Regime Theory - Regime Theory in International Political Economy (IPE)

Regime Theory in International Political Economy (IPE)

As stated above, a regime is defined by Stephen D. Krasner as a set of explicit or implicit "principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area.” This definition is intentionally broad, and covers human interaction ranging from formal organizations (i.e., OPEC) to informal groups (i.e., major banks during the debt crisis). Note that a regime need not be composed of states.

Within IPE there are three main approaches to regime theory: the dominant, liberal-derived interest-based approach; the realist critique of interest-based approaches, and finally knowledge-based approaches that come from the cognitivist school of thought (Hasenclever, 1997). The first two are rationalist approaches while the third is sociological.

Although realism is arguably the dominant school of thought in the field of international relations generally, within regime theory specifically, because regime theory is by definition a theory that explains international cooperation (i.e. it's a traditionally liberal concept) liberal approaches prevail within the literature.

Read more about this topic:  Regime Theory

Famous quotes containing the words regime, theory, political and/or economy:

    Bourgeois existence is the regime of private affairs ... and the family is the rotten, dismal edifice in whose closets and crannies the most ignominious instincts are deposited. Mundane life proclaims the total subjugation of eroticism to privacy.
    Walter Benjamin (1892–1940)

    The theory [before the twentieth century] ... was that all the jobs in the world belonged by right to men, and that only men were by nature entitled to wages. If a woman earned money, outside domestic service, it was because some misfortune had deprived her of masculine protection.
    Rheta Childe Dorr (1866–1948)

    American thinking, when it concerns itself with beautiful letters as when it concerns itself with religious dogma or political theory, is extraordinarily timid and superficial ... [I]t evades the genuinely serious problems of art and life as if they were stringently taboo ... [T]he outward virtues it undoubtedly shows are always the virtues, not of profundity, not of courage, not of originality, but merely those of an emasculated and often very trashy dilettantism.
    —H.L. (Henry Lewis)

    Unaware of the absurdity of it, we introduce our own petty household rules into the economy of the universe for which the life of generations, peoples, of entire planets, has no importance in relation to the general development.
    Alexander Herzen (1812–1870)