Abstract
This article questions the centrality of interest-based explanation in political science. Through an examination of the “turn to ideas” undertaken in the past decade by rationalist and nonrationalist scholars in both comparative politics and international relations, it seeks to make three points. First, interests are far from the unproblematic and ever-ready explanatory instruments we assume them to be. Second, the ideational turn of historical institutionalism and constructivist international relations theory marks a substantive theoretical shift in the field precisely because it problematizes notions of action that take interest as given. Third, such scholarship emerged from, and in reaction to, the inherent limits of rationalist treatments of interests and ideas. That it did so suggests that progress in the discipline may be more dialectic—rather than linear or paradigmatic—than we realize.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations
Reference64 articles.
1. Finnemore Martha .1996a National Interests in International Society.Ithaca: Cornell University Press
2. Katzenstein Peter J .1996 Introduction: Alternative perspectives on national security.In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics,ed. Peter J. Katzenstein .New York: Columbia University Press,1–32.
3. Kratochwil Friedrich V .1993 The embarrassment of changes: Neo-realism as the science of Realpolitik without politics.Review of International Studies 19: 1,63–81.
4. Popkin Samuel L .1979 The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam.Berkeley: University of California Press
5. Knight Jack , and Douglass C. North .1997 Explaining economic change: The interplay between cognition and institutions.Legal Theory 3,211–26.
Cited by
217 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献