Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


1932
Annual Reviews logo
Skip to content
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 22, 2019
  5. Article

Review Article

Free

Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions

Abstract

The design of international institutions varies in many ways: Institutions can be more or less formal, flexible, independent, precise, inclusive, centralized, and so on. This article classifies theoretical efforts to make sense of these similarities and differences. First, some theories focus on the bargains or contracts that attempt to construct equilibrium behavior while other theories analyze institutional design as a dynamic process. Second, theories vary in whether they understand institutional design as a response to the environment in which institutions operate or as a function of the incentives, interests, values, initiatives, and power of the actors that created the institutions. The article discusses four ideal-typical theoretical approaches that fit in each quadrant of the resulting 2×2 typology: rational functionalist, distributive rationalist, historical institutionalist, and structural process theories. These approaches identify different causes for suboptimal or even dysfunctional institutional design: domestic politics, power politics, path dependence, and culture. The conclusion discusses how these theories can help us make sense of current challenges to institutions and their design.

    Loading

    Article metrics loading...

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    2019-05-11
    2025-05-21
    Download as PowerPoint
    Loading full text...

    Full text loading...

    /deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-041916-021108.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

    Literature Cited

    1. AbbottKW,GreenJF,KeohaneRO2016. Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance.Int. Organ.70:247–77
      [Google Scholar]
    2. AbbottKW,SnidalD1998. Why states act through formal international organizations.J. Confl. Resolut.42:3–32
      [Google Scholar]
    3. AdlerE2008. The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO's post–Cold War transformation.Eur. J. Int. Relat.14:195–230
      [Google Scholar]
    4. AdlerE,PouliotV2011. International practices.Int. Theory3:1–36
      [Google Scholar]
    5. Adler-NissenR2012.Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    6. AlterKJ2014.The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    7. AlterKJ,HelferLR2010. Nature or nurture? Judicial lawmaking in the European Court of Justice and the Andean Tribunal of Justice.Int. Organ.64:563–92
      [Google Scholar]
    8. AxelrodR,KeohaneRO1985. Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions.World Politics38:226–54
      [Google Scholar]
    9. BacciniL,DürA,ElsigM2015. The politics of trade agreement design: revisiting the depth-flexibility nexus.Int. Stud. Q.59:765–75
      [Google Scholar]
    10. BarnettMN,FinnemoreM1999. The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations.Int. Organ.53:699–732
      [Google Scholar]
    11. BearceDH,EldredgeCD,JolliffBJ2015. Do finite duration provisions reduce international bargaining delay?.Int. Organ.69:219–39
      [Google Scholar]
    12. BeckfieldJ2003. Inequality in the world polity: the structure of international organization.Am. Sociol. Rev.68:401–24
      [Google Scholar]
    13. BeckfieldJ2010. The social structure of the world polity.Am. J. Sociol.115:1018–68
      [Google Scholar]
    14. BoliJ,ThomasGM1997. World culture in the world polity: a century of international non-governmental organization.Am. Sociol. Rev.62:171–90
      [Google Scholar]
    15. BörzelTA,RisseT2012. From Europeanisation to diffusion: introduction.West Eur. Politics35:1–19
      [Google Scholar]
    16. BörzelTA,RisseT2016.The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    17. BourdieuP1977.Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    18. BuschML2007. Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settlement in international trade.Int. Organ.61:735–61
      [Google Scholar]
    19. BütheT,MattliW2011.The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    20. CaoX2009. Networks of intergovernmental organizations and convergence in domestic economic policies.Int. Stud. Q.53:1095–130
      [Google Scholar]
    21. CaoX2012. Global networks and domestic policy convergence: a network explanation of policy changes.World Politics64:375–425
      [Google Scholar]
    22. CarnegieA2014. States held hostage: political hold-up problems and the effects of international institutions.Am. Political Sci. Rev.108:54–70
      [Google Scholar]
    23. CarnegieA2015.Power Plays: How International Institutions Reshape Coercive Diplomacy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    24. CheckelJT2005. International institutions and socialization in Europe: introduction and framework.Int. Organ.59:801–26
