¹ For example, see Rossenne, Shabtai, “The International Court of Justice and The United Nations: Reflections on the Period 1946–1954,” International Organization 9 (05 1955), pp. 244–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eichelberger, Clark, The UN: The First Ten Years (New York: Harper & Row, 1955)Google Scholar; Padelford, Norman J. and Goodrich, Leland M., eds., “The United Nations: Accomplishments and Prospects,” special edition of International Organization 19 (Summer 1965)Google Scholar; Cohen, Benjamin V., “The United Nations in Its Twentieth Year,” International Organization 20 (Spring 1966), pp. 185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Luck, Edward C., “The UN at 40: A Supporter's Lament,” Foreign Policy 57 (Winter 1984–1985), pp. 143–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Cohen, , “The United Nations in Its Twentieth Year,” p. 185Google Scholar. The author was quoting Abraham Lincoln.

³ Piano, Jack C. and Olton, Roy, The International Relations Dictionary, 2d ed. (Kalamazoo, Mich.: New Issues, 1979), p. 288Google Scholar.

⁴ Alighieri, Dante, On World Government, trans. Schneider, Herbert W., 2d rev. ed. (New York: Liberal Arts, 1957)Google Scholar; Dubois, Pierre, The Recovery of the Holy Land, trans. Brandt, Walter I. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Saint-Simon, Henri de, Social Organization: The Science of Man and Other Writings (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), pp. 46–50Google Scholar; Bentham, Jeremy, Plan for a Universal and Perpetual Peace (London: Grotius Society, 1927), pp. 26–32Google Scholar; Kant, Immanuel, Eternal Peace and Other International Essays, trans. Hastie, W. (Boston: World Peace Foundation, 1914)Google Scholar.

⁵ For a discussion of early “world order” writers prior to the 20th century, see Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace (London: Cambridge University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Hemleben, Sylvester J., Plans for World Peace through Six Centuries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943)Google Scholar; and Beres, Louis Rene and Targ, Harry L., Reordering the Planet: Constructing Alternative World Futures (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁶ Reinsch, Paul, Public International Unions (Boston: Ginn, 1911)Google Scholar; Sayre, Francis B., Experiments in International Administration (New York: Harper, 1919)Google Scholar.

⁷ For a concise overview of the evolution of the international relations field as a whole, see Palmer, Norman D., “The Study of International Relations in the United States: Perspectives of Half a Century,” International Studies Quarterly 24 (09 1980), pp. 343–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Olson, W. C., “The Growth of a Discipline,” in Porter, B., ed., The Aberysthwyth Papers: International Politics, 1919–1969 (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 3–29Google Scholar.

⁸ Typical of this literature was Webster, C. K., The League of Nations in Theory and Practice (London: Allen & Unwin, 1933)Google Scholar; Potter, Pitman B., An Introduction to the Study of International Organization (New York: Century, 1922)Google Scholar; Miller, David H., The Drafting of the Covenant, 2 vols. (New York: Putnam, 1928)Google Scholar; Conwell-Evans, T. P., The League Council in Action (London: Oxford University Press, 1929)Google Scholar; Hudson, Manley O., The Permanent Court of International Justice (New York: Macmillan, 1925)Google Scholar; and Manning, C. A. W., ed., Peaceful Change: An International Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1937)Google Scholar. For a discussion of international organization literature in the interwar period, see Yalem, Ronald J., “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965Google Scholar; A Survey of the Literature,” Background 10 (05 1966), pp. 2–5Google Scholar.

⁹ Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” p. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ranshoffen-Wertheimer, Egon F., The International Secretariat (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945)Google Scholar; Mitrany, David, A Working Peace System (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1943)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Thucydides, , The Peloponnesian War, ed. Finley, J. H. Jr, (Crawley translation) (New York: Modern Library, 1951)Google Scholar; Machiavelli, , The Prince, trans. Ricci, Luigi (New York: Oxford University Press, 1935)Google Scholar.

