European Journal of
International Relations
19(3) 567­–587
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066113494330
ejt.sagepub.com
EJ RI
Theory is dead, long live
theory: The end of the Great
Debates and the rise of
eclecticism in International
Relations
David A. Lake
University of California, San Diego, USA
Abstract
The history of the discipline of International Relations is commonly told in terms of
‘Great Debates.’ These intellectual clashes resolved little and, indeed, continue to this
day. Underneath this narrative is an alternative history of significant progress through
mid-level or eclectic theories of world politics. After reviewing the Great Debates, this
counter-narrative is developed and then supported by reviews of open economy politics
and democratic peace theory. A new line of cleavage is emerging in the field between
positivists and post-positivists, however, that overlaps with the second and final Great
Debates. Like all others before it, this potentially great debate — if it occurs — will be
inconclusive. The field would be better off focusing on important real-world problems
and achieving progress within each approach according to its own criteria for success.
Keywords
democratic peace, epistemology, International Relations theory, open economy
politics, paradigms
Introduction
The field of International Relations has a long tradition of Great Debates, but both grand
theory and clashes between competing grand theories now appear to be on the wane.
Many international relationists bemoan the dominance of ‘normal science,’ a phrase
Corresponding author:
David A. Lake, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La
Jolla, CA 92093-0521, USA.
Email: dlake@ucsd.edu
494330EJT19310.1177/1354066113494330European Journal of International RelationsLake
2013
Article
568		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
almost always uttered in a derogatory manner. Yet, if grand theory was king, it was an
evil tyrant. The Great Debates did help clarify the differing assumptions scholars make
in their theories, though this is a low bar to clear.1 Despite the attention they received,
however, nothing was ever resolved. Indeed, as I shall explain, each of the three Great
Debates continues to this day. More insidiously, the debates took the form of ‘paradigm
wars’ in which the focus was less on how to explain world politics and more on which
set of assumptions best captured the inherent nature of humans as political animals or
states as political organizations.2 The paradigm wars perverted the discipline and turned
inquiry into contests of a quasi-religious belief in the power of one or another ‘ism’
(Lake, 2011). I, for one, do not mourn the tyrant’s passing.
Flourishing in the interstices of the Great Debates, however, has always been a rich ecosystem
of other theories, often competing, that never rose to the level of Great Debates but
nonetheless produced significant progress over time in improving our understanding of
international relations. This article focuses on one such strain of theory, mid-level theory,
that today forms the basis for a more progressive and eclectic approach to International
Relations (Sil and Katzenstein, 2010). Mid-level theory is not new but is rising to greater
prominence now that the Great Debates have lost their stridency. It is less exciting than the
Great Debates. Mid-level theory, precisely because it is eclectic and focuses on what ‘works,’
does not inflame the passions like allegiance to this or that paradigm. Yet, mid-level theory,
I argue, can form the basis for a progressive discipline of International Relations that the
paradigms have never provided. This contender for the crown deserves support.
This article proceeds in four steps. The first part reviews the Great Debates in
International Relations and some of the recent critical historiography on these periods of
supposed scholarly ferment. The second part develops an alternative narrative of the field
that highlights mid-level theory. The third part surveys two streams of mid-level theory to
demonstrate the potential for progress within the approach. The fourth part outlines what
may become another Great Debate between positivists and post-positivists that, in turn,
overlaps with the second and final Great Debates. This is a real line of cleavage in the discipline
today which threatens to become ever wider in the years ahead. Like all the others, this
nascent debate, if it occurs, will be inconclusive. We would all be better off, I argue, focusing
on achieving progress within each approach that addresses important real-world problems.
The Great Debates debated
The history of the field of International Relations is typically told as a series of Great
Debates, epic battles between titans that shaped the direction of inquiry and knowledge
for decades afterwards. What was at stake in each of these debates has been — and continues
to be — reinterpreted in light of developments in the real world and current disciplinary
struggles. Indeed, there is now a significant body of revisionist history that
challenges what the debates were supposedly about — and even if they occurred at all
(Dunne et al., 1998; Schmidt, 2013). History, even disciplinary history, is always contested.
Even more so, the ‘Whiggish’ story of theoretical and empirical progress embedded
in the history of the Great Debates is almost certainly wrong (Schmidt, 2013). Yet,
the conventional account appears to retain some hold on the discipline; as Wæver (1998:
715) notes, ‘there is no other established means of telling the history of the discipline.’3
Lake	 569
The first Great Debate, begun on the eve of World War II, supposedly unfolded
between the idealists, dominant from the founding of the discipline in the early 20th
century, and the realists, who triumphed in the decade after 1945. Coming out of a tradition
of formal-legal theory and progressive politics, idealists focused on the potential
role of institutions in improving the human condition and mitigating conflict between
states. Their quest was, in part, driven by the destructiveness of World War I, but foundered
on the inability of international institutions to prevent World War II — though of
course that was a high hurdle for any progressive reform.4 Claiming to take human nature
and ‘the world’ as they are, but really taking them by assumption, realists sought more
clearly to explain actual patterns of world politics and to identify pragmatic steps leaders
might take to improve diplomacy and world order (see Morgenthau, 1978). This ‘cleareyed’
or, as some might say, more cynical interpretation of human nature and focus on
the conflict inherent in the struggle for power both informed Western policy during the
Cold War and, in turn, was reinforced by that decades-long struggle (Kahler, 1997).
Critics now dispute the notion of a coherent ‘idealist’ school in the interwar years and
argue that it was challenged, even in its supposed heyday, by pluralists who questioned
the state-centrism of their colleagues and focused on the modern condition of interdependence
and transnational relations, though the concepts were not yet framed in those
terms (Kahler, 1997; Long and Wilson, 1995; Schmidt, 2013: 16–17). Similarly, it is not
clear that realism was a single school. There were strong continuities between prominent
‘realists’ and earlier thinkers, especially those who focused on ‘power politics’ and the
balance of power — ideas that were hardly new to the postwar era.5 To make the story
even more complex, there were substantial overlaps in the thinking of the so-called idealists
and early realists (Osiander, 1998). Presaging the behavioral revolution of the second
debate, the dividing line might be drawn more clearly between ‘idealists’who focused on
international organizations and ‘realists’ who broadened the field to study international
‘politics’ (Schmidt, 2013: 17). The claim that realism somehow ‘won’ this first debate is
also erroneous, in my view, as that victory was never truly consolidated and was soon
challenged by liberalism (Cooper, 1968; Keohane and Nye, 1972, 1977; Rosecrance,
1987), neoliberal institutionalism (Keohane, 1984), and ultimately constructivism
(Ruggie, 1998; Wendt, 1999). This first Great Debate as the clash of alternative paradigms
did not end, but rather is a continuing thread in the history of the discipline and
even overlaps with the final Great Debate below.
