y th in g th a t h a p p e n s in the
world society is a theoretical statement. It is naive a n d superficial to
try to discuss IR solely o n the basis o f ‘the facts'. T h is is because
w hatever facts are selected - any at all - arc literally a b s t r a c t They are
c h o se n from a m u c h bigger m en u o f available facts, because they arc
im portant. T h e question is: why are they im portant? A n d the answer
to that is: b ecau se they fit a c o n c e p t the concept fits a theory a n d the
theory fits an un d erly in g view o f the world. In the s a m e way. each
‘islan d ’ o f theory in the literature o f IR ( a b o u t deterrence, say, or
political integration) is itself part o f a m ore general m ental m ap

7
8 M ichael B anks

w hich shows how the world society is structured a n d w hich aspects o f

it are the most sig n ific a n t T h is c h a p te r is c o n c e rn e d with these
general schem es o f t h o u g h t
O f course, everyone w ho begins th e study o f IR is already e q u ip p e d
with an im age o f the world's geography, climate, politics, econom y
a n d culture. But this im pression is rarely as co h eren t a n d rigorous as
social science requires, w hich m e a n s th a t the serious student o f IR
needs to co n sider afresh the problem o f how to picture world society
as a whole. T o do this is not easy. T h e r e are m o re t h a n four billion
people, living in m o re th a n 170 states, a n d s p rea d across five
continents. F ortu n ately for th e IR theorist, m odest generalizatio n is
im m ediately possible in that everyone sh ares a single ecosystem, has
sim ilar needs a n d hopes, a n d is subject to the in te rd e p e n d e n t effects
o f global industry a n d trade. But in o th e r ways they are very different:
in nationality, ethnicity, language, culture, social system, ideology,
a n d especially levels o f wealth a n d forms o f political organization.
Together, all these similarities a n d co ntrasts m a k e for a highly
com plex world society. T h e p roblem for the theorist is to simplify the
com plexity without distorting it T h a t task, in turn, requires attention
to the p ro cedures o f theory-building.

Theory-building

T heory consists o f both analysis a n d synthesis. T o analyse is to

unravel, to sep arate the strands, o r to take to pieces. T o synthesize is
to reassemble, to piece together the parts in such a way as to com po se
a w hole that m ak es sense. G e n e ra l theory in IR. then, consists o f
dividing the h u m a n race into sections, n o tin g the significant
properties o f each, e x a m in in g th e rela tio n sh ip s between them , a n d
describing the p attern s form ed by the relationships. Interesting
p ro b lem s arise at every stage. S om e o f these are methodological. How
sh o u ld w'e set a b o u t observing things, defining them, m e a s u rin g them
a n d c o m p a r in g them? O th ers are theoretical, b e c a u s e theory consists
o f form in g ideas o r concepts to describe aspects o f th e world,
classifying them, a n d co n sidering the v ario u s ways in w hich they
in te ra c t H ow m a n y sections o f world society are there? H o w sho u ld
they be subdivided? W h a t properties o f each section are we interested
in? W h ic h relatio n sh ip s matter, a n d for w h at purposes? In short,
w h at are the a p p r o p ria te units o f analysis, w h at are the significant
links between them , a n d w hat arc the right levels o n w hich to co n d u ct
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 9

the analysis? A n d there are further theoretical q u estio ns even beyond

these, b ecau se all theories o f society are. at root, ideological. T heories
sim u lta n eo u sly express th e political values o f the theorist, a n d also
help to s h a p e the world w hich is being analysed. H u m a n beings, as
Bernstein |I 2 | points out. need to be acutely critical o f their own
assu nipt ions.

The State o f the D iscipline

N o n e o f these q u estio n s has ever h a d definite answ ers in the study o f

I R - a n d that is just as it s h o uld be. If any discipline is to re m a in alive
a n d well, th en its general theory m ust be co n stan tly undergoing
ch a lle n g e a n d modification. T h is is b ecause progress in knowledge
consists o f ask in g new questions, hopefully getting better answers,
a n d ch eck ing the answ ers (again, a m atter o f m ethod) for accuracy,
simplicity, consistency a n d n o rm ativ e implications. T h e field c a n n o t
offer u n q u e s tio n e d ‘truths' ab o u t th e structure a n d processes o f the
world society. But it c a n offer a reaso nab ly coherent general
explanation, however tentative, w hich show s how the specific
research areas (such as arm s control o r ec o n o m ic developm ent) fit
together into an overall scheme.
Today, the field c o n ta in s not o n e but three such general
explanations: realism, pluralism a n d structuralism. Strictly, they
s h o u ld be called ‘p arad ig m s', but they are also m o re casually termed
perspectives, app ro ach e s, world views, fram ew orks o r general
theories. T h e debate ab o u t their respective merits occupies centre
stage in the discipline, although m u c h o f th e literature ab o u t it tends
to be very confused. T h e r e are two m a in reasons for the confusion.
First, there are m ore analysts th a n synthesizers. Most scholars d o not
c o n d u c t research o n general theory at all. but instead o n smaller-
scale p ro b le m s w hich p ro d u c e ‘islands' o f theory, as described in
su bseq u en t c h a p te rs o f this H andbook, a n d in an excellent p a p e r by
Holsti (41). Second, old a n d new a p p r o a c h e s are intermingled. T h e
cu rren t literature h a s inevitably grown out o f th e past, a n d m u c h o f it
either describes old d e b a te s o r mixes c o n te m p o ra ry issues with the
earlier ones.
10 M ichael Banks