      [Google Scholar]
    25. CopelovitchMS,PutnamTL2014. Design in context: existing international agreements and new cooperation.Int. Organ.68:471–93
      [Google Scholar]
    26. DezalayY,GarthB1995. Merchants of law as moral entrepreneurs: constructing international justice from the competition for transnational business disputes.Law Soc. Rev.29:27–64
      [Google Scholar]
    27. DiMaggioPJ,PowellWW1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.Am. Sociol. Rev.48:147–60
      [Google Scholar]
    28. DreznerDW2010. Is historical institutionalism bunk?.Rev. Int. Political Econ.17:791–804
      [Google Scholar]
    29. FarrellH,FinnemoreM2016. Global institutions without a global state.The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism O Fioretos, TG Falleti, A Sheingate144–164 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    30. FarrellH,NewmanAL2010. Making global markets: historical institutionalism in international political economy.Rev. Int. Political Econ.17:609–38
      [Google Scholar]
    31. FarrellH,NewmanAL2014. Domestic institutions beyond the nation-state: charting the new interdependence approach.World Politics66:331–63
      [Google Scholar]
    32. FearonJD1998a. Domestic politics, foreign policy, and theories of international relations.Annu. Rev. Political Sci.1:289–313
      [Google Scholar]
    33. FearonJD1998b. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation.Int. Organ.52:269–305
      [Google Scholar]
    34. FinnemoreM1993. International organizations as teachers of norms: the United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization and science policy.Int. Organ.47:565–97
      [Google Scholar]
    35. FinnemoreM1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology's institutionalism.Int. Organ.50:325–47
      [Google Scholar]
    36. FioretosO2011. Historical institutionalism in international relations.Int. Organ.65:367–99
      [Google Scholar]
    37. FioretosO2017.International Politics and Institutions in Time Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    38. FligsteinN,Stone SweetA2002. Constructing polities and markets: an institutionalist account of European integration.Am. J. Sociol.107:1206–43
      [Google Scholar]
    39. GilliganTW,KrehbielK1987. Collective decisionmaking and standing committees: an informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures.J. Law Econ. Organ.3:287–335
      [Google Scholar]
    40. GoldsteinJ,KahlerM,KeohaneRO,SlaughterA-M2000. Introduction: legalization and world politics.Int. Organ54:385–99
      [Google Scholar]
    41. GreenhillB,LupuY2017. Clubs of clubs: fragmentation in the network of intergovernmental organizations.Int. Stud. Q.61:181–95
      [Google Scholar]
    42. GruberL2000.Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    43. HaasEB1964.Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    44. Hafner-BurtonE2013.Making Human Rights a Reality Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    45. Hafner-BurtonEM,MontgomeryAH2006. Power positions: international organizations, social networks, and conflict.J. Confl. Resolut.50:3–27
      [Google Scholar]
    46. Hafner‐BurtonEM,TsutsuiK2005. Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises.Am. J. Sociol.110:1373–411
      [Google Scholar]
    47. HaftelYZ2007. Designing for peace: regional integration arrangements, institutional variation, and militarized interstate disputes.Int. Organ.61:217–37
      [Google Scholar]
    48. HaftelYZ,ThompsonA2006. The independence of international organizations: concept and applications.J. Confl. Resolut.50:253–75
      [Google Scholar]
    49. HannanMT2005. Ecologies of organizations: diversity and identity.J. Econ. Perspect.19:51–70
      [Google Scholar]
    50. HannanMT,FreemanJ1977. The population ecology of organizations.Am. J. Sociol.82:929–64
      [Google Scholar]
    51. HannanMT,FreemanJ1984. Structural inertia and organizational change.Am. Sociol. Rev.49:149–64
      [Google Scholar]
    52. HawkinsDG,LakeDA,NielsonDL,TierneyMJ2006.Delegation and Agency in International Organizations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    53. HelleinerE2017.Incremental Origins of Bretton Woods New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    54. HoogheL2017.Measuring International Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    55. HoogheL,MarksG,SchakelAH,OsterkatzSC,NiedzwieckiS,Shair-RosenfieldS2016.Measuring Regional Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    56. HuthP,CrocoS,AppelB2012. Law and the use of force in world politics: the varied effects of law on the exercise of military power in territorial disputes.Int. Stud. Q.56:17–31
      [Google Scholar]
