Cited by 2,814International Relations and Foreign PolicyPolitical Science Research and EducationGlobalization and political ideologies

Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics

Moravcsik, Andrew·1997·International Organization

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

Crossref · 10.1162/002081897550447

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Moravcsik, A.
Corresponding author
Moravcsik, Andrew
Venue
International Organization
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