¹² Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan, 1939)Google Scholar. For a discussion of this debate, see Parkinson, F., The Philosophy of International Relations: A Study in the History of Thought (London: Sage, 1977), chap. 10Google Scholar; Herz, John H., Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951)Google Scholar; and the series of essays in International Studies Quarterly 25 (06 1981), pp. 179–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1948)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Deutsch, Karl W., The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968), p. vGoogle Scholar. One can argue, as Arend Lijphart does, that realism and idealism did not represent two distinct paradigms but, rather, that “the conflict between realism and idealism was a disagreement within the traditional paradigm.” Lijphart, , “The Structure of the Theoretical Revolution in International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly 18 (03 1974), p. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Claude, Inis L. Jr, “Comment,” International Studies Quarterly 25 (06 1981), p. 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Hans Morgenthau's concern with “ought” questions is commented on by Herz, John, a fellow realist, in Herz, “Political Realism Revisited,” International Studies Quarterly 25 (06 1981), p. 184Google Scholar. Morgenthau himself insisted that theory should be not merely a “guide to understanding” but an “ideal for action.” Morgenthau, , “The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations,” in Fox, William T. R., ed., Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959), p. 18Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” pp. 6, 8, 24Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Hoole, Francis W., “Changing Scholarship on the United Nations” (Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, 27–31 03 1984, pp. 2–5)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Goodrich, Leland M. and Hambro, Edward, eds., The Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents (Boston: World Peace Foundation, 1949)Google Scholar; Walters, F. P., A History of the League of Nations, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1952)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Schwebel, Stephen M., The Secretary-General of the United Nations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haviland, H. Field, The Political Role of the General Assembly (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1951)Google Scholar; Lissitzyn, Oliver, Thelnternational Court of Justice (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1951)Google Scholar. For a survey of articles examining various institutional aspects of the UN, see Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” pp. 10–15Google Scholar.

²¹ For example, Goodrich, Leland M. and Simons, Anne P., The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1955)Google Scholar; Frye, William, A United Nations Peace Force (New York: Oceana, 1957)Google Scholar; and Asher, Robert et al. , The United Nations and Promotion of the General Welfare (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1957)Google Scholar.

²² Clark, Grenville and Sohn, Louis B., World Peace through World Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958)Google Scholar. See also Mangone, Gerard J., The Idea and Practice of World Government (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951)Google Scholar.

²³ Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” p. 6Google Scholar.

²⁴ Rothwell, C. E., “International Organization and World Politics,” International Organization 3 (11 1949), pp. 605–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Padelford, Norman J., “The Use of the Veto,” International Organization 2 (06 1948), pp. 227–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ See, for example, Riggs, Robert, Politics in the United Nations: A Study of United States Influence in the General Assembly (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Ball, M. Margaret, “Bloc Voting in the General Assembly,” International Organization 5 (02 1951), pp. 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Claude, Inis L. Jr, Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization (New York: Random, 1956)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Potter, Pitman B., “Universalism vs. Regionalism in International Organization,” American Political Science Review 37 (10 1943), pp. 850–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ball, M. Margaret, The Problem of Inter-American Organization (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1944)Google Scholar. For other early writings on regional organization, see Padelford, Norman J., “A Selected Bibliography on Regionalism and Regional Arrangements,” International Organization 10 (11 1956), pp. 575–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Harold Jacobson has noted that “the relative number of universal membership, specific purpose organizations was substantially greater in the interwar period than it was in the years before World War I or after World War II” and concludes that “the interwar period was clearly the high tide of universalism.” See Jacobson, Harold K., Networks on Interdependence, 2d ed. (New York: Knopf, 1979), pp. 51–53Google Scholar.

²⁹ For example, see Zurcher, Arnold J., The Struggle to Unite Europe: 1940–1958 (New York: New York University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Mason, Harry L., The European Coal and Steel Community (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robertson, A. H., The Council of Europe (New York: Praeger, 1957)Google Scholar; and Hurtig, Serge, “The European Common Market,” International Conciliation 517 (03 1958), pp. 321–81Google Scholar.