    57. IkenberryGJ2009.After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    58. JetschkeA2009. Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance.Camb. Rev. Int. Aff.22:407–26
      [Google Scholar]
    59. JohnsL2007. A servant of two masters: communication and the selection of international bureaucrats.Int. Organ.61:245–75
      [Google Scholar]
    60. JohnsL2012. Courts as coordinators: endogenous enforcement and jurisdiction in international adjudication.J. Confl. Resolut.56:257–89
      [Google Scholar]
    61. JohnsonT2014.Organizational Progeny: Why Governments Are Losing Control Over the Proliferating Structures of Global Governance New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    62. JohnsonT,UrpelainenJ2014. International bureaucrats and the formation of intergovernmental organizations: institutional design discretion sweetens the pot.Int. Organ.68:177–209
      [Google Scholar]
    63. JohnstonAI2001. Treating international institutions as social environments.Int. Stud. Q.45:487–515
      [Google Scholar]
    64. JupilleJ,MattliW,SnidalD2013.Institutional Choice and Global Commerce New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    65. KalyanpurN,NewmanA2017. Form over function in finance: international institutional design by bricolage.Rev. Int. Political Econ.24:3363–92
      [Google Scholar]
    66. KelleyJ2004. International actors on the domestic scene: membership conditionality and socialization by international institutions.Int. Organ.58:425–57
      [Google Scholar]
    67. KeohaneRO2017.Observations on the Promise and Pitfalls of Historical Institutionalism in International Relations New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    68. KoremenosB2005. Contracting around international uncertainty.Am. Political Sci. Rev.99:549–65
      [Google Scholar]
    69. KoremenosB2016.The Continent of International Law: Explaining Agreement Design Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    70. KoremenosB,LipsonC,SnidalD2001a. The rational design of international institutions.Int. Organ.55:761–99
      [Google Scholar]
    71. KoremenosB,LipsonC,SnidalD2001b. Rational design: looking back to move forward.Int. Organ.55:1051–82
      [Google Scholar]
    72. LakeDA2009.Hierarchy in International Relations Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    73. LakeDA,PowellR1999.Strategic Choice and International Relations Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    74. LallR2017. Beyond institutional design: explaining the performance of international organizations.Int. Organ.71:245–80
      [Google Scholar]
    75. LimDYM,VreelandJR2013. Regional organizations and international politics: Japanese influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council.World Politics65:34–72
      [Google Scholar]
    76. LipscyPY2015. Explaining institutional change: policy areas, outside options, and the Bretton Woods institutions.Am. J. Political Sci.59:341–56
      [Google Scholar]
    77. LipscyPY2016.Renegotiating the World Order: Institutional Change in International Relations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    78. MaggiG,MorelliM2006. Self-enforcing voting in international organizations.Am. Econ. Rev.96:1137–58
      [Google Scholar]
    79. MansfieldED,MilnerHV,PevehouseJC2007. Vetoing co-operation: the impact of veto players on preferential trading arrangements.Br. J. Political Sci.37:403–32
      [Google Scholar]
    80. MansfieldED,MilnerHV,PevehouseJC2008. Democracy, veto players and the depth of regional integration.World Econ31:67–96
      [Google Scholar]
    81. MansfieldED,MilnerHV,RosendorffBP2002. Why democracies cooperate more: electoral control and international trade agreements.Int. Organ.56:477–513
      [Google Scholar]
    82. MartinLL1992. Interests, power, and multilateralism.Int. Organ.46:765–92
      [Google Scholar]
    83. MartinLL,SimmonsBA1998. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions.Int. Organ.52:729–57
      [Google Scholar]
    84. McNamaraKR1998.The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union.Cornell Stud. Political EconIthaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    85. McNamaraKR2015.The Politics of Everyday Europe New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    86. MearsheimerJJ1994. The false promise of international institutions.Int. Secur.19:5–49
      [Google Scholar]
    87. MeyerJW,BoliJ,ThomasGM,RamirezFO1997. World society and the nation‐state.Am. J. Sociol.103:144–81
      [Google Scholar]
    88. MilnerH2006. Why multilateralism? Foreign aid and domestic principal-agent problems.Delegation and Agency in International Organizations107–39 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    89. MitranyD1944.A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    90. MoeTM1990. Political institutions: the neglected side of the story.J. Law Econ. Organ.6:213–53
      [Google Scholar]