The second Great Debate, reaching its height during the late 1960s, is usually cast as
a battle between traditionalists and behaviorists or ‘scientists.’6 Traditionalists emphasized
the complexity of world politics, the role of contingency and leadership in diplomacy,
and the unique nature of each historical juncture. Claiming that no scientific theory
could ever capture the interplay of so many factors nor explain choice by human beings
who could learn by experience, traditionalists focused on moments of inflection in history
in which world politics could have gone one way or the other (Bull, 1969).
Behaviorism came late to International Relations, at least compared to other areas of
political science, but it arrived with the force of deep arguments already rehearsed elsewhere
in the social sciences. Behaviorists eschewed the uniqueness of particular episodes
and sought to identify classes of events, looking for and highlighting commonalities
across, for instance, all interstate wars (Singer, 1969). Having identified classes of
570		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
events, behaviorists could then build up generalizations by induction or empirically confirmed
deductions. By the 1970s, the behaviorists declared victory.
This standard account of the second debate is also increasingly challenged. The
attempt to define International Relations as a science began not with the behavioral
revolution in the 1950s, but in the Chicago School of the 1920s and 1930s. In turn, the
behaviorists were promoting not science in general but a particular kind of science
focused on systems theory, a still deeply contested domain (Schmidt, 2013: 19). Like
the first Great Debate, this one also remains a running battle with traditionalists still
vibrant throughout the field, especially within the English School (Linklater and
Suganami, 2006), and possibly even dominant in Europe where constructivism and
various forms of reflexivity have taken deep hold on the discipline. Despite the behaviorists’
assertions of supremacy, this second Great Debate remains alive and is still a
major cleavage in the field.
The last Great Debate is in many ways the hardest to identify, as the conventional narrative
is not one but two or possibly three different stories (Schmidt, 2013: 15). Some see
a third debate arising in the 1970s between realism, liberalism, and radicalism and a
fourth debate occurring in the 1980s between neorealism, neoliberalism, and constructivism
(Wæver, 1996). This is not an unreasonable characterization, given the attention
devoted to the clash of paradigms in this era. As implied above, this debate or set of
debates is better understood in my view as a continuation of the first debate. Others see
the third debate (sometimes the fourth or fifth debate) as pitting the ‘positivists,’ as the
successors to the behaviorists are sometimes called, against ‘reflectivists,’ giving it a
more ontological cast (Keohane, 1988; Lapid, 1989). It is this what I will call ‘final’
debate that I want to focus on here. The term positivist was always something of a misnomer,
as few were naive methodological falsificationists in the sense outlined by Popper
(1963: 33–39). An alternative label, ‘rationalists,’ fit equally poorly. Rather, positivists
were a grab bag of approaches grouped by a general commitment to social science as a
method and the assumption that individuals and other political actors are intentionalist
and calculating in their actions.7 By the 1980s, these so-called positivists constituted the
‘mainstream’ of the discipline of International Relations. Reflectivists, in turn, were
hardly a single school either. Broadly united by a belief in the potential openness of various
‘taken for granted’ aspects of world politics, several strands of theorizing competed,
including at least constructivism (Adler, 2013; Wendt, 1987, 1999), post-modernism
(Ashley, 1986; Devetak, 1996), critical theory (Brown, 1994; Linklater, 1992), and feminism
(Enloe, 1990; Tickner, 1992). Several of these approaches share the normative
positions of idealism; others are more social versions of realism. As explained in more
detail in the fourth part of the article, some reflectivists by epistemology are critical realists,
more are anti-positivists who believe social change is the purpose of inquiry, not
explanation (Jackson, 2011). The diversity of approaches under the heading of reflectivism
likely made this final debate less salient, as the assault on the positivists was less
unified than in the past cases. Perhaps for this reason, and perhaps because it overlapped
so much with the paradigm wars of the first Great Debate and the epistemological differences
in the second, some challenge the idea that there ever was a final Great Debate,
seeing it more as a series of small battles than an epic struggle. More accurately, the final
debate might be best understood as the fracturing of the field into multiple, overlapping
Lake	 571
identity groups, each seeking to bolster and affirm its own theoretical ‘turf’ against not
only the mainstream of the discipline but against each other as well.
No approach won this debate, although the positivists remained ensconced at the center
of the field. Positivists either subsumed the critiques offered by the reflectivists, as when
Richard Ashley’s (1986) perceptive critique that neorealism was statist before it was realist
led to a decade of innovative positivist theorizing of the concept of sovereignty (for
instance, Krasner, 1999), or just simply ignored and marginalized them. At the same time,
the end of the Cold War — despite the absence of any change in the objective nature of
the international system — supported more reflectivist views on the socially constructed
nature of previously ‘objective’ structures, propelling the debate along (Evangelista,
1999; Katzenstein, 1996). Like the earlier episodes, this final Great Debate — whatever it
was — was never resolved. In a rather anti-climactic way, the various schools of thought,
positivist and reflectivist alike, have simply retreated to their own corners of a multi-sided
boxing ring, occasionally tossing a punch in one or the other direction but more often talking
amongst themselves and complaining of not being taken seriously by others.
Like all narratives, this account of our field — even in its revisionist forms — leaves
out parts of the story, and for this reason, I am reluctant to recount it to new students or
reify it by frequent retelling. It is, of course, a North American or possibly US-European
story, with few voices from the developing world being heard (Hoffmann, 1977; Tickner
and Waever, 2009; Wæver, 1998). Even within this frame, however, in focusing on the
Great Debates the conventional story wittingly or not ignores many other possible narratives
— some of which are explored elsewhere in this special issue. Without minimizing
the importance of other counter-narratives, I focus on one alternative — mid-level theory
— that is often overlooked precisely because it is so close to the dominant one. Telling
its story puts the debate about the ‘end of theory’ in International Relations in new light.
In the interstices
Percolating alongside the paradigms of the first Great Debate, the epistemologies of the
second Great Debate and the ontologies of the final Great Debate have always been a
variety of eclectic, mid-level theoretical approaches sharing a positivist and intentionalist
approach to politics. Rooted in critical approaches of the interwar period (for instance,
Beard, 1934), these alternatives flowered with the Vietnam War and the shattering of the
myth of a national interest that could be discerned by an objective observer. To account
for the diversity of opinion within states, scholars drew anew on psychology (Jervis,
1976), bureaucratic politics (Allison, 1971), interest groups (Gourevitch, 1977), public
opinion (Holsti and Rosenau, 1984), political institutions (Waltz, 1967), and state structures
(Katzenstein, 1978). The object of this theorizing was to explain political differences
over foreign policy and why different countries might react to common stimuli in
different ways at different times. Thus, Gourevitch (1977) studied how the first Great
Depression was refracted through different constellations of interest groups in several
European countries and resulted in differing trade policies, Katzenstein (1978) examined
how interdependence was conditioned by varying state structures in the advanced industrialized
countries, and Jervis (1976) highlighted the role of cognitive bias in interpreting
and responding to crises. Parallel with this ‘domestic’ turn in International Relations,
572		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
others drew on game theory to explain how states might produce sub optimal outcomes
despite their good intentions (Axelrod, 1984; Oye, 1985; Schelling, 1960; Snyder and
Diesing, 1977). Much of this work came together in the 1980s in the newly revitalized
field of security studies (Posen, 1984; Snyder, 1984; Walt, 1987) and the nascent field of
international political economy (Frieden, 1988b; Goldstein, 1988; Gowa, 1983; Haggard,
1990; Milner, 1988; Odell, 1982).