³⁰ For example, see Fenwick, Charles G., “The Inter-American Regional System: Fifty Years of Progress,” American Journal of International Law 50 (01 1956), pp. 18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Padelford, Norman J., “Cooperation in the Central American Region: The Organization of Central American States,” International Organization 11 (Winter 1957), pp. 41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Castaneda, Jorge, “Pan Americanism and Regionalism,” International Organization 10 (08 1956), pp. 373–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ There were, of course, numerous studies of alliances in the early postwar era. See Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” pp. 19–20Google Scholar.

³² Claude, , Swords into Plowshares; Richard W. Van Wagenen, Research in the International Organization Field (Princeton: Center for Research on World Political Institutions, 1952)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst B., “Types of Collective Security: An Examination of Operational Concepts,” American Political Science Review 49 (03 1955), pp. 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Guetzkow, Harold, Multiple Loyalties: Theoretical Approach to a Problem in International Organization (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955)Google Scholar; Haas, , Uniting of Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W. et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar. Although Deutsch was concerned with “political integration” rather than “regional integration” per se, his work was clearly relevant to regional integration theory.

³³ Liska, George, International Equilibrium (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Liska's work attempted to synthesize idealist and realist thought.

³⁴ Writings that attempted to analyze how regionalism related to the UN and universalism included Bebr, G., “Regional Organizations: A United Nations Problem,” American Journal of International Law 49 (04 1955), pp. 166–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Padelford, Norman J., “Regional Organization and the United Nations,” International Organization 8 (05 1954), pp. 203–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Haas, Ernst B., “Regionalism, Functionalism, and Universal Organization,” World Politics 8 (01 1956), pp. 238–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Goodrich, Padelford and, “The United Nations: Accomplishments and Prospects”; Bailey, Sydney, The General Assembly of the United Nations (New York: Praeger, 1960)Google Scholar, and Bailey, , The Secretariat of the United Nations (New York: Praeger, 1962)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst B., Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Hovet, Thomas, Bloc Politics in the United Nations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alker, Hayward R., “Dimensions of Conflict in the General Assembly,” American Political Science Review 58 (09 1964), pp. 142–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Alker, and Russett, Bruce M., World Politics in the General Assembly (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

³⁶ For a bibliography of regional integration studies examining Western Europe and other regions in the 1960s, see Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” pp. 30–35Google Scholar; and Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A., eds., “Regional Integration: Theory and Research,” special issue of International Organization 24 (Autumn 1970)Google Scholar. In the latter volume Ernst Haas provides an overview of fifteen years of regional integration scholarship in “The Study of Regional Integration: Reflections on the Joy and Anguish of Pretheorizing,” pp. 607–46.

³⁷ As examples of federalist thought, see Spinelli, Altiero, The Eurocrats (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966)Google Scholar; and Hay, Peter, Federalism and Supranational Organizations: Patterns for New Legal Structures (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

³⁸ See Haas, Emst B. and Schmitter, Philippe C., “Economics and Differential Patterns of Political Integration: Projections about Unity in Latin America,” International Political Communities (New York: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 259–99Google Scholar; and Haas, Ernst B., “The Uniting of Europe and the Uniting of Latin America,” Journal of Common Market Studies 5 (06 1967), pp. 315–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ For an example of transactionalist thought, see Deutsch, Karl W. et al., France, Germany, and the Western Alliance (New York: Scribner's, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Deutsch, Karl W. et al., “Political Community and the North Atlantic Area,” in International Political Communities (New York: Doubleday, 1966), p. 3Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Lindberg, and Scheingold, , “Regional Integration: Theory and Research,” p. vGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Haas, , “The Study of Regional Integration,” pp. 607, 620Google Scholar.