T h e History o f T h o u g h t

In historical terms, th ere are two m a in g roups o f writings a b o u t IR

theory: w orks p u b lis h e d before, a n d after, the First W orld War. T h e
earlier g ro u p forms the classical heritage o f IR. It co ntain s studies o f
political theory, law, history a n d d ip lo m acy p ro d u c ed over several
centuries before the sh ock o f th e G re a t W a r created a professional
discipline for th e study o f world politics. M u c h o f this literature is o f
su perb quality a n d c o n tin u in g relevance, as P a rk in s o n [78] a n d
W olfers [ 106] have argued. It h a s also inspired a body o f m o re recent
s c h o larsh ip w hich seeks to draw u p o n the classical insights. Valuable
c o n trib u tio n s include Wight o n co m p a ra tiv e state systems [ 103].
Bcitz on justice [11]. N a r d in o n law[ 73]. D o n e la n o n reason o f state
[29]. W alzer o n th e morality o f w a r [101]. a n d M ayall o n inter­
nation al c o m m u n ity [65]. T h is neo-classical school is described
further in C h a p t e r 2 o f this H andbook.
T h e secon d historical category is that created by teac h in g a n d
research as IR b e c a m e estab lished in universities after 1918. D u rin g
its growth, first in the West a n d later worldwide, the ac a d e m ic
discipline has developed th ro u g h three stages. T h ese are usually
know n as the traditional, b e h a v io u ral a n d post-behavioural periods.
T h e full seq u e n ce is described by B an k s [6 . 7. 8] a n d in [5] a n d [9 ]. It
has form ed the th em e o f M cC lellan d 's 'fourth wave' p a p e r [60] a n d o f
an edited b o o k by M ag hroo ri & R a m b e rg [62].
W ith in each o f the periods since 1918, there has been a ‘great
deb ate a b o u t general theory, w h ich m e a n s th a t the inter-paradigm
d eb a te o f the 1980s is the third in the succession. R ealism -idealism
c a m e first, ru n n in g right th ro u g h the traditional period from 1918 to
1950 a n d re ach in g a n intellectual p eak with C a r r s masterly critique
o f idealism in 1939 (23). Before C arr, idealist o r liberal views
d o m in a te d the field, fuelled by the ho rro rs o f the G re at War. After
C a r r ( a n d after a p p e a s e m e n t h a d failed to p revent the S eco n d W orld
War), th e realist school not only took ch arg e but p ro d u c e d a n all-
pervasive general theory o f p ow er politics, elegantly c e n su red by
H o ff m a n n (40).
Then, in the 1950s. the first d eb ate was p u s h e d aside. Bchavioural-
ism erupted, a n d its cru sa d e for em p iricism a n d scientific pro cedures
provoked a co n fro n tatio n with traditionalists w hich lasted through
the 1960s. At its o nset in 1955. the state o f th e discipline was
majestically surveyed by W right 1107). T h e s h a r p exchanges,
so m etim es called ‘revolutionary', were fully analysed in K n o rr &
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 11

R o sen au (50). a n d the eventual successes a n d failures were vividly

n arrated in the au to b io g ra p h ic al essays co m m is s io n e d by R osenau
(85). Like idealism before it. b eh a v io u ralism never ch a lle n g ed the
u n d erly in g realist paradigm ; it focussed on research m ethods, as
idealism h a d focussed o n values a n d policy prescriptions. Both left
the crucial state-centric as s u m p tio n s o f realism in c o m m a n d .
F ro m ab o u t 1970 o n w a r d the post-behavioural p h a s e developed
into a tria n g u la r ‘in te r-p a ra d ig m ’ d eb a te w hich did focus on the
a s s u m p tio n o f a state-centric world. By 1980 realism was pitted
against structuralism a n d pluralism. A w areness o f just how deep
were the new divisions c a m e hesitantly at first b e g in n in g with
discussion o f the im p o rta n c e o f K u h n ’s ‘p a ra d ig m ’ p h ilo so p h y |56|
for the field, a n d then accelerating. T h e p attern is well recorded in a
series o f articles o n ‘how m a n y p a ra d ig m s arc there?' A representative
s a m p le w o u ld begin with Phillips (81) a n d L ijp h art (59) in 1974. an d
follow via Inkeles (42) in 1975. Sullivan (92) a n d B anks (8) in 1978.
R o sen au (83) in 1979. a n d P ettm a n [7 9 | in 1981. to th e m ost search in g
piece to date; A lk e r& Bierstekcr ( I) in 1984. T h e i r survey analyses IR
syllabuses in lead ing US universities, dep lo res the extrem e p aro ­
ch ialism th u s re v e a le d a n d identifies a w ider global discipline which
is split between tr a d itio n a l-r e a lis t lib e ra l-b e h a v io u ra l a n d ra d ic al-
dialectical approaches.

G e n e ra l Theory: Texts, Surveys a n d C o m m e n ta rie s

Against a b a c k g ro u n d o f such variety in ap p ro ach e s, it is not

surprisin g that in tro du ctio n s to IR tend to be selective in their
coverage. M a n y textbook au th o rs feel obliged to co n c en trate o n the
‘real w o rld ’, w hich m e a n s that their analytic fram ew ork is sw a m p e d
in facts ab o u t current events. O f the introductory w orks which
d o co n c en trate exclusively o n theories, the best available is by
D ougherty & P faltzg raff (30|. It is far from ideal, becau se its 1980
revision achieved only a partial updating; coverage o f structuralism
is especially weak. But it does have th e widest range. T a y lo r s edited
collection (94) m ak es a good c o m p a n i o n for it, being s im p le r a n d less
compressed. G a rn e tt's co n trib u tio n (35) is helpful but old-fashioned,
a n d there are several constructive sections in the book o n the
teac h in g o f IR by Kent & N ielsson (46). T h e full b re a d th o f the
c o m p etin g p a ra d ig m s debate is well represented in th e articles
selected for the O p e n University re ad er by Smith, Little & S hackleton
12 M ichael B anks

(91J. a n d also in the impressive study o f the causes o f w a r by two

historians. N elso n & O lin (74(.
T h e b e h a v io u ral m o v em en t a n d its afte rm ath p ro d u c ed a series o f
fine c o m m e n ta r ie s o n theory, a m o n g w h ich the lively, easily read
ac co u n t by M o rgan (70) is notable. T h e m a jo r c o m p e n d iu m by
R o sen au (86J is d ated but still o f relevance, a n d Sullivan's text (93|
c o n ta in s useful s u m m a r ie s o f research. T h e o u ts ta n d in g treatment,
however, is the d evastating critique o f realism by Vasquez (99). It
illustrates the strengths o f b eh a v io u ralism better th a n any other
study, a n d its discussions o f epistemology, o f an o m a lie s a n d their
relation to general theory, a n d o f the i m p o rta n c e o f the inter­
p arad ig m debate, together m ake it o n e o f th e most significant works
p u b lish ed in IR since 1945. Vasquez d e m o n s tra te s two things
conclusively: that th e b eh a viou ral m ovem ent, like postw ar tradi­
tionalism before it. was d o m in a te d by realist assum ptions; a n d that
realist general theory c a n n o t properly exp lain world politics.