Although sometimes forced into one or another paradigmatic ‘box’ to conform to the
dominant narrative of the field, these approaches were never clearly realist, liberal, or
later constructivist. All were, moreover, characterized by methodological pluralism,
drawing equally on history and case studies, on the one hand, and large-n data sets, on
the other. Often emphasizing historical contingency, they nonetheless also looked to
broader patterns of world politics. Finally, all were — and still are — mid-level theories
that focus on parts of the political process, rather than the whole, and study the effects of
one or more variables on policy choice and outcomes. Bridging and in many cases simply
violating boundaries between the levels of analysis, this strain of theorizing about
international politics was self-consciously eclectic.
Even as the traditional narrative and the discipline have focused on the Great Debates
— watching the titans battle towards inconclusive ends — these mid-level theorists have
labored to produce and assess theories of foreign policy and international affairs with
varying assumptions that apply to specific issues and even limited historical periods. It
is hard to measure how much research in International Relations is directed towards and
fits neatly within the Great Debates, and how much falls into this more eclectic tradition.
In my admittedly biased and subjective estimate, it seems to me that the majority of work
in our field since its founding has likely fallen into the latter category.8 Yet, mid-level
theory has been left out of the traditional narrative of the field, or relegated to a subordinate
theme or the footnotes.9
This alternative or counter-narrative yields a different conclusion on the state of
theory — or the end of theory — in International Relations. Since the final Great Debate
sputtered to a close, the field has suffered in the view of some from the absence of any
great discipline-wide struggle. This is liberating since the ‘isms’ of whatever form, as
argued elsewhere, have exerted a pernicious effect on the discipline for decades (Lake,
2011). Thus, if by the end of theory we mean the absence of a new Great Debate, I can
only stand and cheer. In the silence created by the end of the Great Debates, or at least
their temporary hiatus, eclectic theory has gained new prominence. Eclectic theory is not
new. As the counter-narrative indicates, it has been here all along, but relegated to the
wings, bit players rather than the heroes of the story. But it is decisively theoretical, if not
of the grand form favored by those who wish for the return of the Great Debates. Eclectic
theory is the source of some of the most progressive research in our discipline. In my
view, it represents the future of International Relations — not a new future, since it
already has a long history, but the future nonetheless.
Progress via mid-level theory
Progress is a contested term that takes different meanings in different ontologies (see
below). Positive and intentionalist eclectic theories are best judged by Lakatos’s (1978)
Lake	 573
definition of progress as the accumulation of knowledge and discovery of new facts. The
paradigms in International Relations — like all paradigms (Kuhn, 1970) — are defined
by sets of assumptions that form the basis for more specific theories. International
Relations paradigms, however, are typically incomplete, meaning that the assumptions
are, as a set, insufficient to predict specific behaviors or outcomes. As a result, the ‘hard
core’assumptions of each paradigm must be augmented by auxiliary assumptions (Elman
and Elman, 2003; Lakatos, 1978), implying that it is possible to have multiple specific
theories of, say, war that have equal claim to being ‘realist.’10 These multiple possible
theories within and across paradigms could be judged by their contributions to knowledge
— in short, by progress. Instead, advocates of different theories within the same
paradigm have chosen to compete for the soul of the approach, each claiming to be the
true exemplar.11 In turn, advocates of each paradigm have likewise chosen to defend their
core assumptions against criticism or charges of insufficiency. This is, as philosophers of
science recognize, normal (Lakatos, 1978). But in International Relations, this competition
has had the effect of turning theories into faiths that must be defended at all costs.
Unfortunately, this all too often transforms the research enterprise from one of explaining
world politics into one of ‘proving’ realism, liberalism, or whatever is the one true
faith to which all should adhere (Lake, 2011). The paradigm wars have not led to progress
under almost any definition and certainly not in the one posed here.
Eclectic, mid-level theory begins from a very different point (Sil and Katzenstein,
2010). Rather than defending any single set of assumptions, it builds theories to address
specific problems of world politics. Theories of war, for instance, will likely contain different
assumptions and focus on different processes from theories of human rights or the
environment. Mid-level theories may also violate the levels of analysis in International
Relations, sometimes treating branches of government, for instance, as the units of
observation in one country and the state as the unit in another (Milner, 1997). In this
approach, there are no primordial units of analysis, only methodological ‘bets’ about
which unit of aggregation is most likely to produce tractable and empirically powerful
explanations (Lake and Powell, 1999). In similar ways, rather than slavish adherence to
power, security, or wealth maximization as a universal goal, the units posited in different
theories are also understood to possess different interests — including socially constructed
interests — tailored to the specifics of the issue under investigation. It is precisely
this ‘mixing and matching’ of assumptions, issue areas, units, and interests that
makes this sort of theorizing ‘eclectic.’
Importantly, in the last decade or so there has been an increasing and, in my view,
appropriate demand that mid-level theories have explicit ‘micro-foundations’ or, as
George and Bennett (2005) call it, a ‘causal mechanism.’ In other words, theories are
preferred which can link the incentives and actions of real individuals or possibly
groups of relatively homogeneous individuals to policy outcomes in a consistent way.
It is not enough to simply posit that internationally oriented business is likely to get
investment protections, for instance. Ideally, theory will specify how owners and
shareholders as a group define their interests, mobilize for political action, develop
strategies to counter the actions of opposing political groups, and bring pressure to
bear on politicians embedded in political institutions that, in turn, constrain their
actions; theory should then explain how states with different societally generated
574		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
policy preferences and different mechanisms for aggregating those preferences then
interact with one another to produce, say, tighter or looser bilateral investment treaties.
‘Good’ theory thus links the entire chain of action in a way that is consistent in its
assumptions. The full chain is often left implicit, as implied in the call for greater attention
to micro-foundations or causal mechanisms. Theorists often focus on one or
another link, emphasizing interest formation over, say, how political institutions aggregate
those interests or how states bargain. But theories that start with, say, ‘business’
as the unit of analysis are increasingly called upon to have at least a story if not yet a
fully defined theory about why the individuals and firms that comprise that entity —
the micro-level actors — will act in ways consistent with the theory’s more explicit
components and predictions. This demand for micro-foundations has disciplined midlevel
theory, taming its otherwise open-ended eclecticism. It has also been an enormously
productive move that has led to better specified theories as well as a greater
range of testable hypotheses within each theory.