    91. MoravcsikA1998.The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht New York: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    92. MoravcsikA2000. The origins of human rights regimes: democratic delegation in postwar Europe.Int. Organ.54:217–52
      [Google Scholar]
    93. MoravcsikA2005. The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy.J. Eur. Public Policy12:349–86
      [Google Scholar]
    94. MorrowJD1994. Modeling the forms of international cooperation: distribution versus information.Int. Organ.48:387–423
      [Google Scholar]
    95. NewmanAL,PosnerE2018.Voluntary Disruptions: International Soft Law, Finance, and Power New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    96. OatleyT,NaborsR1998. Redistributive cooperation: market failure, wealth transfers, and the Basle Accord.Int. Organ.52:35–54
      [Google Scholar]
    97. OyeKA1986.Cooperation Under Anarchy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    98. PiersonP2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics.Am. Political Sci. Rev.94:251–67
      [Google Scholar]
    99. PollackMA1997. Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community.Int. Organ.51:99–134
      [Google Scholar]
    100. PosnerE2009. Making rules for global finance: transatlantic regulatory cooperation at the turn of the millennium.Int. Organ.63:665–99
      [Google Scholar]
    101. PouliotV2008. The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities.Int. Organ.62:257–88
      [Google Scholar]
    102. PouliotV2016.International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    103. RisseT2005. Neofunctionalism, European identity, and the puzzles of European integration.J. Eur. Public Policy12:291–309
      [Google Scholar]
    104. RosendorffBP2005. Stability and rigidity: politics and design of the WTO's dispute settlement procedure.Am. Political Sci. Rev.99:389–400
      [Google Scholar]
    105. RosendorffBP,MilnerHV2001. The optimal design of international trade institutions: uncertainty and escape.Int. Organ.55:829–57
      [Google Scholar]
    106. SchimmelfennigF2005. Strategic calculation and international socialization: membership incentives, party constellations, and sustained compliance in Central and Eastern Europe.Int. Organ.59:827–60
      [Google Scholar]
    107. SchmitterPC2005. Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism.J. Eur. Public Policy12:255–72
      [Google Scholar]
    108. SchneiderCJ,SlantchevBL2013. Abiding by the vote: between-groups conflict in international collective action.Int. Organ.67:759–96
      [Google Scholar]
    109. SharmanJC2011.The Money Laundry: Regulating Criminal Finance in the Global Economy Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    110. ShepsleKA,WeingastBR1981. Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice.Public Choice37:503–19
      [Google Scholar]
    111. SikkinkK2011.The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics New York: W.W. Norton
      [Google Scholar]
    112. SikkinkK2017.Timing and Sequencing in International Politics: Latin America's Contributions to Human Rights New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    113. SingerDA2007.Regulating Capital: Setting Standards for the International Financial System.Cornell Stud. MoneyIthaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    114. StoneRW2011.Controlling Institutions: International Organizations and the Global Economy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    115. SweetAS,SandholtzW1997. European integration and supranational governance.J. Eur. Public Policy4:297–317
      [Google Scholar]
    116. TallbergJ,SommererT,SquatritoT,JönssonC2014. Explaining the transnational design of international organizations.Int. Organ.68:741–74
      [Google Scholar]
    117. VoetenE2001. Outside options and the logic of Security Council action.Am. Political Sci. Rev.95:845–58
      [Google Scholar]
    118. VreelandJR,DreherA2014.The Political Economy of the United Nations Security Council: Money and Influence New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    119. WallanderCA2000. Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the Cold War.Int. Organ.54:705–35
      [Google Scholar]
    120. WeaverC2008.Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    121. WeingastBR,MarshallWJ1988. The industrial organization of Congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets.J. Political Econ.96:132–63
      [Google Scholar]
    122. ZürnM,CheckelJT2005. Getting socialized to build bridges: constructivism and rationalism, Europe and the nation-state.Int. Organ.59:1045–79
      [Google Scholar]
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    Loading
    Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions
    Annual Review of Political Science22, 147 (2019);https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    Loading