T h e P arad ig m s C o m p a re d

N ot even Vasquez, however, gives a system atic c o m p a riso n o f the

issues at stake in th e in ter-p a rad ig m debate, a lth o u g h several efforts
to p ro d u c e such a study were reported to be u n d e r way by 1985. So the
re ad er m ust turn to the specialized literature w ithin each paradigm.
F.ach o f the three starts with a wholly different basic image. For
realists, th e w orld society is a system o f ‘billiard-ball' states in
interm ittent collision. F o r p lu ra lis ta it is a 'cobweb', a network o f
n u m e ro u s criss-crossing relationships. F o r structuralists, it is a
‘m u lti-h e a d e d octopus', with powerful tentacles constantly sucking
wealth from the w ea k en ed perip h eries tow ards the powerful
centres.
U p o n these co n tra s tin g foundations, the p ro p o n e n ts o f each
p arad ig m have erected a structure o f theory. E a c h o f the three is
co h e re n t in its own terms, but each also co n tradicts the others. T h e
c o n tra d ictio n s are most distinctive in relation to the m a jo r theoreti­
cal categories o f actors, d y n a m ic s a n d d e p e n d e n t variables. On
actors, realists see only states; pluralists see states in c o m b in a tio n
with a great variety o f others; a n d structuralists see classes. O n
dynam ics, realists see force as prim ary; pluralists see co m plex social
movements; structuralists see economics. O n d e p e n d e n t variables,
realists sec the task o f IR as sim ply to ex p lain w hat states do;
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 13

pluralists sec it m o re g ra n d ly as an effort to explain all m a jo r world

events; a n d structuralists see its function as sho w ing why the world
c o n ta in s such a p p a llin g contrasts between rich a n d poor.
F ro m these fu n d a m e n ta l differences, m a n y o th ers flow. T h e three
p arad ig m s e ach have fairly obvious strengths a n d weaknesses. T hey
also lead to co n tra stin g j u d g m e n ts o f how wide a scope the study of
IR sho u ld have. Realists define the b o u n d a r ie s o f their subject in a
narrow, state-centric fashion, often preferring the term ‘international
politics to describe it. Pluralists w iden the b o u n d a r ie s by in clu d ing
m u ltin a tio n a l com panies, markets, eth n ic groups a n d n ation alism as
w'ell as state behaviour, a n d call th eir subject IR o r world society.
Structuralists have the widest b o u n d a r ie s o f all. stressing the unity o f
the w hole world system at all levels, focussing o n m odes o f
p ro d u c tio n a n d treating inter-state politics as merely a surface
phenomenon.
T h e most co n fu sin g usages o cc u r at the level o f specific concepts -
the building-blocks o f any theory. S o m e concepts are fo u n d only in
o n e paradigm , b ecause they are o f crucial im p o rtan ce to it:
deterrence a n d alliances in realism, ethnicity a n d in terd e p en d en c e
in pluralism, exploitation a n d d ep e n d e n c y in structuralism. Others,
however, are used with broadly s im ila r m ean in g s in all three: power,
sovereignty, a n d law, for example. Yet others, like imperialism , the
state, a n d hegemony, are used in all three but with sh arp ly different
interpretations. In consequence, th e task o f re ad ing th e IR literature
is partly a m atter o f d isen tan g lin g th e various usages. M an y writers
borrow concepts from o th er paradigm s, w hich helps to explain the
confusing n atu re o f m uch writing in IR. Pluralists are the worst
offenders in this respect, often following such p ath s as the logic o f
regime form ation, the role o f m ispercep tio n in foreign policy o r the
dom estic sources o f in tern a tio n a l conflict - a n d th en retreating to a
respectably ‘realist' co n c lu sio n w hich fails to follow from the
argument.

W ritings on Realism

As th e oldest a n d still the most widely accepted o f the three

paradigm s, realism h a s ac q u ired th e best-developed literature. Its
classical ancestry reaches b ack to T hucy d ides. Machiavelli, H o b b es
a n d Clausewitz, all o f w h o m stressed the co m p ellin g insecurity o f the
sovereign state and. in consequence, the characteristic features o f
14 M ichael B anks

power politics in relations between states: the prim acy o f foreign

policy, the central role o f w a r a n d the essentially political a n d am o ral
c h a ra c te r o f IR. In the twentieth century, these ideas have been
co ntin u ally recast to fit c o n te m p o ra ry circum stances. W ritings from
the traditional p eriod are now mostly ou t o f print, but T h o m p s o n [97|
gives a first-rate assessm ent o f Aron, C arr, N ieb u h r. Herz, L i p p m a n n
a n d others, while Bull (18J. M o rg e n th a u (7IJ. a n d Wight (102) can
som etim es still be purch ased; all ten d to crowd the IR shelves o f
libraries. T h is g ro u p provides the b a c k g ro u n d re ad in g for an y study
o f c o n te m p o ra ry theory in IR. T h e majority o f introductory' texts
c o n tin u e to draw heavily u p o n it; th e subfield o f strategic studies (see
C h a p t e r 10) has grown directly from i t a n d its theories form the
u nstated p a r a d ig m for m an y acco u n ts o f th e foreign policies o f
ind iv idu al states.
W h e n b eh a v io u ralism began in the 1950s. it was seen as a
w holesale rejection o f realism. But it tu rn ed o u t to b e only an attack
o n its research m ethods, offering n o effective substitute for its general
theory. T h e b e h a v io u ral efforts in quantification, s im u la tio n a n d
even theory-building m ain ly proceeded from realist a ssu m p tio n s
th ro u g h o u t the 1950s a n d 1960s. O n ly in the 1970s did realism begin
to falter u n d e r th e im p act o f genuinely c o m p e tin g paradigm s, most
p ro m in ently in th e form o f d ep e n d e n c y theory (structuralism ) a n d
in te rd e p e n d e n c e theory'(pluralism ). But a realist fight-back quickly
ap p eared , with C o h e n |26j asserting a political (n o t economic)
analysis o f imperialism . T u c k e r |98| rejecting claim s for distributive
justice. Bull [ 19| reasserting the im p o rta n c e o f forcible intervention.
K ra sn er (52] writing political eco n o m y with a neo-m ercantilist tinge,
a n d G ilp in (36] reasserting the role o f w a r as an agency o f change.
With others, these scho lars have tacitly form ed a ‘neo-realist' school,
lead ing International Organization (43) to c o n v e n e a lively sy m po siu m
o n the new trend, with pap ers by Ashley, G ilp in . Kratochwil a n d
Andrews. But th e single most widely read c o n trib u tio n to neo-realism
has been th e a d v a n c e d text by W altz |100|. establish in g him not only
as the p a ra d ig m a tic successor to C a r r a n d M o rg e n th a u but also as
the source o f the newly fa sh io n a b le term ‘structural realism'. This
label reflects W altz's tend en cy to borrow concepts from oth er
paradigm s, a n d especially his m is a p p ro p ria tio n o f th e term ‘struc­
tural*. to give scientific weight to the ancient power-politics ideas o f
h ierarchy a n d the b a la n c e o f power. Ruggie's critique (87) o f this is
ex c ellen t
Realists s h are the state-centric p a r a d ig m with th e idealists, their
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 15

