Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics
Abstract
This article reformulates liberal international relations (IR) theory in a nonideological and nonutopian form appropriate to empirical social science. Liberal IR theory elaborates the insight that state-society relations—the relationship of states to the domestic and transnational social context in which they are embedded—have a fundamental impact on state behavior in world politics. Societal ideas, interests, and institutions influence state behavior by shaping state preferences, that is, the fundamental social purposes underlying the strategic calculations of governments. For liberals, the configuration of state preferences matters most in world politics—not, as realists argue, the configuration of capabilities and not, as institutionalists (that is, functional regime theorists)maintain, the configuration of information and institutions. This article codifies this basic liberal insight in the form of three core theoretical assumptions, derives from them three variants of liberal theory, and demonstrates that the existence of a coherent liberal theory has significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications. Restated in this way, liberal theory deserves to be treated as a paradigmatic alternative empirically coequal with and analytically more fundamental than the two dominant theories in contemporary IR scholarship: realism and institutionalism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In International Relations, structural realism, institutionalism, and liberalism are the three major rationalist schools of thought.
“In the discipline of International Relations, there are three major schools of thought to be subsumed under rationalism: structural realism (Waltz, 2010), institutionalism (often referred to as neo-liberalism; Keohane, 1984), and liberalism (Moravcsik, 1997).”
From The Aggravated Struggle for Regional Power in the Middle East: American Allies Saudi Arabia and Israel versus Iran (2020) · cites this paper as Moravcsik, 1997
Moravcsik's understanding of methodological individualism explicitly contradicts realism and institutionalism.
“Moravcsik's (1997, p. 513) understanding of methodological individualism explicitly contradicts realism and institutionalism, as they take the international system and the state rather than individuals and social groups as the starting point of the analysis.”
From The Aggravated Struggle for Regional Power in the Middle East: American Allies Saudi Arabia and Israel versus Iran (2020) · cites this paper as Moravcsik, 1997
Cites
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research
Witt, M. A. (2019) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-019-00219-7 · Cited by 680 · see citing works
Diasporas and International Relations Theory
Shain, Y., & Barth, A. (2003) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818303573015 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
Beck, M. (2020) · Global Policy · doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12778 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Beck, M. (2016) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.79 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moravcsik, A.
- Corresponding author
- Moravcsik, Andrew
- ORCID
- Moravcsik, Andrew
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 513-553
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2100666645
- Cited by
- 2,814
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 58 · 2025: 150 · 2024: 105 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 170 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 173 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 165 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 119 · 2013: 113 · 2012: 100
- FWCI
- 199.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Organization (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Globalization and political ideologies
- Keywords
- liberal theory, state preferences, state-society relations, state behavior, liberalism, realism, institutionalism, regime theory, transnational organizations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review