⁴³ Haas, Ernst B., “International Integration: The European and the Universal Process,” in International Political Communities (New York: Doubleday, 1966), p. 129Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Holsti, K. J., “Retreat from Utopia: International Relations Theory, 1945–1970,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 4 (1971), p. 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ Cox, Robert W., ed., The Politics of International Organizations: Studies in Multilateral Social and Economic Agencies (New York: Praeger, 1970), p. 15Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Alger, Chadwick F., “Research on Research: A Decade of Quantitative and Field Research on International Organizations,” International Organization 24 (Summer 1970), p. 443CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an examination of the impact of behavioralism on the international organization field in the 1960s, see also Riggs, Robert E. et al. , “Behavioralism in the Study of the United Nations,” World Politics 22 (01 1970), pp. 197–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ The impact of the realist paradigm on quantitative research was demonstrated by Handelman, John et al. , “Color It Morgenthau: A Data-Based Assessment of Quantitative International Relations” (Paper presented to the International Studies Association, New York City, 1973)Google Scholar. For the contrasting view that behavioralism resisted the realism paradigm and offered an alternative paradigm, see Lijphart, , “The Structure of the Theoretical Revolution in International Relations,” pp. 60–68Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Yalem, , “The Study of International Organization, 1920–1965,” p. 39Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ The increased interest of international organization scholars in the larger international system converged somewhat with the increased interest of international politics generalists in international organizations. See Hanrieder, Wolfram F., “International Organizations and International Systems,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 (09 1966), pp. 297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Young, Oran R., “The United Nations and the International System,” International Organization 22 (Autumn 1968), pp. 90–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hoffmann, Stanley, “International Organization and the International System,” International Organization 24 (Summer 1970), pp. 389–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Hoffmann, , “International Organization and the International System,” pp. 389, 400–401Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Meadows, Donella H. et al. , The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe, 1972)Google Scholar. The planetary perspective was also represented by other works published around the same time, such as Falk, Richard A., This Endangered Planet (New York: Random, 1972)Google Scholar, and Brown, Lester R., World without Borders (New York: Random, 1972)Google Scholar. A book that suggested how the Arab oil embargo reflected the growing complexity of world politics, particularly as regards the relationship between state and nonstate actors was Vernon, Raymond, ed., The Oil Crisis (New York: Norton, 1976)Google Scholar.

⁵² Realist and globalist positions were more complicated than this brief summation suggests, and were characterized by many variations. Perhaps the best statement of the globalist position (alternatively labeled modernist or transnationalist) was Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977)Google Scholar; they acknowledged that “sometimes realist assumptions will be accurate… but frequently complex interdependence will provide a better portrayal of reality” (p. 24). Keohane and Nye were among the first to draw attention to the growing importance of transnational relations and nonstate actors in world politics in their edited volume Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar. Other works typifying the globalist paradigm in the 1970s included Pirages, Dennis, Global Ecopolitics (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1978)Google Scholar; Mansbach, Richard W., Ferguson, Yale G., and Lampert, Donald E., The Web of World Politics: Nonstate Actors in the Global System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976)Google Scholar; and Morse, Edward L., Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: Free, 1976)Google Scholar. A variation of the globalist paradigm was the “world society” approach, as represented by Burton, John W., World Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ For a discussion of this debate, see Maghroori, Ray and Ramberg, Bennett, eds., Globalism vs. Realism: International Relations' Third Debate (Boulder: Westview, 1982)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ For example, Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A., Europe's Would-Be Polity (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970)Google Scholar; and Nye, Joseph S., Peace in Parts (Boston:Little, Brown, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Haas, Ernst B., “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” International Organization 30 (Spring 1976), p. 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These views had been developed earlier in his Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory. Research Series #25 (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1975)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Haas, , “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” pp. 178, 179Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 177.