opp o site n u m b e r s in the realist-idealist debate. Idealism is also

f o u n d o f course, a m o n g advocates o f each o f the co m p etin g
paradigm s. But it is most easily recognizable a m o n g those w h o agree
with the realists a b o u t the n ature o f th e p ro b lem s posed by world
politics while disagreeing with th e m ab o u t w hat s h o u ld be d o n e in
response. W h e rea s realists deploy conservative doctrines, arg u in g for
e x a m p le that powerful states s h o u ld take direct responsibility' for
world o rd e r a n d that reform is not just im p racticab le but positively
dangerous, idealists proceed to liberal doctrines; for them , power can
be tam ed. T h ey advocate progressive reform, via such devices as
d isarm am e n t, collective security, stren g th en e d law. s an c tio n s against
aggressors, a n d even - potentially - world governm ent. All this is
b ased u p o n th e s a m e p rim ary ingredients o f theory as those fo u nd on
the realist theoretical m enu: sovereignty, pow er a n d diplomacy.
In the real world, traditional idealism o f the sort advocated by J o h n
H o b s o n a n d W o o d ro w Wilson h a s been responsible for m ajor
c h a n g e s in th e practice o f IR. especially in the first h a l f o f this
century, as C la rk (24J points out. But its influence h a s w a n e d since
the 1940s. u n d e r the c o m b in e d pressure o f th e cold w a r -d e te n te -c o ld
w ar seesaw in great pow er relations a n d the heg e m o n y o f conserva­
tive/realist th o u g h t in IR. T h e literature, however, is certainly there.
T h o m p s o n (97| indicates its high quality in the traditional period,
th ro ug h his b io g raph ies o f Wright, d e Visscher, T o y n b e e a n d others,
while the doctrines h av e been su stain ed m o re recently by such
spirited publicists as F alk | 3 1], C l a u d e [25|, Beitz 1111. J o h a n s e n [45|,
W ilson 1105], a n d - w earing th eir idealist, rath er th a n their
structuralist, hats - G a l t u n g [33] a n d T h o m p s o n (96). Also in this
category are the m a n y n orm ative writers o n d is a rm a m e n t, th e laws o f
war. h u m a n rights, neutralism , global ecology, p eacekeep ing a n d
various aspects o f U N reform. T h e ir efforts h av e been reinforced in
the past d e c a d e by the em erg en ce o f intellectual pressure groups:
specialized te a m efforts by scholars, politicians a n d activists w ho
have m a p p e d out p athw ays to a better world without necessarily
b re ak in g new theoretical g ro u n d in the process. Especially note­
worthy in this respect are the two B ra n d t Reports 113. 14]. together
with th e P a lm e Report (77], the work o f the W o rld O r d e r M odels
Project, led by M endlovitz [66], a n d th e series o f C lu b o f Rome
projects in c o m b in a tio n with o th e r efforts at n o rm ativ e global
modelling, surveyed by N icho lso n |75] a n d B rucan (17].
16 M ichael B anks

T h e P luralist P arad ig m

Pluralist thinking, also k n o w n as world society theory, is the newest

o f the three ap p ro ach e s, having em erged as a distinct p arad ig m only
in the 1970s. M a n y scholars have assisted in its developm ent,
alth o u g h so m e insist that while they prefer i n t e r n a t i o n a l 'relations* to
intcrnational'politics*. they re m a in realists by conviction. K e o h a n e ’s
treatm ent o f political e c o n o m y is a typical instance (47, p. 14|.
Pluralism is unassertive, becau se its m a in prem ise is that the world is
highly complex. T h is a s s u m p tio n induces m odesty in its exponents,
in contrast to th e co n fid en t stridency o f so m e realist a n d structuralist
writings. As R osen au observes in M ag h ro o ri & R a m b e rg (62. p. 3j. it
presents th e world as a multi-centric, ra th e r t h a n state-centric or
global-centric, system o f relationships. Its origins lie in a series o f
discoveries a n d develop m ents in different subficlds o f IR. all o f
w hich have c o n v e rg e d like a river form ed by m a n y streams, to
p ro d u c e a single paradigm .
C ru cial a m o n g these, for m a in s tre a m theory, was th e recognition
in the 1970s that realism c o n ta in s n u m e r o u s anom alies: events a n d
relationships w hich c a n be e x p lain e d only by shifting to radically
different assum ptions. Integration was a m o n g the first, forecast with
re m a rk a b le insight by M itran y |69) in th e traditional period, a n d
e x a m in e d by D eutsch a n d oth ers in the b eh a v iou ral p e r io d L ijphart
(59] spells o u t the im p lication s ( a n d see C h a p t e r 12). O th er
a n o m a lie s followed, in clu d ing th e role o f misperceptions, as show n
by Jervis (44]; the am biguities o f 'p o w er' (see C h a p t e r 8); a n d the
com plexities o f policy-m aking generally (sec C h a p t e r 11). All this is
assessed by V asqu ez (99) a n d R o sen au |84|. Burton, w h o is by far the
most im p o rta n t c o n trib u to r to th e new parad igm , has argued in his
1984 b o o k |20] th a t all foreign policy can b e e x p lain e d by dom estic
factors - a n u ltim ate co n tra d ictio n o f realism. Peace research has
also identified a n o m a lie s w hich u n d e r m in e realism, particularly the
multiplicity o f parties involved in conflict, as M itchell show s (68].
a n d its d e m o n s tra tio n o f the im p o rta n c e o f ethnicity, g ro u p identity
a n d th e self-determ ination o f non-state actors generally as prim e
m overs o f events (sec C h a p t e r 3).
N o n-state actors h av e also inspired in tern a tio n a l political eco n­
omy, o n w hich a wave o f 1970s literature gave powerful im petu s to the
new pluralism. M u ltin a tio n a l c o m p a n ie s a n d in terd e p en d en c e in
trade, m o n etary a n d oth er relatio n sh ip s have been highlighted by
K e o h a n e & Nye [48.49]. M orse (72] a n d m a n y others; the w hole
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 17

