Politics and Ethics
Chapter 4: Taming Vulnerability and Organizational Dynamics
INTERNATIONALIZATION, MUTUAL DEPENDENCE AND VULNERABILITY: ‘SPILLOVER’ PROCESSES The study of international policy in traditional political science in the years following World War II had the tendency to use theories that explain integration in relation to the development of institutions and the regulation of the relationships through agreements between sovereign states (Rosamond 2000). The development of Western welfare states in the 1950s and 1960s until the mid 1970s took place under highly favourable circumstances, aided by continuous growth in the economies, and governments were able to manage national budgetary control (Tinbergen 1965). Political economic analyses, therefore, characteristically emphasized a national, state-centred perspective bound both to the techno-economic paradigm rooted in Keynesian state intervention and principles of effective-demand and to the socio-institutional paradigm of the Weberian bureaucracy (Olsen 2005). This is particularly true of the realist school (Cini 2004a). Realism claims that international politics is about the interaction of self-interested states in an anarchic environment, where no supranational authority is capable of securing order and reducing risks. According to Neil Nuget (1999: 509), the theory ‘is centred on the view that nation states are the key actors in international affairs and the key political relations between states are channelled primarily via national governments’. Thus, realists have focused exclusively on governmental institutions and actors and their taming roles in internationalization and transnational co-operation. The same is true for the inter-governmentalists. They point out that there is significant evidence of inter-governmental bargaining and consensus-building techniques as dominant modes of policy-making in many areas (Moravcsik...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.