The progressive nature of mid-level theory can be illustrated by two well-known literatures,
both of which I have written about before and will, therefore, only briefly summarize
(Frieden and Lake, 2005; Lake, 2009). A first research program is open economy
politics (OEP) that emerged as a mid-level theory to explain trade policy (Gourevitch,
1977; Hiscox, 2002; Rogowski, 1989) but which was later extended to monetary and
financial relations (Bernhard et al., 2003; Frieden, 1988a, 1991), foreign direct investment
(Jensen, 2006; Pinto, 2013), immigration (Leblang et al., 2007), foreign aid (Milner,
2006), regulation (Buthe and Mattli, 2011; Richards, 1999; Woods and Mattli, 2009),
corporate governance (Gourevitch and Shinn, 2005), and global governance (Kahler and
Lake, 2003). It now forms a comprehensive approach to explaining a large range of foreign
economic policies.
The fundamental building block of OEP is interest, or how an individual or group is
affected by a particular policy. Actors who benefit from a policy are expected to expend
resources in the political arena to obtain that policy — as a shorthand, to lobby.
Conversely, actors that lose from a policy are expected to lobby against it. In short, politics
is fundamentally about winners and losers from alternative policies. Importantly,
OEP uses economic theory to deduce what types of individuals can be reasonably
assumed to share identical interests. A key divide within the approach is between the
Ricardo–Viner or specific factors theory of international trade, which assumes that capital
and labor are fixed in particular occupations and, thus, will tend to have similar interests
over economic policy, and the Heckscher–Ohlin–Samuelson (HOS) theory of
international trade, which assumes that all factors are mobile across occupations within
countries and, therefore, capital and labor will possess opposing interests (Frieden and
Rogowski, 1996). Having defined the relevant unit of analysis, OEP goes further to
derive interests from the distributional implications of alternative economic policies and,
in turn, how a group is located relative to others in the international economy. Firms vary
by whether they are in the tradable or non-tradable sectors, produce import-competing or
export-competing goods, use imported components, and so on. Factors of production, in
turn, vary by their scarcity relative to the world economy. Using Mundell’s (1957) equivalence
condition — that flows of goods and factors across international borders are
equivalent in their effects on relative rates of return — OEP then derives expectations
Lake	 575
about how factors will be affected by a large range of economic policies and, thus, identify
their interests over those same policies.
Institutions aggregate conflicting societal interests, with varying degrees of bias, and
condition the bargaining between opposing groups. OEP is consistent with and draws
heavily on the literature on comparative political institutions, much of which is not connected
immediately to economic policy (see Cox, 1997; Tsebelis, 2002). Institutions also
condition the bargaining between groups, largely by setting the reversion point for policy
in the absence of some compromise and defining possible side-payments, cross-issue
deals, and logrolls. OEP recognizes, in a way that the earlier domestic interests approach
did not, that interests are central but not enough. However well specified, interests are
refracted through political institutions that often have an independent effect on policy
choices.
With domestic interests aggregated through institutions into a national policy — or,
more accurately, a national ideal point — states then bargain when necessary to influence
one another’s behavior and to determine the joint outcome of their actions. International
institutions, in turn, condition how this bargaining takes place and what outcomes are
reached. This is the third and final step in the OEP approach.
Together, interests, institutions, and international bargaining explain the choice of
policies by countries and the outcomes experienced by the world economy. Analysis
within OEP proceeds from the most micro to the most macro level in a linear and
orderly fashion, reflecting an implicit unidirectional conception of politics as flowing
up from individuals to interstate bargaining. Although any one analysis may focus
more or less on a single step in the causal chain, any complete explanation begins with
interests, proceeds to examine the role of domestic institutions, and concludes with
bargaining in international institutions and, then, ultimately the policy or outcome to
be explained.
OEP has proven to be enormously productive and progressive, starting as a theory of
trade policy and quickly expanding to include a range of other economic phenomena.
This is, I believe, its greatest strength. Nonetheless, OEP, especially as practiced in the
United States, has been the subject of critical assessment (see Weaver and Phillips,
2010). Constructivist scholars, in particular, have challenged the exogenously determined
conception of interests that underlies the theory (for example, see Abdelal, 2001,
2007; Chwieroth, 2010). Even within the approach, the most telling criticism of OEP is
that individuals do not appear to have stable preferences defined by their position within
the international division of labor. Individuals do not identify themselves politically as
either labor or capital, or as members of the steel, textile, or non-tradable sector, as posited
by the theory. Rather, they have more complicated sets of interests defined by religion
(Scheve and Stasavage, 2006), gender (Goldstein et al., 2007), and more (Rho and
Tomz, 2012). Individuals also have more complicated identities as producers, as assumed
by the theory, and consumers, and can be primed to think about their interests on policy
in different ways (Naoi and Kume, 2011). This critique shakes the foundations of OEP,
threatening to topple the entire superstructure. Nonetheless, OEP has driven nearly three
decades of productive but eclectic research in international political economy. How well
it responds to this critique, and especially whether it can develop a more nuanced but still
deductive conception of interests, will be the challenge in the years ahead.
576		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
A second area of mid-level theory that has proven truly progressive is the so-called
democratic peace theory. This theory is decidedly non-realist, but it fits poorly into any
of the other paradigms. In 1795, Immanuel Kant posited in Perpetual Peace that republican
states, lodged within international organizations and enjoying the fruits of international
commerce, would be relatively more pacific in their relations with one another
than with other countries.12 This prediction, made when there were but a handful of
democracies in the world, remained a topic of philosophical discussion for nearly 200
years. Small and Singer (1976) published the first empirical paper on the democratic
peace, finding that democracies were, indeed, more peaceful than other states. Doyle
(1986) ignited a new research program in his article on the ‘liberal peace’ published a
decade later. Drawing explicitly on Kant, Doyle deduced and showed empirically that
liberal democracies would not be more pacific overall but they would be more peaceful
in their relations with one another. Empirical political scientists quickly confirmed that
democracies were not more peaceful in general (i.e. there was no ‘monadic peace’) but
were more peaceful within democratic dyads (i.e. a ‘dyadic peace’ or the ‘democratic
peace’). Within three years of Doyle’s article, Levy (1989: 270) was able to write that the
‘absence of war between democratic states comes as close as anything we have to an
empirical law in international relations.’
Early analytic approaches distinguished between normative and institutional theories
in accounting for this regularity (Maoz and Russett, 1993). Normative theory predicted
overall pacifism for democracies, but explained the tendency of democracies not to fight
one another by the notion of a shared republican respect. This approach proved less progressive,
failing to connect to other extant theories in the mainstream of the discipline or
to generate additional propositions. Institutional theory was immediately more successful,
but came in two variants. One version focused on the public constraints on governments
that determined what goals they pursued within the international system (Lake,
1992; Maoz and Russett, 1993). The second focused on how those constraints provided
greater information to adversaries (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 1999; Schultz, 2001).
Support eventually leaned towards the latter as this was consistent with the more general
bargaining theory of war that was also gaining prominence about this same time (Fearon,
1995; Powell, 1999).
With several variants of the theory in play, scholarly attention soon broadened.