g ro up is th o ro ug h ly e x a m in e d in Barry Jon es & Willetts ( 10). Writers

in this subficld, split between neo-mercantilist, liberal, a n d radical
views, m irro r the w ider in ter-p aradig m d eb a te in IR. T h e majority
favour a ‘modified realist' view; t h e illogicality o f th eir unwillingness
to face the fu n d a m e n ta l im p lication s o f th eir work is nicely
d e m o n s tra te d by O 'M e a ra (76) in his tre n c h a n t analysis o f the
fashion a m o n g political econom ists f o r ‘regime* theory, as exempli­
fied in the w ork assem b led by K ra s n e r (53).
W h a t p lu ralism has lacked, so far, is a powerful synthesis o f its
basic precepts a n d policy im plications w hich w ould c o m p a r e with
th e w ork o f Carr. M o rg e n th a u a n d W altz a m o n g the realists, an d
sway o p in io n m o re generally in IR. But a series o f partially successful
efforts have been u ndertaken, in clu d in g B an k s (9), w hich is the only-
w ide-ranging a n d critical study; M a n s b a c h [63), w hich co ntain s
excellent introductory material; B u rto n's successful text o f 1972 |21J;
a n d M a n s b a c h & Vasquez's a ttem pt to blen d pluralism with foreign
policy analysis in an ‘issue-area p a ra d ig m [64). But pluralism still
relies heavily o n its most persuasive specialized studies, such as
Axelrod o n the logic o f co-operation, derived from g a m e theory (4J,
A z a r a n d others |5j o n the structure o f conflict, a n d Willetts [ 104) on
tra n s n a tio n a l pressure groups.

T h e L iterature o f S tru ctu ralism

U nlike realism a n d pluralism, structuralist general theory is not a
p ro d u c t o f ac a d e m ic IR. But in c o m m o n with b o th the conservative
a n d idealist s tra n d s o f state-centric realism, it does d ra w u p o n a
heritage o f classical theory. This includes the early C h ristia n an d
h u m a n is t c o n c e rn s with justice a n d th e fate o f the individual, the
K a n tia n p h ilo so p h y o f morality, the dialectics o f Hegel a n d above all
the historical m aterialism o f Marx, Engels a n d subsequently Lenin.
Together, these s tra n d s create a p ro b le m today in selecting the best
term to use in referring to th e w hole ap p ro ach : ‘dialectics', 'M arxism',
‘social class th e o ry '.‘historical m aterialism ' a n d others are fo u nd in
th e literature. 'S tructuralism ' is u sed here merely to distinguish the
p arad ig m from realism a n d pluralism.
S tru ctu ralism ’s d istinguished classical b a c k g ro u n d has rarely
been given full credit in a c a d e m ic IR d u rin g th e twentieth century.
O n ce the study o f IR b e c a m e institutionalized in universities, most of
its professoriate regarded structuralist ideas as false, o r unduly
normative, o r politically subversive. A n d so it h a s flourished only on
18 M ichael B anks

the fringes o f th e fie ld rath er t h a n w ithin th e conservative

m ainstream . A s A l k e r & Biersteker observe [1. p. 137). this has been
especially true o f th e U nited States, where the d iscipline h a s been
noticeably w eak en ed by this s h o rtc o m in g despite its great strength in
o th e r respects.
T h e im p o rta n c e o f th e paradigm , however, is u n q u estio n able. T his
is not ju st b ecause M a rx is t-L e n in is t thought h a s been estab lish ed as
official o rth o d o x y in the m any states w hich call themselves socialist
o r ‘o f socialist o rien ta tio n ’. N o r is it only b ecau se so m a n y world
events have been brought a b o u t in the n a m e o f M arxism : violent
political events such as revolutions o r horrifying acts o f terrorism,
a n d radical d ip lo m a tic events in clu d in g d e m a n d s for distributive
justice a n d f o r ‘new orders in the fields o f political eco n o m y a n d
in form atio n flow. I n s t e a d the im p o rta n c e o f structuralism is
d e p e n d e n t far m ore u p o n its intellectual quality. Social scientists, in
all countries a n d in all fields, owe a m a jo r debt, w h e th e r ack n ow ­
ledged o r not, to the basic M arxist insights: th e bridge between
ec o n om ics a n d politics, the latent solidarity o f g ro u p s whose
objective interests are linked by c o m m o n circum stance, a n d the
progressive u n fo ld in g o f historical ch a n g es in response to te c h n o ­
logical d ev e lo p m e n t a n d its expression in laws, ideologies an d
g o v ern m e n tal institutions.
W ith in IR, there is a w idespread im p ressio n that structuralism has
m a d e significant co ntrib u tio n s only to th e study o f im perialism an d
dependency. It is, however, a m isle ad in g im pression, bro u g ht about
by the way t h a t IR has evolved a n d not by th e relative im p o rta n c e o f
those topics within structuralism. T h e theory o f im p erialism loom ed
in the sh ad o w s o f IR th ro u g h o u t the half-century o f trad itio nalism
a n d bchaviouralism , until it was b ro ug h t into th e light by G a ltu n g
(32]. T h e theory' o f d e p e n d e n t relationships, developed first in Latin
America, was also forced into the centre o f attention by im p o rtan t
writers w orking o utside th e m a jo r centres o f Western sch o la rs h ip (see
C h a p t e r 4). If the ac a d e m ic m a in s tre a m o f IR h ad fou n d a way to
in co rp orate the m a jo r c o n c ern s o f structuralism in ad d itio n to these
two significant but partial topics, it seem s likely that m u tu al
e n r ic h m e n t w ould have occurred. T h e strongest areas o f structuralist
inquiry - the n ature o f the state, ideology, conflict, a n d the process o f
c h a n g e - are all p ro b lem s for th e o th e r p aradigm s, ju st as K u h n ia n
theory w ould predict.
G iv en the great size a n d range o f the structuralist paradigm ,
reference m ust be m a d e to synoptic works w hich deal with th e entire
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 19

