Mico A.

Galang IS 290
MIS Dr. Arugay

Think Piece #5 (19 September 2015)

The assigned readings for this week aim to provide a comprehensive introduction to the
theoretical paradigm of Institutionalism. In his article, David Mitrany discussed the three categories of
international organizations, namely: (1) loose associations, which are usually organized for a specific
purpose but in which states are not obliged to participate; (2) international federations, which are largely
rigid because of their focus on the legal underpinnings of conduct of inter-state affairs; and (3)
functional arrangements, which zero-in on non-sensitive issues through states can cooperate. After
discussing the difference between the second and third categories, Mitrany stressed that states should
pay heed to their common interests, such as addressing multifaceted social issues, that could be of
benefit to their populace. Indeed, mechanisms that will operationalize such an endeavor will ease the
harsh effects of anarchy. In conclusion, Mitrany argued that by focusing on social concerns which unite
them—rather that politico-security issues which divide them—states can create a world community.

In a related paper, Ernst Haas identified the lessons learned from the European integration
experience and how the same can be applied to other regions. In order to determine the level and
depth of integration, Haas identified three types of compromises, to wit: (1) accommodation based on a
minimum common denominator; (2) accommodation through finding a compromise between the
negotiating positions; and (3) accommodation by enhancing common interests. Haas then utilized these
kinds of accommodations in analyzing the integration process of European organization. The lessons
which can be drawn from these experiences are three pronged. First, supranational and
intergovernmental entities bestowed an accommodation anchored on the upgrading of interests.
Second, such an accommodation played a crucial role in resolving conflicts and policy disagreements.
Third, the integration process achieved its highest potential when it is under the direction of rational
social groups that seek to expand their material wealth. Thereafter, Haas applied the same to three
geographic regions, namely, Soviet Bloc, the Middle East, and the Americas. In the last portion of his
article, Haas likewise juxtaposed the lessons in the case of an intergovernmental organization, the
United Nations.

In his first article, Stephen Krasner introduced the concept of international regimes. It refers to
a host of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures from which behavioral expectations
can be made in a given issue area. After discussing the elements of this definition, Krasner argued that
changes in rules and decision-making procedures amount to changes within regimes. However, if there

Page 1 of 2
are changes in the norms and principles, then there is a change of the regime itself.Thereafter, Krasner
examined the three orientations vis-à-vis the importance of regimes. First, conventional structural
realism argues that regimes are impracticable concepts. Second, the modified structural contention is
that regimes matter only under specific conditions. Third, the Groatian tradition postulates behavioral
patterns are sustained by regimes and therefore they are persistent traits of international relations. In
the last part of his paper, Krasner analyzed the causal factors in relation to regime development. In
another essay, Krasner explained why regimes are autonomous variables. At the outset, he stressed
that some realist scholars have come to embrace the concept of regimes. Such a phenomenon
stemmed from the difference of two realist views: (1) billiard balls perspective, which construe power
distribution only in relation to interactions among states; and (2) tectonic plates perspective, which
considers the impact of power distribution on various issue areas. Succinctly, Krasner argued that
regimes, although usually established by the major powers, can subsequently influence the behavior of
all states. In this sense, regimes become a tectonic plate of its own, apart from the tectonic plate of
power distribution. From this perspective, Krasner noted that the autonomy of regimes are derived from
lags and feedback. The former refers to situation in which there is a reduced relationship between
causal variables and regimes. The latter refers to the process by which regimes affect and influence of
power and interests of states.

In their book chapter, Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger provided a
survey of literature in attempt to discuss the conceptual issues surrounding international regimes. In a
nutshell, the authors examined complex, behavioral, cognitive, and formal approaches in
conceptualizing international regimes. Thereafter, the authors noted that some of the criticisms on
international regimes are valid. Thus, they recommended the development of regime theories that can
overcome such difficulties.

In his article, John Duffield provided an overview of Neoliberal Institutionalist paradigm.

Emanating from the literature of international regimes, Neoliberal Institutionalism has two major strands,
namely: (1) Rational Institutionalism; and (2) Sociological Institutionalism. The former shares the
fundamental assumptions of Neorealism, such as the anarchic and state-centric international system.
The difference, however, is that Rational Institutionalism assumes that states have common interests,
which serve as the basis of their cooperation through international institutions. The latter postulates the
subjective human understanding of the world. Anchored on sociological approaches, this variant of
Neoliberal Institutionalism has likewise three strands of its own. Towards the conclusion of the paper,
Duffield discussed the challenge of reintegrating the two types of the larger Neoliberal Institutionalism.

Page 2 of 2