    Data & Media loading...

    Most Read This Month

    Article
    content/journals/polisci
    Journal
    5
    3
    false
    en
    Loading

    Most CitedMost Cited RSS feed

    Related Articles from Annual Reviews

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    4
    4

    Literature Cited

    1. AbbottKW,GreenJF,KeohaneRO2016. Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance.Int. Organ.70:247–77
      [Google Scholar]
    2. AbbottKW,SnidalD1998. Why states act through formal international organizations.J. Confl. Resolut.42:3–32
      [Google Scholar]
    3. AdlerE2008. The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO's post–Cold War transformation.Eur. J. Int. Relat.14:195–230
      [Google Scholar]
    4. AdlerE,PouliotV2011. International practices.Int. Theory3:1–36
      [Google Scholar]
    5. Adler-NissenR2012.Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    6. AlterKJ2014.The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    7. AlterKJ,HelferLR2010. Nature or nurture? Judicial lawmaking in the European Court of Justice and the Andean Tribunal of Justice.Int. Organ.64:563–92
      [Google Scholar]
    8. AxelrodR,KeohaneRO1985. Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions.World Politics38:226–54
      [Google Scholar]
    9. BacciniL,DürA,ElsigM2015. The politics of trade agreement design: revisiting the depth-flexibility nexus.Int. Stud. Q.59:765–75
      [Google Scholar]
    10. BarnettMN,FinnemoreM1999. The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations.Int. Organ.53:699–732
      [Google Scholar]
    11. BearceDH,EldredgeCD,JolliffBJ2015. Do finite duration provisions reduce international bargaining delay?.Int. Organ.69:219–39
      [Google Scholar]
    12. BeckfieldJ2003. Inequality in the world polity: the structure of international organization.Am. Sociol. Rev.68:401–24
      [Google Scholar]
    13. BeckfieldJ2010. The social structure of the world polity.Am. J. Sociol.115:1018–68
      [Google Scholar]
    14. BoliJ,ThomasGM1997. World culture in the world polity: a century of international non-governmental organization.Am. Sociol. Rev.62:171–90
      [Google Scholar]
    15. BörzelTA,RisseT2012. From Europeanisation to diffusion: introduction.West Eur. Politics35:1–19
      [Google Scholar]
    16. BörzelTA,RisseT2016.The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    17. BourdieuP1977.Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    18. BuschML2007. Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settlement in international trade.Int. Organ.61:735–61
      [Google Scholar]
    19. BütheT,MattliW2011.The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    20. CaoX2009. Networks of intergovernmental organizations and convergence in domestic economic policies.Int. Stud. Q.53:1095–130
      [Google Scholar]
    21. CaoX2012. Global networks and domestic policy convergence: a network explanation of policy changes.World Politics64:375–425
      [Google Scholar]
    22. CarnegieA2014. States held hostage: political hold-up problems and the effects of international institutions.Am. Political Sci. Rev.108:54–70
      [Google Scholar]
    23. CarnegieA2015.Power Plays: How International Institutions Reshape Coercive Diplomacy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    24. CheckelJT2005. International institutions and socialization in Europe: introduction and framework.Int. Organ.59:801–26
      [Google Scholar]
    25. CopelovitchMS,PutnamTL2014. Design in context: existing international agreements and new cooperation.Int. Organ.68:471–93
      [Google Scholar]
    26. DezalayY,GarthB1995. Merchants of law as moral entrepreneurs: constructing international justice from the competition for transnational business disputes.Law Soc. Rev.29:27–64
      [Google Scholar]
    27. DiMaggioPJ,PowellWW1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.Am. Sociol. Rev.48:147–60
      [Google Scholar]
    28. DreznerDW2010. Is historical institutionalism bunk?.Rev. Int. Political Econ.17:791–804
      [Google Scholar]
    29. FarrellH,FinnemoreM2016. Global institutions without a global state.The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism O Fioretos, TG Falleti, A Sheingate144–164 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    30. FarrellH,NewmanAL2010. Making global markets: historical institutionalism in international political economy.Rev. Int. Political Econ.17:609–38
      [Google Scholar]
    31. FarrellH,NewmanAL2014. Domestic institutions beyond the nation-state: charting the new interdependence approach.World Politics66:331–63