general theory: its m e t h o d its views o f class form ation a n d class

struggle, its treatm en t o f ideology a n d social theory, a n d its analysis
o f history. T h is body o f ideas is alive a n d u n d e r c o n tin u o u s
d ev elo pm en t a n d reform ulation. T o grasp its depth, it is necessary to
read som e o f the m a jo r c o n trib u tio n s w h ich start with interpretation
o f the great classics, apply them to present c o n d itio n s a n d co ntribute
to the m a n y fierce d eb ates within neo-M arxism . E x am p les are
G ra m s c i (37]. P o u la n tz a s (82), A lth u sser (2] a n d Laclau (57), all
substan tial figures in the extension a n d refinem ent o f the paradigm.
A n excellent introduction to the Marxist interp retatio n o f politics is
given by M ilib a n d (67J, a n d a c o m p re h e n s iv e - thou g h som ew h at
hostile - survey o f th e currents o f thought in th e w hole a p p r o a c h is
given in th e three volum es by Kolakowski (511. L arrain's discussion
o f ideology (58J is helpful, a n d the school o f critical theorists is clearly
introduced by H eld (39).
Specific ap p lica tio n s o f the general theory to the n a tu re a n d
p ro b le m s o f IR. while not plentiful in English, d o exist in o th er
languages. Several attem pts at app lica tio n have been m a d e from
o utside th e paradigm , by a u th o rs w ho are interested in the
structuralist perspective b u t d o not them selves s h are it. O f these,
P e ttm a n (80] is interesting but u n d u ly com plicated; K u balk o va &
C r u ic k s h a n k [55] is helpful, alth o u g h laboured; a n d a useful
in tro d u ctio n is in T h o r n d i k e (in 94]. However, it is m u c h m o re
persuasive to read a u th o rs w h o display th e convictions o f the
p arad ig m while ad d re ssin g IR problems. A m o n g these, the two
books by the R o m a n i a n sc h o la r B rucan (15. 16] are outstanding,
along with Skocpol o n revolution (90| a n d th e sh ort discussions by-
C ox (27. 28] w hich are a m o n g the best in th e field S haw ’s collection
o f papers on w a r a n d society [89] is a welcom e publication, as are the
articles by M a c L e a n (61, a n d in 22]. T h e reissue o f D eu tsch er’s essays
o n IR topics is a r e m in d e r o f the intellectual force o f the 1930s
g eneration o f M arxist thinkers so woefully ignored by traditional I R
G a l t u n g ’s m a jo r treatise (34| c o m b in e s p eace research, idealism a n d
incisive social science in a characteristically im pressive m ann er.
M ilitarism in all its aspects has b een explored in m a n y publications,
for e x a m p le by T h o m p s o n a n d oth ers o n cold w a r d o ctrin e (95.96],
by Sen (88] o n the links between m ilitarism a n d industrial growth, by
Ashley (3] o n long-term trends a n d by H alliday (38] in th e context o f
E ast-W est relations. Poverty a n d distributive justice, topics alm ost
inaccessible to o th e r p aradigm s, are p ro b e d in G a l t u n g (34].
A lth o u g h these structuralist-inspired excursions into the m a in ­
20 M ichael B anks

stream o f ac a d e m ic IR arc scattered a n d u neven in their scale a n d

quality, they h old out the prospect o f su b stan tial im p ro v em en t in the
discipline. As th e in ter-p arad ig m deb ate develops a n d flourishes,
sch o la rs h ip in IR is at last em erging from the intellectual cage in
w hich it was im p riso n ed by postw ar traditional realism. Instead o f an
endless a n d fruitless effort to find m ean in gfu l p attern s in the
j u m b l e d succession o f inter-state clashes a n d co m prom ises, the
inter-paradigm deb ate m ak es it possible to explore th e linkages up
a n d d o w n the levels o f analysis. F o r th e first time, we m ay be able to
identify a n d m e a s u re the factors w hich cau se particu lar societies to
be aggressive o r peaceable in their external relations: o r to see m e a n s
o f rem oving th e causes o f terrorism ra th e r th a n treating the
sym ptom s: o r to u n d e r s ta n d ho w to b u ild institutions w hich can
p ro m o te justice in the world society by m eth o d s o th e r than
d isru p tio n a n d struggle.
Seen from this perspective, the in ter-parad ig m ‘d eb a te ’ s h o u ld be
seen as a discourse a b o u t choice o f analytic frameworks, rather th an
as a m ilitant con fro n tatio n between m u tually in c o m p a tib le world
views. In so far as the pluralist p a ra d ig m really is ad d ressin g itself to
new q u estio n s ab o u t hitherto u n e m p h a s i z e d relationships, th e n it is
not d isproving the realist paradigm . It is p assing by. to engage in a
separate conversation with the subject-matter. Similarly, there is no
necessary co n tradictio n between a realist m odel o f destabilizing
c h a n g e s in military hardware, a n d a structuralist model o f conflict
d y n a m ic s p ro d u c ed by p eace researchers: the first a p p r o a c h deals
with surface m anifestations, th e seco nd with un d erly ing causes.
Students o f the field, from u n d e rg ra d u a te s to presidential advisers,
c a n ch o o se a n d com pare. T h e in ter-p aradig m d e b a te provides
stimulus, h o p e a n d even excitem ent in the d e m a n d i n g business o f
an a ly sin g in te rn a tio n a l relations.

B ibliography to C h a p te r 1
1.
Alkcr, H.R. Jr. & Bicrsteker. T.J. T h e Dialectics o f W orld O r d e r Notes
for a F u ture Archeologist o f International Savoir F aire. International
Studies Quarterly. vol. 28. no. 2. 1984. pp. 121-42.
2. Althusser, L Essays on Ideology. London, Verso. 1984.
3. Ashley. R.K. The Political Econom y o f W ar and Peace: The Sino-Soviet-
A m erican Triangle and the Modern Security Problématique. Ixmdon.
Frances Pinter a n d New York. Nichols, 1980.
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 21