Importantly, although Kant framed the debate, the empirical law was well known by the
time the theories were being developed. Scholars began from the observation that democracies
tend not to fight one another, and then built and selected theories on their ability to
explain this regularity. Recognizing that they could not adjudicate between contending
theories using only a known fact that all were designed to explain, scholars quickly
turned to deducing additional implications of their theories, soon predicting and finding
that democracies were (1) not only less likely to fight one another, but more likely to (2)
win the wars they do fight (Lake, 1992; Reiter and Stam, 1998), (3) use peaceful dispute
resolution mechanisms (Breecher and Wilkenfeld, 1997; Dixon, 1994; Mousseau, 1998),
(4) initiate wars against autocracies (Bennett and Stam, 1998), and (5) pay fewer costs
and fight shorter wars (Bennett and Stam, 1996; Siverson, 1995).13 Drawing on the same
theories, democracies were also found to provide higher levels of public goods for their
citizens (Lake and Baum, 2001), enjoy higher rates of economic growth (Baum and
Lake	 577
Lake, 2003), and act in a variety of other distinctive ways (Bueno de Mesquita et al.,
2003). In seeking to test between alternative theories of relative peace, scholars found a
host of distinctive traits for democracies that had not previously been identified.
What is important for my purposes here is the stages through which the research program
has progressed. A normative insight led eventually to an empirical observation and
then to a flowering of mid-level theories all crafted to explain this central empirical finding.
As theories multiplied, scholars sought to deduce additional implications from each
and to assess these hypotheses against observed empirical regularities. Some agreement
emerged on an institutional theory that both predicted a large number of new propositions
that were then confirmed empirically and, importantly, fit with the larger approach
of the bargaining theory of war. As Lakatos (1978) would expect, the more general theory
that predicted the most new facts appears to have gained the widest support among
scholars.
Democratic peace theory is not without its critics. Critical theorists challenge the
transhistorical assertions of the theory (Barkawi and Laffey, 2001), and others point out
that democracies have often engaged in normatively questionable behaviors in their own
interests (Owen, 2002). A central challenge is from those who maintain that the core
finding that democracies tend not to fight one another is spurious, or that democracy and
the democratic peace are jointly determined by some third factor. Some argue that the
democratic peace is really a capitalist peace, with democracy and peace following from
the presence of liberal market economies (Gartzke, 2007). Others argue that the democratic
peace is the product of bipolarity, and the historical accident that most democracies
ended up as allies on one side of the Cold War for ideological and geopolitical reasons
(Farber and Gowa, 1995). Proponents counter, however, that neither the capitalist peace
nor bipolarity can account for the new facts generated by institutional variants of democratic
peace theory. Despite continuing controversy, the lesson here is that mid-level
theories are not judged by their fit with pre-existing paradigms, nor limited to particular
methodologies. Rather, they are best measured by their empirical power and ability to
generate new propositions that are themselves empirically confirmed.
OEP and democratic peace theory are exemplars of the progressive nature of midlevel
theory. Neither fits well into the traditional paradigms that supposedly define the
field. Both have developed and grown over decades, belying the standard narrative of
Great Debates as the driving forces for research in the field. Neither are without problems
and critics — such is the way of all theory. This may be ‘normal science,’ a turn
opposed by those who yearn for a return to the Great Debates of yore. But as these examples
indicate, rather than being stuck in first gear unable to get past first principles, midlevel
or eclectic theory has moved the field of International Relations and our
understanding of world politics decisively forward. These two examples provide, I
believe, models for how we as a discipline ought to pursue and evaluate progress in our
research.
Another Great Debate?
Even as mid-level theory offers a glimpse of a perhaps promising future, there is a real and
emerging divide in the field of International Relations between positivists and
578		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
post-positivists. This divide may become yet another Great Debate, although such a
debate — if it occurs — will likely be as inconclusive as the previous ones. In many ways,
the positivist–post-positivist divide overlaps with the epistemological and ontological differences
of the second and final debates, respectively. Indeed, it reflects two different
paradigms — not in the usual, loose International Relations sense that I have been using
so far, but in the Kuhnian (Kuhn, 1970) definition of a single, hegemonic theoretical
approach — in which ‘facts’ in one paradigm are sometimes simply unintelligible in the
other. Two communities are developing with different cultures, practices, and languages
that render conversation and interchange difficult and fraught with misunderstanding.
The great irony of Kuhn’s (1970) theory of scientific revolutions is that scholars
choose between paradigms before their promise is completely demonstrated. In his case,
he looked to the scientific community as a whole to understand the shift as a sociological
phenomenon. Such community ties likely play a role in determining one’s positivist or
post-positivist inclinations today in International Relations: where one was educated,
and with whom, appears to have a massively conditioning effect, even recognizing that
an element of self-selection goes on in choosing a graduate program. Yet, given two
competing paradigms in the field today, the choice also remains a highly subjective and
personal assessment based on what appeals to each individual as a satisfying explanation
of any given phenomenon. This is, perhaps, as it should be. My own sensibilities are
likely already clear, but in the spirit of full disclosure they lean strongly in the positivist
(and eclectic) direction. But I recognize that this is a subjective judgment. That my sensibilities
lean in one direction does not mean that I cannot respect the subjective assessments
of others with different intellectual beliefs who make alternative intellectual bets.
Rather than another inconclusive Great Debate, there is room, I believe, for both
approaches and, I hope, a little friendly competition.
As above, positivists are poorly described by this label. Nonetheless, the label has
stuck despite the attempt to modify it with various prefixes (e.g. neopositivism). Positivist
scholars generally believe that research and researchers can separate themselves from
reality and objectively observe the world they inhabit, that science is and should be limited
to observable implications and factors, and that the purpose of science is causal
inference. Within these beliefs, of course, there is disagreement about the precise meanings
of key terms, especially about what constitutes an adequate causal explanation.
In the last two decades, there has been significant progress in elaborating a socialscientific
methodology of causal inference. Some positivists have turned new attention
to old problems of the scientific method, employing laboratory and field experiments in
new settings (Hyde, 2010; McDermott, 2011), elaborating new quasi-experimental
designs, and working on new ways of solving the endogenity or ‘identification’ problem
through selection and instrumental variables models or matching designs (Dunning,
2012). Other positivists have developed a distinct qualitative methodology. This effort
was stimulated by King, Keohane, and Verba (1994), who posited a single logic of causal
inference based on probability theory. This provoked others to argue for greater attention
to ‘within-case’ variation, focusing on causal mechanisms, process-tracing, counterfactual
analysis, and other innovative methods (Brady and Collier, 2010; George and
Bennett, 2005; Tetlock and Belkin, 1996). Although seemingly two distinct cultures
(Goertz and Mahony, 2012), in larger perspective, quantitative and qualitative research,
Lake	 579
at least as understood in this literature, are two variants of the same positivist approach.
There is now substantial agreement on the basic methodology of and standards for positivist
social-scientific research.