      [Google Scholar]
    32. FearonJD1998a. Domestic politics, foreign policy, and theories of international relations.Annu. Rev. Political Sci.1:289–313
      [Google Scholar]
    33. FearonJD1998b. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation.Int. Organ.52:269–305
      [Google Scholar]
    34. FinnemoreM1993. International organizations as teachers of norms: the United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization and science policy.Int. Organ.47:565–97
      [Google Scholar]
    35. FinnemoreM1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology's institutionalism.Int. Organ.50:325–47
      [Google Scholar]
    36. FioretosO2011. Historical institutionalism in international relations.Int. Organ.65:367–99
      [Google Scholar]
    37. FioretosO2017.International Politics and Institutions in Time Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    38. FligsteinN,Stone SweetA2002. Constructing polities and markets: an institutionalist account of European integration.Am. J. Sociol.107:1206–43
      [Google Scholar]
    39. GilliganTW,KrehbielK1987. Collective decisionmaking and standing committees: an informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures.J. Law Econ. Organ.3:287–335
      [Google Scholar]
    40. GoldsteinJ,KahlerM,KeohaneRO,SlaughterA-M2000. Introduction: legalization and world politics.Int. Organ54:385–99
      [Google Scholar]
    41. GreenhillB,LupuY2017. Clubs of clubs: fragmentation in the network of intergovernmental organizations.Int. Stud. Q.61:181–95
      [Google Scholar]
    42. GruberL2000.Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    43. HaasEB1964.Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    44. Hafner-BurtonE2013.Making Human Rights a Reality Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    45. Hafner-BurtonEM,MontgomeryAH2006. Power positions: international organizations, social networks, and conflict.J. Confl. Resolut.50:3–27
      [Google Scholar]
    46. Hafner‐BurtonEM,TsutsuiK2005. Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises.Am. J. Sociol.110:1373–411
      [Google Scholar]
    47. HaftelYZ2007. Designing for peace: regional integration arrangements, institutional variation, and militarized interstate disputes.Int. Organ.61:217–37
      [Google Scholar]
    48. HaftelYZ,ThompsonA2006. The independence of international organizations: concept and applications.J. Confl. Resolut.50:253–75
      [Google Scholar]
    49. HannanMT2005. Ecologies of organizations: diversity and identity.J. Econ. Perspect.19:51–70
      [Google Scholar]
    50. HannanMT,FreemanJ1977. The population ecology of organizations.Am. J. Sociol.82:929–64
      [Google Scholar]
    51. HannanMT,FreemanJ1984. Structural inertia and organizational change.Am. Sociol. Rev.49:149–64
      [Google Scholar]
    52. HawkinsDG,LakeDA,NielsonDL,TierneyMJ2006.Delegation and Agency in International Organizations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    53. HelleinerE2017.Incremental Origins of Bretton Woods New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    54. HoogheL2017.Measuring International Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    55. HoogheL,MarksG,SchakelAH,OsterkatzSC,NiedzwieckiS,Shair-RosenfieldS2016.Measuring Regional Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    56. HuthP,CrocoS,AppelB2012. Law and the use of force in world politics: the varied effects of law on the exercise of military power in territorial disputes.Int. Stud. Q.56:17–31
      [Google Scholar]
    57. IkenberryGJ2009.After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    58. JetschkeA2009. Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance.Camb. Rev. Int. Aff.22:407–26
      [Google Scholar]
    59. JohnsL2007. A servant of two masters: communication and the selection of international bureaucrats.Int. Organ.61:245–75
      [Google Scholar]
    60. JohnsL2012. Courts as coordinators: endogenous enforcement and jurisdiction in international adjudication.J. Confl. Resolut.56:257–89
      [Google Scholar]
    61. JohnsonT2014.Organizational Progeny: Why Governments Are Losing Control Over the Proliferating Structures of Global Governance New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    62. JohnsonT,UrpelainenJ2014. International bureaucrats and the formation of intergovernmental organizations: institutional design discretion sweetens the pot.Int. Organ.68:177–209
      [Google Scholar]
    63. JohnstonAI2001. Treating international institutions as social environments.Int. Stud. Q.45:487–515
      [Google Scholar]