4. Axelrod. R The Evolution o f Cooperation. New York. Basic Books. 1984.

(D istributed in UK by H arp er & Row. London).
5. Azar. E. (cd.) The Theory a n d Practice o f Conflict Resolution. Brighton,
W h eatsh eaf a n d College Park. MD, C enter for International Develop­
m e n t University o f M aryland. 1985.
6. Banks. M. ’G eneral Theory in International Relations: New Direc­
tions*. M illennium : Journal o f International Studies, vol. 8. no. 3,1979, pp.
252-66.
7. __________ 'W h e re we are now*. Review o f International Studies, vol. 11.
no. 3. 1985, pp. 220-37.
8. __________ Ways o f A nalyzing the W orld Society. In International
Relations Theory>: A Bibliography, ed. A.J R. G ro o m & C .R Mitchell.
London, F rances Pinter a n d New York. Nichols, 1978. pp. 195-215.
9. ________ ._(ed.) Conflict in W orld Society: A New Perspective on
International Relations. Brighton. W heatsh eaf an d New York. S t
M artin's Press, 1984.
10. Barry Jones. RJ. & Willetts, P. (eds). Interdependence on T riai Studies in
the Theory and Reality' o f Contemporary Interdependence. London,
Frances Pinter a n d New York. S t Martin's. 1984.
11. Bcilz, C. R Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton. NJ &
G uildford, Princeton University Press. 1979.
12. Bernstein, R J. The Restructuring o f Social and Political Theory. London.
M ethuen, 1979 a n d Philadelphia, P A University o f Pennsylvania
Press, 1978.
13. The Brandt C om m ission' I. Report o f the Indep end en t C om m ission
on International D evelopm ent Issues. North-South: A Programme fo r
Survival. London. Pan and Cam bridge, M A M IT Press, 1980.
14. T he 'B ran d t C om m ission’ II. Report o f the Independ ent C om m ission
on International D evelopm ent Issues. Com m on Crisis. London, Pan
an d Cam bridge, M A M IT Press, 1983.
15. Brucan, S. The Dialectic o f W orld Politics. New York. Free Press an d
London. Collicr-M acm illan, 1978.
16. __________ The Dissolution o f Power. A Sociology o f International
Relations and Politics. New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1971.
17. __________ ‘T h e G lobal Crisis’. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 28,
no. 1, 1984. pp. 97-109.
18. Bull, H.N. The Anarchical Society: A Study o f W orld Order. London.
M acm illan an d New York. C o lu m b ia University Press. 1977.
19. __________ ( e d ) Intervention in W orld Politics. Oxford a n d New York.
Oxford University Press. 1984.
20. Burton, J. W. Global Conflict: The Domestic Sources o f International Crisis.
Brighton, W h eatsh eaf a n d College Park. MD, C enter for International
D ev e lo p m e n t University o f M a ry la n d 1984.
21. __________ W orld Society. L ondon & New York. C am bridge U ni­
versity Press, 1972.
22 M ichael B anks

22. B u z a a B. & Bariy Jones. R.J. (eds). Change an d the Study o f Inter­
national Relations. London, F rances Pinter a n d New York. S i M artin’s.
1981.
23. Carr. E H . The Twenty Years Crisis. 1919-1939. London. M acmillan.
1981 a n d New York. H arp er & Row, 1964.
24. Clark. I. R efonti and Resistance in the International Order. L ondon &
New York, C am bridge University Press, 1980.
25. Claude, L L Power a n d International Relations. New York. Random
House, 1962.
26. C ohen, B.J. The Question o f Imperialism: The Political Economy o f
D ominance and Dependence. London. M acm illan, 1974 a n d New York.
Basic Books, 1973.
27. Cox, R.W. ‘G r a m s c i H egem ony a n d International Relations: An
Essay in M ethod’. M illennium : Journal o f International Studies. voL 12,
no. 2. 1983, pp. 162-75.
28. ___________ ‘Social Forces, States a n d W orld Orders: Beyond Inter­
national R elations Theory’. M illennium : Journal o f International Studies.
vol. 10, no. 2. 1981, pp. 126-55.
29. D onelan. M.D. (ed.) The Reason o f States: A Study in International
Political Theory. L ond on & W inchester. M A Allen & Unwin. 1978.
30. Dougherty. J .E & Pfaltzgraff, R.L. Jr. Contending Theories o f Inter­
national Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. New York & London.
H a rp e r & Row. 1981.
31. Falk. R.A./I Study o f Future Worlds. New York. Free Press a n d L o n d o a
C ollier-M acm illan, 1975.
32. G altung, J. ‘A Structural T heory o f Im perialism ’. Journal o f Peace
Research, vol. 8. no. 1, 1971, pp. 81-117.
33. __________ There A re Alternatives! Four Roads to Peace and Security.
N ottingham . S pokesm an Books and C hester Springs. P A D ufour
Editions. 1984.
34. __________ The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective. New York.
Free Press a n d London. C ollier-M acm illan International. 1980.
35. G a r n e tt J.C. Commonsense and the Theory o f International Politics.
London, M acm illan a n d New York, State University o f New York
Press, 1984.
36. G ilpin, R. W ar and Change in World Politics. C am bridge & New York.
C am bridge University Press, 1984.
37. G ra m s c i A Selectionsfrom the Prison Notebooks. ( Edited an d translated
by Q. H oarc a n d G. Nowell Smith.) New York. International
Publishers a n d London. Law rence & W is h a rt 1973.
38. Halliday. F. The M aking o f the Second W orld War. L o n d o a Verso
E ditions a n d NLB. 1983. (P u b lish ed in th e USA as The Origins o f the
Second Cold War. New York, S c h o c k e a 1983.)
39. Held. D. Introduction to Critical Theory: H orkheim er to Habermas.
London. H u tchin son and Berkeley, C A University o f C alifornia
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 23

Press» 1980.
40. H o fT m an a & A n A m erican Social Science: International Relations'.
Daedalus. voL 106. no. 3, 1977. pp. 41-60.
41. Holsti. K.J. ‘Along the Road to Internation al T heory International
Journal. voL 34. no. 2. 1984. pp. 337-65.
42. Inkeles. A 'T h e Em erging Social Structure o f the World*. W orld Politics,
v o l XXVIL n a 4. 1975. pp. 467-95.
43. International Organization. S ym posium o n the New Realism. voL 38. n a
2. 1984. pp. 225-328.
44. Jervis. R Perception an d Misperception in International Politics. Prince­
ton. NJ. & G uildford. Princeton University Press. 1976.
45. Joh ansen . R C . The N ational Interest and the H um an Interest A n Analysis
o f U S. Foreign Policy. Princeton. NJ & G uildford. Princeton
University Press. 1980.
46. Kent. R C . & Nielsson. G.P. (cds). The Study and Teaching o f
International Relations: A Perspective on M id-Career Education. London.
F rances Pinter a n d New York. Nichols. 1980.
47. K eohane. R O . After Hegemony: Cooperation a n d Discord in the World
Political Econom y. Princeton, NJ & G uildford. P rinceton University
Press» 1984.
48. Keohane. R O . & Nye, J S- Power an d Interdependence World Politics in
Transition. Boston. Little Brown. 1977.
49. __________ (cds). Transnational Relations a n d W orld Politics. C a m ­
bridge. MA & L o n d o a H arvard University Press. 1973.
50. Knorr. K. &. Rosenau, J. N. ( eds). Contending Approaches to International
Politics. P rin c e to a NJ & G uildford. Princeton University Press.
1969.
51. Kolakowski. L M ain Currents o f Marxism. Its Origins Growth and
Dissolution (3 volumes). Oxford & New York. O xford University Press.
1981.
52. Krasncr. S D. Defending the N ational Interest Raw M aterials Investments
a n d U S Foreign Policy. P rin c e to a NJ & G u ild fo rd Princeton Uni­
versity Press. 1978.
53. __________ ( e d ) International Regimes. I th a c a N Y & L o n d o a
C ornell University Press. 1983.
54. KrippendorfT. E International Relations as a Social Science. B rig h to a
Harvester Press, 1982 a n d Atlantic H ighlands. NJ. H um an ities Press.
1981.
55. K u b a lk o v a V. & C ruickshank. A A M arxism -Leninism and the Theory
o f International Relations. L ondon & B o sto a M A Routledge & Kcgan
Paul. 1980.
56. K u h a T.S» The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions. (International
Encyclopaedia o f Unified Science). C hicago & L o n d o a University o f
C hicago Press. 1970.
57. Laclau. E Politics a n d Ideology in M arxist Theory: C apitalism Fascism
 The Inter-Paradigm Debate 25