⁵⁸ Haas discusses the relationship between integration and interdependence and the extent to which the terms referred to similar or compatible phenomena in ibid., pp. 208–11; see also Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “Interdependence and Integration,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 363–415Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Puchala, Donald J. and Fagan, Stuart I., “International Politics in the 1970's: The Search for a Perspective,” International Organization 28 (Spring 1974), p. 259Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ The acronyms IGO and NGO did not become fashionable until the 1970s, when the globalist paradigm suggested the importance of this typology of international organizations. Earlier international organization texts, for example, rarely used this terminology. Although nongovernmental organizations had long been recognized by observers of international organization, the phenomenon had not attracted much study.

⁶¹ Goodrich, Leland M. and Kay, David A., eds., International Organization: Politics and Process (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), p. xxiGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Keohane, Robert O., “International Organization and the Crisis of Interdependence,” International Organization 29 (Spring 1975), p. 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Keohane cited similar arguments made by Ruggie, John G. in ” The Structure of International Organization: Contingency, Complexity, and Post-Modern Form,” Peace Research Society Papers 18 (1971), pp. 73–91Google Scholar.

⁶³ Keohane, and Nye, , Power and Interdependence, p. 240Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ For example, Cox, Robert W. et al. , The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; and Jacobson, Networks of Interdependence, which examined international organizations in general terms but focused mostly on the UN system.

⁶⁵ Editor's note in International Organization 24 (Winter 1970), p. vCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ Dixon, William J., “Research on Research Revisited: Another Half Decade of Quantitative and Field Research on International Organizations,” International Organization 31 (Winter 1977), pp. 65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ Keohane, Robert O., “Institutionalization in the United Nations General Assembly,” International Organization 23 (Autumn 1969), p. 859CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmitter, Philippe, “The ‘Organizational Development’ of International Organizations,” International Organization 25 (Autumn 1971), p. 917CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ A. A. Said discussed the “crisis of relevance” experienced by the international relations field in “Recent Theories of International Relations: An Overview,” in Said, , ed., Theory of International Relations: The Crisis of Relevance (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968)Google Scholar; see also Neal, Fred Warner and Hamlett, Bruce D., “The Never-Never Land of International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly 13 (09 1969), pp. 281–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ David Easton trumpeted the postbehavioral revolution in 1969, arguing that “research about and constructive development of values” were “indistinguishable parts of the study of politics.” Easton, , “The New Revolution in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 63 (12 1969), p. 1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ The theme of the 1977 annual meeting of the International Studies Association, World Wide Appraisal of Institutions: Toward Realizing Human Dignity, reflected the postbehavioral mood of the international relations discipline. The application of a policy science perspective to the study of “world order values” was exemplified by Snyder, Richard C., Hermann, Charles F., and well, Harold D. Lass, “A Global Monitoring System: Appraising the Effects of Government on Human Dignity,” International Studies Quarterly 20 (06 1976), pp. 221–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kelman, Herbert C., “The Conditions, Criteria, and Dialectics of Human Dignity: A Transnational Perspective,” International Studies Quarterly 21 (09 1977), pp. 529–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ WOMP studies included such works as Mendlovitz, Saul H., On the Creation of a Just World Order: Preferred Worlds for the 1990s (New York: Free, 1975)Google Scholar; and Kothari, Rajni, Footsteps into the Future: Diagnosis of the Present World and a Design for an Alternative (New York: Free, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁷² Morgenthau, Hans J., “The New Diplomacy of Movement,” Encounter 43 (08 1974), p. 57Google Scholar.

⁷³ Globalists went beyond the earlier work of Graham Allison and others who, in questioning the traditional “billiard ball” view of nation-states, had confined their analyses largely to foreign-policy decision making.

⁷⁴ Singer, J. David, “War and Other Problems in the Global System,” International Organization 31 (Summer 1977), pp. 565, 568CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ See Krasner, Stephen D., “Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics,” Comparative Politics 16, no. 2 (1984), pp. 223–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Roder, Karl-Heinz, ed., “The Future of the State,” special issue of International Political Science Review 6, no. 1 (1985), p. 9Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Among those scholars most prominently labeled “neorealists” were Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin. See Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar; and Gilpin, Robert G., War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although both Waltz and Gilpin had made their views known much earlier, it was not until the 1980s that neorealism became an established school of thought. As with globalists, neorealists came in many varieties.

⁷⁸ Ashley, Richard K., “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 225–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ Gilpin, Robert G., “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,” response to Ashley, in International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), p. 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁰ For example, see Mansbach, Richard W. and Vasquez, John A., In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

⁸¹ For example, Keohane, building on earlier theorizing in Power and Interdependence, accepted some elements of the “theory of hegemonic stability” but sought to refine it using “complex interdependence” constructs drawn from the globalist paradigm. See Keohane, Robert O., “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole R. et al. , eds., Change in the International System (Boulder: Westview, 1980), pp. 131–62Google Scholar. In his critique of neorealism, Ashley identifies Keohane as a “structural realist” in the same category as Gilpin; see Ashley, , “The Poverty of Neorealism,” p. 227Google Scholar.

⁸² Young, Oran R., “International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation,” World Politics 32 (04 1980), pp. 332–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ Keohane, and Nye, , Power and Interdependence, p. 5Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Haas, Ernst B., “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes,” World Politics 32 (04 1980), p. 396CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ Krasner, Stephen D., ed., “International Regimes,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Puchala, Donald J. and Hopkins, Raymond F., “International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), pp. 248–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ Stein, Arthur A., “Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), p. 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Definitional problems are discussed and some clarifications offered in Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 57–60Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ For a summary of the theory, see Keohane, , “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” pp. 136–37Google Scholar. Also see Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ See footnote 81. Also, see Haas, , “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes,” pp. 359–61Google Scholar.

^90. Strange, Susan, “Cave! Hie Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), p. 479CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ Keohane, Robert O., “Editor's Note,” International Organization 33 (Summer 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹² Katzenstein, Peter J., “Editor's Note,” International Organization 35 (Spring 1981)Google Scholar.

⁹³ The normative biases and implications of regime analysis are commented upon in Strange, , “Cave! Hie Dragones,” pp. 486–93Google Scholar; and Ashley, , “The Poverty of Neorealism,” pp. 259–61Google Scholar. Haas argues that different "political values" underlie different views of regimes; see Haas, Ernst B., “Words Can Hurt You; or, Who Said What to Whom about Regimes,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), pp. 207–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a dissenting view on the static bias of regime analysis, see Keohane, After Hegemony.

⁹⁴ David Easton has made a similar observation about political science generally, noting that “political science seems to have lost its purpose,” in his “Political Science in the United States: Past and Present,” in Roder, Karl-Heinz, ed., special issue of International Political Science Review 6, no. 1 (1985), pp. 133–52Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Holsti, Ole R. et al. , eds., Change in the International System (Boulder: Westview, 1980), p. xviiGoogle Scholar. Likewise, James Caporaso begins a monograph by noting that “since the end of World War II there have been some profound changes in the structure of the international system.” Caporaso, , Functionalism and Regional Integration: A Logical and Empirical Assessment (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), p. 5Google Scholar. Numerous similar pronouncements can be cited.

⁹⁶ McClelland, Charles A., “International Relations: Wisdom or Science?” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy, rev. ed. (New York: Free, 1969), p. 4Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ As a recent article notes, “the main impetus for research on ‘global interdependence’” has “largely disappeared for the… reason that such thinking does not fit the more aggressively capitalist rhetoric and practice of the Reagan era.” Alker, Hayward R., and Biersteker, Thomas J. Jr, “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire,” International Studies Quarterly 28 (06 1984), p. 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁸ Puchala, and Fagan, , “International Politics in the 1970's: The Search fora Perspective,” p. 247Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Rosenau, James N., “A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics in an Era of Cascading Interdependence,” International Studies Quarterly 28 (09 1984), p. 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, p. 66Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ As John Ruggie argues, Waltz's thesis “provides no means by which to account for, or even to describe, the most important contextual change in international politics in this millenium: the shift from the medieval to the modern international system.” See Ruggie, , “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,” World Politics 35 (01 1983), p. 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰² Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 226Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Rosenau, , “A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics in an Era of Cascading Interdependence,” p. 298Google Scholar; Hoole, , “Changing Scholarship on the United Nations,” p. 10Google Scholar; Keohane, , “International Organization and the Crisis of Interdependence,” p. 360Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Keynes, John Maynard, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Macmillan, 1957), p. 383Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ The general infrequency with which policy makers are able to point to a particular scholarly research finding in the social sciences as substantially influencing their decisions is noted by Patton, Michael Q. et al. , “In Search of Impact,” in Weiss, Carol H., Using Social Research for Public Policy Making (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1977)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ For a discussion of problems encountered in the social sciences generally, see ibid.; and Lindblom, Charles E. and Cohen, David K., Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979)Google Scholar. For problems specifically in international relations, see George, Alexander L., “Theory for Policy in International Relations,” Policy Sciences 4 (12 1973), pp. 387–413Google Scholar; O'Leary, Michael K. et al. , “The Quest for Relevance: Quantitative International Relations Research and Government Foreign Affairs Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly 18 (06 1974), pp. 211–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Phillips, Warren R. and Hayes, Richard E., “Utilization of Computer Technology and Formal Social Science in Foreign Policy Decision-Making,” pp. 241–60Google Scholar in Report of the Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1975)Google Scholar, Appendix G; Rothstein, Robert L., Planning, Prediction and Policy-Making in Foreign Affairs (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972)Google Scholar; and Whiting, Allen S., “The Scholar and the Policy-Maker,” in Tanter, Raymond and Ullman, Richard H., eds., Theory and Policy and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 229–47Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Lindblom, and Cohen, , Usable Knowledge, pp. 47–48Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Popper, Karl K., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (New York: Harper & Row, 1963)Google Scholar; and Polanyi, Michael, The Tacit Dimension (New York: Anchor, 1967)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Haas, , “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes,” p. 370Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ See Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹¹ Rosenau, , “A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics in an Era of Cascading Interdependence,” p. 246Google Scholar.

¹¹² Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 227Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Gulick, Edward V., Europe's Classical Balance of Power (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ This view is expressed in Organski, A. F. K. and Kugler, Jacek, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Siverson, Randolph M. and Tennefoss, Michael R., “Power, Alliance, and the Escalation of International Conflict, 1815–1965,” American Political Science Review 78 (12 1984), pp. 1057–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Organski, A. F. K., World Politics, 2d ed. (New York: Knopf, 1968)Google Scholar; Kaplan, Morton A. and Katzenbach, Nicholas DeB., The Political Foundations of International Law (New York: Wiley, 1961)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London: Allen & Unwin, 1985), chap. 1Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Simon, Herbert A., “The Changing Theory and Changing Practice of Public Administration,” in Pool, Ithiel de Sola, ed., Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 98Google Scholar. The reluctance of policy makers to accept new knowledge in the social sciences is discussed in Lindblom and Cohen, Usable Knowledge; and Rich, Robert F., “Uses of Social Science Information by Federal Bureaucrats: Knowledge for Action versus Knowledge for Understanding,” in Weiss, , Using Social Research for Public Policy Making, pp. 199–211Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Haas, , “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes,” pp. 367–68Google Scholar. See also Rothstein, Robert L., “Consensual Knowledge and International Collaboration: Some Lessons from the Commodity Negotiations,” International Organization 38 (Autumn 1984), pp. 733–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁰ Claude, , Swords into Plowshares, p. 405Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Jacobson, Harold K., “The Global System and the Realization of Human Dignity and Justice,” International Studies Quarterly 26 (09 1982), p. 320CrossRefGoogle Scholar.