    64. JupilleJ,MattliW,SnidalD2013.Institutional Choice and Global Commerce New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    65. KalyanpurN,NewmanA2017. Form over function in finance: international institutional design by bricolage.Rev. Int. Political Econ.24:3363–92
      [Google Scholar]
    66. KelleyJ2004. International actors on the domestic scene: membership conditionality and socialization by international institutions.Int. Organ.58:425–57
      [Google Scholar]
    67. KeohaneRO2017.Observations on the Promise and Pitfalls of Historical Institutionalism in International Relations New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    68. KoremenosB2005. Contracting around international uncertainty.Am. Political Sci. Rev.99:549–65
      [Google Scholar]
    69. KoremenosB2016.The Continent of International Law: Explaining Agreement Design Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    70. KoremenosB,LipsonC,SnidalD2001a. The rational design of international institutions.Int. Organ.55:761–99
      [Google Scholar]
    71. KoremenosB,LipsonC,SnidalD2001b. Rational design: looking back to move forward.Int. Organ.55:1051–82
      [Google Scholar]
    72. LakeDA2009.Hierarchy in International Relations Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    73. LakeDA,PowellR1999.Strategic Choice and International Relations Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    74. LallR2017. Beyond institutional design: explaining the performance of international organizations.Int. Organ.71:245–80
      [Google Scholar]
    75. LimDYM,VreelandJR2013. Regional organizations and international politics: Japanese influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council.World Politics65:34–72
      [Google Scholar]
    76. LipscyPY2015. Explaining institutional change: policy areas, outside options, and the Bretton Woods institutions.Am. J. Political Sci.59:341–56
      [Google Scholar]
    77. LipscyPY2016.Renegotiating the World Order: Institutional Change in International Relations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    78. MaggiG,MorelliM2006. Self-enforcing voting in international organizations.Am. Econ. Rev.96:1137–58
      [Google Scholar]
    79. MansfieldED,MilnerHV,PevehouseJC2007. Vetoing co-operation: the impact of veto players on preferential trading arrangements.Br. J. Political Sci.37:403–32
      [Google Scholar]
    80. MansfieldED,MilnerHV,PevehouseJC2008. Democracy, veto players and the depth of regional integration.World Econ31:67–96
      [Google Scholar]
    81. MansfieldED,MilnerHV,RosendorffBP2002. Why democracies cooperate more: electoral control and international trade agreements.Int. Organ.56:477–513
      [Google Scholar]
    82. MartinLL1992. Interests, power, and multilateralism.Int. Organ.46:765–92
      [Google Scholar]
    83. MartinLL,SimmonsBA1998. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions.Int. Organ.52:729–57
      [Google Scholar]
    84. McNamaraKR1998.The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union.Cornell Stud. Political EconIthaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    85. McNamaraKR2015.The Politics of Everyday Europe New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    86. MearsheimerJJ1994. The false promise of international institutions.Int. Secur.19:5–49
      [Google Scholar]
    87. MeyerJW,BoliJ,ThomasGM,RamirezFO1997. World society and the nation‐state.Am. J. Sociol.103:144–81
      [Google Scholar]
    88. MilnerH2006. Why multilateralism? Foreign aid and domestic principal-agent problems.Delegation and Agency in International Organizations107–39 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    89. MitranyD1944.A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    90. MoeTM1990. Political institutions: the neglected side of the story.J. Law Econ. Organ.6:213–53
      [Google Scholar]
    91. MoravcsikA1998.The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht New York: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    92. MoravcsikA2000. The origins of human rights regimes: democratic delegation in postwar Europe.Int. Organ.54:217–52
      [Google Scholar]
    93. MoravcsikA2005. The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy.J. Eur. Public Policy12:349–86
      [Google Scholar]
    94. MorrowJD1994. Modeling the forms of international cooperation: distribution versus information.Int. Organ.48:387–423
      [Google Scholar]
    95. NewmanAL,PosnerE2018.Voluntary Disruptions: International Soft Law, Finance, and Power New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    96. OatleyT,NaborsR1998. Redistributive cooperation: market failure, wealth transfers, and the Basle Accord.Int. Organ.52:35–54