74. Nelson, K.L & Olin, S.C W hy War? Ideology. Theory a n d History.
Berkeley. C A & London. University o f C alifornia Press, 1980.
75. N icholson. M.B. ‘Progress a n d P roblem s in W orld Modelling*. Review
o f International Studies, vol. 10. no. 3. 1984. pp. 239-46.
76. O ’M eara, R .L ‘Regimes a n d T h eir Im plications for International
Theory*. M illennium : Journal o f International Studies, vol. 13, no. 3. 1984.
pp. 245-64.
77. P alm e C om m ission. Com m on Security: A Programme fo r Disarmament.
London. Pan. 1982.
78. Parkinson. F. The Philosophy o f International Relations: A Study in the
History o f Thought. Beverly Hills, CA & London. Sage, 1977.
79. Pettman. R. ‘C o m p etin g Paradigm s in International Politics’. Review o f
International Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 1981, pp. 39-50.
80. __________ State an d Class: A Sociology' o f International Affairs. London.
C roo m Helm a n d New York. S t M a rtin s. 1979.
81. Phillips. W.R. W here Have All the Theories Gone?’ World Politics, vol.
XXVI. no. 2, 1974. pp. 155-88.
82. Poulantzas. N. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London, Verso an d
New York. Schocken, 1978.
83. Rosenau. J.N. M uddling. M eddling a n d Modelling: Alternative Ap­
proaches to the Study o f W orld Politics in an Era o f Rapid Change'.
M illennium : Journal o f International Studies, vol. 8. no. 2, 1979. pp.
130-44.
84. __________ ‘A Pre-Theory Revisited: W orld Politics in an Era o f
C ascading Interdependence’. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 28. no.
3. 1984. pp. 245-306.
85. __________ (ed.) In Search o f Global Patterns. London. Collier-
M acm illan International and New York, Free Press. 1976.
86. __________ (ed.) International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in
Research an d Theory. New York. Free Press. 1969.
87. Ruggie. J.G. ‘C ontinuity a n d T ran sfo rm atio n in the W orld Polity:
Tow ard a Neorealist Synthesis’. W orld Politics, vol. XXXV. no. 2. 1983.
pp. 261-85.
88. Sen. G. The Military• Origins o f Industrialisation and International Trade
Rivalry'. London. F rances Pinter. 1984. (P ub lished in the USA as The
Military? Roots o f Industrialization and Trade Disputes, New York. St
M artin’s. 1983.)
89. Shaw, M. (ed.) War. State and Society. London. M acm illan a n d New
York. S t M artin’s. 1984.
90. Skocpol. T. States and Social Revolutions. C am bridge &. New York.
C am b ridg e University Press. 1979.
91. Smith. M. et al., (eds). Perspectives on World Politics. London. C room
Helm for the O pen University Press, 1981.
92. Sullivan. M.P. ‘C om peting Fram ew orks an d the Study o f C o n tem ­
porary In tern atio n al Politics’. M illennium : Journal o f International
26 M ichael B anks

Studies, vol. 7. no. 2, 1978. pp. 93-110.

93. __________ International Relations: Theories and Evidence. H em el
H em pstead & Englewood Cliffs. NJ. Prentice Hall, 1976.
94. Taylor. T. (ed.) Approaches a n d Theory* in International Relations.
L ondon & New York. Longm ans, 1978.
95. T hom pson, E.P. The Poverty o f Theory a n d Other Essays. London,
M erlin Press, 1978 a n d New York. M onthly Review Press, 1980.
96. T h om pson , E.P. et al.. Exterm inism an d Cold War. London. Verso
E ditions a n d N L P a n d New York. Schockcn. 1982.
97. Thompson, K. W. Masters o f International Thought. Baton Rouge. LA &
London. L ouisiana State University Press, 1980.
98. Tucker, R.W. The Inequality o f Nations. New York. Basic Books and
Oxford, M artin Robertson. 1977.
99. Vasquez. J.A. The Power o f Power Politics: A Critique. London, Frances
Pinter a n d New Brunswick. NJ, Rutgers University Press. 1983.
100. Waltz. K.N. Theory o f International Politics. Reading. MA & London,
Addison-Wesley. 1979.
101. Walzer. M. Just and Unjust Wars: A M oral Argum ent with Historical
Illustrations. New York. Basic Books, 1977 a n d H arm ondsw orth.
Middx.. Penguin. 1980.
102. W ig h t M. Power Politics. Leicester, Leicester University Press a n d New
York, H olm es and Meier, 1978.
103. __________ (ed. H.N. Bull). System s o f States. Leicester, Leicester
University Press a n d A tlantic H ighlands. NJ, H um anities Press,
1978.
104. Willetts. P. (ed.) Pressure Groups in the Global System: The Transnational
Relations o f Issue-Orientated Non-Governmental Organizations. London.
Frances Pinter a n d New York. S l M artin’s, 1982.
105. Wilson. A. The Disarmer’s H andbook: O f M ilitary Technology and
Organization. H arm ondsw orth. M iddlesex a n d New York. Penguin
Books. 1983.
106. Wolfers. A. Discord and Collaboration: Essays in International Politics.
Baltimore. Jo h n s H opkins University Press. 1966.
107. W rig h t Q. The Study o f International Relations. New York. Irvington.
1984.