Keohane: The Demand for International Regimes

Keohane, R., 1982. The Demand for International Regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 332-355.

“We study international regimes because we are interested in understanding order in world politics. Conflict may be the rule; if so, institutionalized patterns of cooperation are particularly in need of explanation” (325).

“I explore why self-interested actors in world politics should seek, under certain circumstances, to establish international regimes through mutual agreement; and how we can account for fluctuations over time in the number, extent, and strength of international regimes, on the basis of rational calculations under varying circumstances” (325-6).

This article explores cooperation from the perspective of correcting standard hegemonic stability theory. Hegemonic stability theory posits that if there is a large power creating stability in the system, then this will allow for the rise of more stable international institutions. This article takes a more microeconomic approach to answering these questions, and sees hegemonic stability theory as being more supply-side in its orientation: “The theory of hegemonic stability can be viewed as focusing only on the supply of international regimes: according to the theory, the more concentrated power is in an international system, the greater the supply of international regimes at any level of demand” (327).

“The argument developed here is deliberately limited to the systemic level of analysis. In a systemic theory, the actors’ characteristics are given by assumption, rather than treated as variables; changes in outcomes are explained not on the basis of variations in these actors characteristics, but on the basis of changes in the attributes of the system itself” (327).

“This insight is the basis of the major ‘supply-side’ argument about international regimes, epitomized by the theory of hegemonic stability. According to this line of argument, hegemonic international systems should be characterized by levels of public goods production higher than in fragmented systems; and, if international regimes provide public goods, by stronger and more extensive international regimes” (333).

“This argument…ignores what I have called the ‘demand’ side of the problem of international regimes: why should governments desire to institute international regimes in the first place, and who much will they be willing to contribute to maintain them?” (333).

“Regimes are developed in part because actors in world politics believe that with such arrangements they will be able to make mutually beneficial agreements that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to attain. In other words, regimes are valuable to governments where, in their absence, certain mutually beneficial agreements would be impossible to consummate” (334).

But, why would states go to the trouble of making regimes if they could just agree with other states on an ad hoc basis? There must be some added value to regimes. Keohane points to market failures as an analogy: when markets do not “work”, ie., when they do not incentivize people to make decisions that would be mutually beneficial, other mechanisms are needed to move these inefficient processes forward.

Why is their demand for international regimes?

Asymmetric Information
Moral Hazard
Deception and Irresponsibility (344-5)

Regimes are not simply agreements.

There may be demand if the situation can be improved, and if the situation is sufficiently crappy: is there lack of clear legal frameworks? Lack of good information? Lack of beneficial transaction costs?

We expect to see regimes where “issue density” is sufficiently thick to warrant them.

“…the optimal size of a regime will increase if there are increasing rather than diminishing returns to regime-scale…or if the marginal costs of organization decline as regime size grows” (341).

Final Argument: (354)
1. Int’l regimes are devices to facilitate agreement in IR
2. Public goods problems, “…affect the supply of international regimes, as the ‘theory of hegemonic stability’ suggests” (354).
3. Increased issue density and regime effectiveness will affect adoption
4. The “constraint-choice” approach is novel and helps explore previously underemphasized behavior
5. Several parts of structural theory are now problematic. Hegemony is not necessarily required for regime promotion.
6. Distinction between control regimes and insurance regimes presents IR in a more nuanced way