      [Google Scholar]
    97. OyeKA1986.Cooperation Under Anarchy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    98. PiersonP2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics.Am. Political Sci. Rev.94:251–67
      [Google Scholar]
    99. PollackMA1997. Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community.Int. Organ.51:99–134
      [Google Scholar]
    100. PosnerE2009. Making rules for global finance: transatlantic regulatory cooperation at the turn of the millennium.Int. Organ.63:665–99
      [Google Scholar]
    101. PouliotV2008. The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities.Int. Organ.62:257–88
      [Google Scholar]
    102. PouliotV2016.International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    103. RisseT2005. Neofunctionalism, European identity, and the puzzles of European integration.J. Eur. Public Policy12:291–309
      [Google Scholar]
    104. RosendorffBP2005. Stability and rigidity: politics and design of the WTO's dispute settlement procedure.Am. Political Sci. Rev.99:389–400
      [Google Scholar]
    105. RosendorffBP,MilnerHV2001. The optimal design of international trade institutions: uncertainty and escape.Int. Organ.55:829–57
      [Google Scholar]
    106. SchimmelfennigF2005. Strategic calculation and international socialization: membership incentives, party constellations, and sustained compliance in Central and Eastern Europe.Int. Organ.59:827–60
      [Google Scholar]
    107. SchmitterPC2005. Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism.J. Eur. Public Policy12:255–72
      [Google Scholar]
    108. SchneiderCJ,SlantchevBL2013. Abiding by the vote: between-groups conflict in international collective action.Int. Organ.67:759–96
      [Google Scholar]
    109. SharmanJC2011.The Money Laundry: Regulating Criminal Finance in the Global Economy Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    110. ShepsleKA,WeingastBR1981. Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice.Public Choice37:503–19
      [Google Scholar]
    111. SikkinkK2011.The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics New York: W.W. Norton
      [Google Scholar]
    112. SikkinkK2017.Timing and Sequencing in International Politics: Latin America's Contributions to Human Rights New York: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    113. SingerDA2007.Regulating Capital: Setting Standards for the International Financial System.Cornell Stud. MoneyIthaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    114. StoneRW2011.Controlling Institutions: International Organizations and the Global Economy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    115. SweetAS,SandholtzW1997. European integration and supranational governance.J. Eur. Public Policy4:297–317
      [Google Scholar]
    116. TallbergJ,SommererT,SquatritoT,JönssonC2014. Explaining the transnational design of international organizations.Int. Organ.68:741–74
      [Google Scholar]
    117. VoetenE2001. Outside options and the logic of Security Council action.Am. Political Sci. Rev.95:845–58
      [Google Scholar]
    118. VreelandJR,DreherA2014.The Political Economy of the United Nations Security Council: Money and Influence New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    119. WallanderCA2000. Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the Cold War.Int. Organ.54:705–35
      [Google Scholar]
    120. WeaverC2008.Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    121. WeingastBR,MarshallWJ1988. The industrial organization of Congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets.J. Political Econ.96:132–63
      [Google Scholar]
    122. ZürnM,CheckelJT2005. Getting socialized to build bridges: constructivism and rationalism, Europe and the nation-state.Int. Organ.59:1045–79
      [Google Scholar]

    Read the latest from
    Knowable Magazine

    knowable magazine from Annual Reviews

    Climate Resource Center, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Political Science Perspectives on Climate Change, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Journal News

    This is a required field
    Please enter a valid email address
    Approval was a Success
    Invalid data
    An Error Occurred
    Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
    Annual Reviews:
    http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108
    SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM

    [8]ページ先頭

    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp