Krasner Structural Causes And Regime Consequences Summary

914 Words4 Pages
In Stephen D. Krasner’s, “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” he defines what regimes are in relation to international politics as well as ascertaining their significance. Krasner compares and contrasts multiple scholarly viewpoints to determine if regimes have a noteworthy impact on international relations. Furthermore, he discusses the different building blocks for which regime development is built on.
Krasner defines regimes as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” Principles are the foundation of a regime and are statements about how the world should work. The second, norms, are standards or guidelines of behavior. Rules are specific and concrete prescriptions for action. Lastly, decision- making behaviors are prevailing
…show more content…
It is heavily influenced from the Groation tradition. According to this perspective, regimes are much more pervasive and exist in all areas of international relations. Contrary to the conventional structure and modified structural, this viewpoint moves away from realist thinking as it is “too limited to explain an increasingly complex, interdependent, and complex world.” This approach rejects the assumption that the international system is comprised of states and the balance of power is solely due to force. Rather, it argues that elites are the principal actors and that they have national and transnational ties. An example Krasner gives is that the “statesmen nearly always perceive themselves as constrained by principles, norms, and rules that prescribe and proscribe varieties of behavior”. In short, regimes, not individual states, are fundamental to international relations, which seek to enhance their own national
Open Document