Post-positivists remain a more diverse group, often united only by their rejection of
positivism’s adherence to an objective science limited to observable ‘facts.’ Jackson
(2011) identifies three separate non-positivist ontologies: critical realism, which allows
for objective observation but believes this can be extended to unobservable features of
the world through abduction and other similar methods; analyticism, which believes that
observation is always subjective but limited to observable features; and reflexivity,
which holds that observation is inherently subjective and can access the unobservable.
Across these dimensions, post-positivists also disagree on the purpose of inquiry, with
some adhering to a form of social science that takes as its aim the understanding of how
the world came to be as it is (or was, in different historical periods) and others taking a
more political or ‘critical’stance in which the goal of scholarship is to move the world in
more ethical directions. As in the final Great Debate above, the fragmentation between
post-positivists would likely make a single Great Debate difficult; if such a debate were
to occur, it would likely be argued on multiple fronts by multiple voices.
Like positivists, however, post-positivists have made substantial progress recently in
developing appropriate research methodologies and standards. Interpretivists pose an
over arching research method based on the ‘Chicago School’ of anthropological and
sociological fieldwork developed in the 1920s and 1930s (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow,
2012; Yanow, 2000).14 Critical theorists have wrestled with the question of standards
when research is inherently subjective, drawing insights from humanist scholars and
post-modernists like Bourdieu, Foucault, and Latour (Salter and Mutlu, 2013).
Recognizing that self-identified members of their school work on both sides of the positivist
and post-positivist divide, even constructivists have posed a unifying methodology
of inquiry (Klotz and Lynch, 2007). The attention to methods and standards by postpositivists
in recent years lays the foundation for important research progress as it is
defined by each approach, whether this be improved understanding, the revelation of
forms of hidden social power, or ethical change.
Despite the progress in each paradigm, I admit to a deep ambivalence about the existence
of this divide. One the one hand, I sympathize with Cohen (2007) and others who have
argued eloquently on the need to bridge and, ideally, close the divide (see Weaver and
Phillips, 2010). I too am loathe to see International Relations split into two separate disciplines
sharing the same subject matter and intellectual history but divided by epistemology
and ontology. Were this to happen, both sides would inevitable ‘forget’ some of what we
think we know about world politics, and both would be intellectually poorer for it. On the
other hand, any attempt to bridge the divide will either produce a pabulum of inconsistent
approaches or profound frustration from dealing with incommensurable facts and ‘explanations.’
To borrow the title of one of Tickner’s (1997) famous articles, the prevailing response
from both sides might likely be ‘You just don’t understand’— and both would be correct.
More important, as Kuhn (1970) first argued, progress is only possible within paradigms.
OEP and democratic peace theory, described above, made progress only through
sets of shared assumptions and common epistemologies and ontologies that allowed
theory to be extended to new topics, additional hypotheses to be deduced, and
580		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
propositions confronted with evidence according to agreed-upon standards. Were
researchers in each area forced to defend their methodological, epistemological, and
ontological assumptions at every turn, progress within the approach would have been
severely hampered. As these research programs have developed, they have been increasingly
challenged by accumulated anomalies, as expected, and will either be revised or
superseded by some future theory. Although I have not reviewed research in the postpositivist
approach in similar detail in this article, and others are undoubtedly better
qualified to address this question, I see similar progress in the feminist security studies
program from the early works of Enloe (1990) that opened the political space to include
women, to Tickner’s (1992) agenda-setting work, to more recent and substantive applications
that reveal and highlight the ways in which gender deeply structures world politics
(see Sjoberg, 2010; Sjoberg and Via, 2010; Towns, 2010). This too would have been
even more difficult if researchers were forced to debate first principles at every turn.
Within both positivist and post-positivist approaches, progress occurs within paradigms
according to their own criteria for evaluating that progress. This suggests letting each
paradigm develop on its own in its own fashion.
In the end, I prefer progress within paradigms rather than war between paradigms,
especially as the latter would be inconclusive. The human condition is precarious. This
is still the age of thermonuclear weapons. Globalization continues to disrupt lives as
countries realign their economies on the basis of comparative advantage, production
chains are disaggregated and wrapped around the globe, and financial crises in one country
reverberate around the planet in minutes. Transnational terrorism threatens to turn
otherwise local disputes into global conflicts, and leave everyone everywhere feeling
unsafe. And all the while, anthropomorphic change transforms the global climate with
potentially catastrophic consequences. Under these circumstances, we as a society need
all the help we can get. There is no monopoly on knowledge. And there is no guarantee
that any one kind of knowledge generated and understood within any one epistemology
or ontology is always and everywhere more useful than another. To assert otherwise is an
act of supreme intellectual hubris.
This is not a plea to let a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand intellectual flowers
bloom. Scholars working in cloistered isolation are not likely to produce great insights,
especially when the social problems besetting us today are of such magnitude. All knowledge
must be disciplined. That is, knowledge must be shared by and with others if it is to
count as knowledge. Positivists and post-positivists are each working hard to improve and
clarify the standards of knowledge within their respective paradigms. This is an important
turn for both, as it will facilitate progress within each even as it raises barriers to exchange
across approaches. So, if not a thousand flowers, it is perhaps better for teams of scholars
to tend a small number of separate gardens, grow what they can best, and share when possible
with the others and, especially, the broader societies of which they are part.
Conclusion
Do not mourn the end of theory, if by theory we mean the Great Debates in International
Relations. Too often, the Great Debates and especially the paradigm wars became contests
over the truth status of assumptions. Declarations that ‘I am a realist’ or
Lake	 581
pronouncements that ‘As a liberal, I predict …’were statements of a near quasi-religious
faith, not conclusions that followed from a falsifiable theory with stronger empirical support.
Likewise, assertions that positivism or post-positivism is a better approach to
understanding world politics are similarly blinding. The Great Debates were too often
academic in the worst sense of that term. Mid-level theory flourished in the interstices of
these debates for decades and now, with the waning of the paradigm wars, is coming into
its own within the field. I regard this as an entirely positive development. We may be
witnessing the demise of a particular kind of grand theory, but theory — in the
plural — lives. Long may they reign.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Notes
  1.	 As an example, see the so-called relative gains debate (Grieco, 1993). But once Snidal (1991)
showed that one could derive ‘absolute gains’behavior from a model that assumed states were
pursuing relative gains and Powell (1991) showed that you could also do the reverse, making
the debate not a theoretical but an empirical one, scholars quickly lost interest.
 2.	 Nota bene: Until the fourth part of this article, I use the term ‘paradigm’ as commonly used
in International Relations to refer to a family of theories sharing certain core assumptions
and not in the Kuhnian sense of a single, hegemonic approach to an entire field (Kuhn,
1970).
  3.	 For a current history of the discipline written from the perspective of competing paradigms,
see Katzenstein et al. (1998). For the continuing influence of the paradigms, one need only
consult the organization of the field’s most distinguished handbooks; see Reus-Smit and
Snidal (2008) and Carlsnaes et al. (2013).
  4.	 For a discussion of the interwar peace movement both in and outside of the academy, see
Lynch (1999).
  5.	 For recent reassessments of early realists, see Cox (2000) on E.H. Carr and Williams (2007)
on Hans Morgenthau.
  6.	 The key essays in this debate were reprinted in Knorr and Rosenau (1969).
 7.	 On the difference between rationalism and intentionalism, see Dennett (1989). Nearly all
social science theories are intentionalist, but not all are rationalist.
  8.	 For an attempt to survey the state of the discipline, see Maliniak et al. (2011).
  9.	 Katzenstein et al. (1998: 23–29) discuss domestic politics, but even here it is largely defined
by how it intersects with the major paradigms.
10.	 For instance, the rationalist theory of war (Fearon, 1995) and neorealist theory (Van Evera,
1999) are consistent with realism, as is power preponderance theory (Organski and Kugler,
1980).
11.	 See the debate between offensive (Mearsheimer, 2001) and defensive realism (Waltz, 1979),
or that between classical realists (Morgenthau, 1978), neorealists (Waltz, 1979), and neoclassical
realists (Lobell et al., 2009).
12.	 On the Kantian tripod, see Russett and Oneal (2001).
13.	 Drawn from Bueno de Mesquita et al. (1999: 791).
14.	 Note, this is different from the ‘Chicago School’ of International Relations that developed
around the same time. This must have been a heady time in Hyde Park.
582		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
References
Abdelal R (2001) National Purpose in the World Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Abdelal R (2007) Capital Rules: The Construction of Global Finance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Adler E (2013) Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, contributions, and debates. In:
Carlsnaes W, Risse T and Simmons BA (eds) Handbook of International Relations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 112–144.
Allison GT (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Ashley RK (1986) The poverty of neorealism. In: Keohane RO (ed.) Neorealism and its Critics.
New York: Columbia University Press, 255–300.
Axelrod R (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Barkawi T and Laffey M (eds) (2001) Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic
Peace Debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Baum MA and Lake DA (2003) The political economy of growth: Democracy and human capital.
American Journal of Political Science 47(2): 333–347.
Beard CA (1934) The Idea of the National Interest: An Analytical Study in American Foreign
Policy. New York: Macmillan.
Bennett SD and Stam AC (1996) The duration of interstate wars, 1812–1985. American Political
Science Review 90: 239–257.
Bennett SD and Stam AC (1998) The declining advantages of democracy: A combined model of
war outcomes and duration. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42: 344–366.
Bernhard W, Broz JL and Clark WR (eds) (2003) The Political Economy of Monetary Institutions.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brady HE and Collier D (2010) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Breecher M and Wilkenfeld J (1997) A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Brown C (1994) Turtles all the way down: Anti-foundationalism, critical theory, and International
Relations. Millennium 23(2): 213–236.
Bueno de Mesquita B, Morrow JD, Siverson RM et al. (1999) An institutional explanation of the
democratic peace. American Political Science Review 93(4): 791–807.
Bueno de Mesquita B, Smith A, Siverson RM et al. (2003) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Bull H (1969) International theory: The case for a classical approach. In: Knorr K and Rosenau JN
(eds) Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 20–38.
Buthe T and Mattli W (2011) The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the
World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carlsnaes W, Risse T and Simmons BA (eds) (2013) Handbook of International Relations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chwieroth J (2010) Capital Ideas: The IMF and the Rise of Financial Liberalization. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cohen BJ (2007) The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British IPE so different? Review
of International Political Economy 14(2): 197–219.
Cooper RN (1968) The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the Atlantic Community.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cox GW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lake	 583
Cox M (ed.) (2000) E.H.Carr: A Critical Appraisal. New York: Palgrave.
Dennett DC (1989) The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Devetak R (1996) Postmodernism. In: Burchill S, Linklater A, Devetak R et al. (eds) Theories of
International Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 161–187.
Dixon W (1994) Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political
Science Review 88(1): 14–32.
Doyle MW (1986) Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review 80: 1151–
1169.
Dunne T, Cox M and Booth K (eds) (1998) The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations,
1919–1999. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunning T (2012) Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Elman C and Elman MF (eds) (2003) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the
Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Enloe C (1990) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Evangelista M (1999) Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Farber H and Gowa J (1995) Politics and peace. International Security 20(2): 123–146.
Fearon JD (1995) Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization 49(3): 379–414.
Frieden JA (1988a) Capital politics: Creditors and the international political economy. Journal of
Public Policy 8(3/4): 265–286.
Frieden JA (1988b) Sectoral conflict and US foreign economic policy, 1914–1940. International
Organization 42(1): 59–90.
Frieden JA (1991) Invested interests: The politics of national economic policies in a world of
global finance. International Organization 45(4): 425–451.
Frieden JA and Lake DA (2005) International Relations as a social science: Rigor and relevance.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600(July): 136–156.
Frieden JA and Rogowski R (1996) The impact of the international economy on national policies:
An analytical overview. In: Keohane RO and Milner HV (eds) Internationalization and
Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 25–47.
Gartzke E (2007) The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 166–191.
George AL and Bennett A (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goertz G and Mahony J (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in
the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goldstein J (1988) Ideas, institutions, and American trade policy. International Organization
42(1): 179–217.
Goldstein J, Margalit Y and Rivers D (2007) Producer, Consumer, Family Member: The Relationship
Between Trade Attitudes and Family Status. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Gourevitch P (1977) International trade, domestic coalitions, and liberty: Comparative responses
to the crisis of 1873–1896. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8(2): 281–313.
Gourevitch P and Shinn J (2005) Political Power and Corporate Control: The New Global Politics
of Corporate Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gowa J (1983) Closing the Gold Window: Domestic Politics and the End of Bretton Woods. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Grieco JM (1993) Understanding the problem of international cooperation: The limits of neoliberal
institutionalism and the future of realist theory. In: Baldwin DA (ed.) Neorealism and
Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 301–338.
584		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
Haggard S (1990) Pathways from the Periphery: The Newly Industrializing Countries in the International
System. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hiscox MJ (2002) International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hoffmann S (1977) An American social science: International Relations. Daedalus 106(3): 41–60.
Holsti OR and Rosenau JN (1984) American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdown
of Consensus. Winthrop, MA: Allen & Unwin.
Hyde S (2010) The future of field experiments in International Relations. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 628: 72–84.
Jackson PT (2011) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and
its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.
Jensen NM (2006) Nation-States and the Multinational Corporation: A Political Economy of Foreign
Direct Investment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jervis R (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kahler M (1997) Inventing International Relations: International Relations theory after 1945. In:
Doyle MW and Ikenberry GJ (eds) New Thinking in International Relations. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 20–53.
Kahler M and Lake DA (eds) (2003) Governance in a Global Economy: Political Authority in
Transition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Katzenstein PJ (ed.) (1978) Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced
Industrial States. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Katzenstein PJ (ed.) (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein PJ, Keohane RO and Krasner SD (1998) International organization and the study of
world politics. International Organization 52(4): 645–685.
Keohane RO (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane RO (1988) International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly
32(4): 379–396.
Keohane RO and Nye JS Jr (eds) (1972) Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Keohane RO and Nye JS Jr (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
King G, Keohane RO and Verba S (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative
Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Klotz A and Lynch C (2007) Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Knorr K and Rosenau JN (eds) (1969) Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krasner SD (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kuhn TS (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos I (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers,
Volume 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lake DA (1992) Power pacifists: Democratic states and war. American Political Science Review
86(1): 24–37.
Lake DA (2009) Open economy politics: A critical review. Review of International Organization
4: 219–244.
Lake DA (2011) Why ‘isms’ are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments
to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465–480.
Lake	 585
Lake DA and Baum MA (2001) The invisible hand of democracy: Political control and the provision
of public services. Comparative Political Studies 34(6): 587–621.
Lake DA and Powell R (1999) Strategic Choice and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Lapid Y (1989) The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era.
International Studies Quarterly 33(3): 235–254.
Leblang D, Fitzgerald J and Teets J (2007) Defying the Law of Gravity: The Political Economy of
International Migration. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
Levy J (1989) The causes of war: A review of theories and evidence. In: Tetlock PE, Husbands
JL, Jervis R et al. Behavior, Society, and Nuclear War, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Linklater A (1992) The question of the next stage in International Relations theory: A criticaltheoretical
point of view. Millennium 21(1): 77–98.
Linklater A and Suganami H (2006) The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary
Reassessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lobell SE, Ripsman N and Taliaferro JW (eds) (2009) Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign
Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Long D and Wilson P (eds) (1995) Thinkers of the Twenty Year’s Crisis: Inter-War Idealism Reassessed.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lynch C (1999) Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
McDermott R (2011) New directions for experimental work in International Relations. International
Studies Quarterly 55: 503–520.
Maliniak D, Oakes A, Peterson S et al. (2011) International Relations in the US academy. International
Studies Quarterly 55: 437–464.
Maoz Z and Russett B (1993) Normative and structure causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986.
American Political Science Review 87(3): 624–638.
Mearsheimer JJ (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Milner HV (1988) Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International
Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Milner HV (1997) Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International
Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Milner HV (2006) Why multilateralism? Foreign aid and domestic principal–agent problems. In:
Hawkins DG, Lake DA, Nielson DL et al. (eds) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 107–139.
Morgenthau HJ (1978) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Mousseau M (1998) Democracy and compromise in militarized interstate conflicts, 1816–1992.
Journal of Conflict Resolution 42: 210–230.
Mundell RA (1957) International trade and factor mobility. American Economic Review 47(3):
321–335.
Naoi M and Kume I (2011) Explaining mass support for agricultural protectionism: Evidence from
a survey experiment during the Glbao recession. International Organization 65(4): 771–795.
Odell JS (1982) US International Monetary Policy: Markets, Power, and Ideas as Sources of
Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Organski AFK and Kugler J (1980) The War Ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Osiander A (1998) Rereading early twentieth-century IR theory: Idealism revisited. International
Studies Quarterly 42: 409–432.
Owen JM IV (2002) The foreign imposition of domestic institutions. International Organization
56(2): 375–409.
586		 European Journal of International Relations 19(3)
Oye KA (ed.) (1985) Cooperation under Anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pinto PM (2013) Partisan Investment in the Global Economy: Why the Left Loves Foreign Direct
Investment and FDI Loves the Left. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Popper K (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Posen BR (1984) The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the
World Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Powell R (1991) Absolute and relative gains in International Relations theory. American Political
Science Review 83: 1303–1320.
Powell R (1999) In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reiter D and Stam AC (1998) Democracy, war initiation, and victory. American Political Science
Review 92(2): 377–389.
Reus-Smit C and Snidal D (eds) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rho S and Tomz M (2012) Industry, self-interest, and individiual preferences over trade policy.
Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society. University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA.
Richards J (1999) Toward a positive theory of international institutions: Regulating international
aviation markets. International Organization 53(1): 1–37.
Rogowski R (1989) Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosecrance RN (1987) The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern
World. New York: Basic Books.
Ruggie JG (1998) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization.
New York: Routledge.
Russett B and Oneal JR (2001) Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International
Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton.
Salter MB and Mutlu CE (eds) (2013) Research Methods in Critical Security Studies. New York:
Routledge.
Schelling TC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scheve K and Stasavage D (2006) Religion and preferences for social insurance. Quarterly Journal
of Political Science 1(3): 255–286.
Schmidt BC (2013) On the history and historiography of International Relations. In: Carlsnaes W,
Risse T and Simmons BA (eds) Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 3–28.
Schultz KA (2001) Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz-Shea P and Yanow D (2012) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes.
New York: Routledge.
Sil R and Katzenstein PJ (2010) Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World
Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Singer JD (1969) The incompleat theorist: Insight without evidence. In: Knorr K and Rosenau JN
(eds) Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 62–86.
Siverson RM (1995) Democracies and war participation: In defense of the institutional constraints
argument. European Journal of International Relations 1: 481–490.
Sjoberg L (ed.) (2010) Gender and International Security: Feminist Perspectives. New York:
Routledge.
Sjoberg L and Via S (eds) (2010) Gender, War, and Militarism. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Lake	 587
Small M and Singer JD (1976) The war-proneness of democratic regimes, 1816–1965. Jerusalem
Journal of International Relations 1(1): 57–69.
Snidal D (1991) Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation. American Political
Science Review 85: 701–726.
Snyder GH and Diesing P (1977) Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision-Making, and
System Structure in International Crises. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Snyder JL (1984) The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of
1914. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tetlock PE and Belkin A (eds) (1996) Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics:
Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Tickner AB and Wæver O (eds) (2009) International Relations Scholarship around the World:
Worlding Beyond the West. New York: Routledge.
Tickner JA (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global
Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tickner JA (1997) You just don’t understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and IR
theorists. International Studies Quarterly 41: 611–632.
Towns AE (2010) Women and States: Norms and Hierarchies in International Society. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsebelis G (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Van Evera S (1999) Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Wæver O (1996) The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In: Smith S, Booth K and Zalweski
M (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 149–185.
Wæver O (1998) The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments
in International Relations. International Organization 52(4): 687–727.
Walt SM (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz KN (1967) Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience.
Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmetal Studies Press.
Waltz KN (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weaver C and Phillips N (eds) (2010) International Political Economy and the Transatlantic
Divide. London: Routledge.
Wendt A (1987) The agent–structure problem in International Relations theory. International
Organization 41(3): 335–370.
Wendt A (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams MC (ed.) (2007) Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International
Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Woods N and Mattli W (eds) (2009) The Politics of Global Regulation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Yanow D (2000) Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author biography
David A. Lake is the Jerri-Ann and Gary E. Jacobs Professor of Social Sciences, Distinguished
Professor of Political Science, Associate Dean of Social Sciences, and Director of Yankelovich
Center for Social Science Research at the University of California, San Diego, USA.