Duffield-Week1-Summary
International Institutions: A Comprehensive Study Guide
Quiz: Short Answer Questions and Answer Key
1. According to Duffield, what is the main problem with the current scholarship on
international institutions?
Answer: The main problem is the lack of a widely accepted definition of international
institutions, leading to fragmentation of the literature and hindering theoretical cumulation.
Scholars use the term to refer to distinctly different empirical phenomena, resulting in confusion
and limited validity of findings. This also balkanizes the field as different conceptions talk past
one another.
2. What are the four traditional conceptions of international institutions that Duffield
identifies?
Answer: The four conceptions are: institutions as formal organizations, institutions as
practices, institutions as rules, and institutions as norms. These conceptions are generally
non-overlapping and less than comprehensive, adding to confusion.
3. Explain the difference between a rationalist and a constructivist approach to
international institutions.
Answer: Rationalist approaches view institutions as consciously constructed frameworks
established by agents to promote their interests, emphasizing formal rules and incentives.
Constructivist approaches, on the other hand, emphasize the intersubjective aspect of
institutions, viewing them as fundamentally ideational phenomena consisting of shared ideas
and norms that emerge through less deliberative processes.
4. What is Duffield's definition of international institutions?
Answer: Duffield defines international institutions as relatively stable sets of related
constitutive, regulative, and procedural norms and rules that pertain to the international system,
the actors in the system, and their activities. This definition aims to be inclusive of commonly
regarded institutional forms while maintaining analytical coherence.
5. What are the three types of norms and rules used in the definition of international
institutions?
Answer: The three types of norms and rules are:
● Constitutive norms and rules: Create actors, capabilities, and identities.
● Regulative norms and rules: Govern behavior by prescribing, proscribing, or permitting
certain actions.
● Procedural norms and rules: Govern actions within institutions.
6. Explain the difference between constitutive and regulative norms.
Answer: Constitutive norms define and create actors, their identities, interests, and the
possibilities for action. In contrast, regulative norms govern behavior by prescribing, proscribing,
or permitting specific actions, essentially setting the rules of the game for already existing
actors.
7. Why does Duffield distinguish norms from patterns of behavior?
Answer: Duffield distinguishes norms from patterns of behavior because patterns of behavior
may not necessarily conform to or be influenced by any particular norm or rule. Equating
institutions with behavior precludes using the former to explain the latter, as the pattern of
behavior may simply be random or unrelated to any established institution.
8. Give an example of an international institution, and identify its constitutive, regulative,
and procedural elements.
Answer: An example is the United Nations (UN).
● Constitutive element: The Charter defining member states and the Security Council.
● Regulative element: Rules against aggression and for peaceful dispute resolution.
● Procedural element: Voting rules in the General Assembly and Security Council.
9. According to Duffield, how do norms vary in strength?
Answer: Norms vary in strength based on two factors:
● The fraction of members of a social system that share the norm (concordance).
● The intensity with which the norm is typically held by the members of the social system.
10. What are the ontological distinctions found in international institutions?
Answer: The ontological distinctions found in international institutions are:
● Intersubjective elements (norms): Shared beliefs and understandings.
● Formal elements (rules): Written or explicit agreements that exist independently of
individual beliefs.
Essay Questions
1. Duffield argues that the lack of a comprehensive definition of international institutions
has hindered the development of comprehensive theories. Discuss the consequences of
this definitional ambiguity for the study of international relations and propose ways in
which a clearer definition can improve research in this field.
2. Compare and contrast the rationalist and constructivist conceptions of international
institutions, highlighting their strengths and limitations. How does Duffield's proposed
definition attempt to bridge the gap between these two perspectives?
3. Using examples from international politics, analyze the interplay between constitutive,
regulative, and procedural norms in shaping the behavior of states and other actors.
How do these different types of norms interact with each other to influence international
outcomes?
4. Duffield identifies two ontological distinctions: intersubjective versus formal elements of
international institutions. Discuss the significance of these distinctions for understanding
the effectiveness and legitimacy of international institutions.
5. Drawing on Duffield's framework, evaluate the role of international institutions in
addressing a specific global challenge, such as climate change, human rights, or
economic inequality. How do different types of institutions contribute to or hinder
progress in addressing this challenge?
Glossary of Key Terms
● Constitutive Norms/Rules: Norms and rules that define actors, their identities,
interests, and the very possibility of certain activities. They create the fundamental
framework within which actors operate.
● Constructivism: A theoretical approach that emphasizes the role of ideas, norms,
culture, and social interaction in shaping international relations. Constructivists view
institutions as fundamentally ideational phenomena based on shared understandings.
● Formalization: The degree to which an institution's rules are explicit, written, and legally
binding. Higher formalization typically increases the strength and enforceability of a rule.
● International Institution: Relatively stable sets of related constitutive, regulative, and
procedural norms and rules that pertain to the international system, the actors in the
system, and their activities.
● Intersubjective: Existing in the minds of people and based on shared beliefs,
understandings, and expectations. Intersubjective elements of institutions are often
implicit and evolve spontaneously.
● Norms: Socially shared expectations, understandings, or standards of appropriate
behavior for actors with a given identity. Norms carry a sense of obligation and are
evaluative.
● Ontology: The study of being or existence. In the context of international institutions,
ontology refers to the fundamental nature and characteristics of these institutions, such
as whether they are primarily material or ideational.
● Procedural Norms/Rules: Norms and rules that govern actions by actors with respect
to one another within the context of institutions or with respect to the institutions
themselves. They often provide mechanisms for collective decision-making.
● Rationalism: A theoretical approach that assumes actors behave rationally to maximize
their utilities, subject to external constraints. Rationalists view institutions as consciously
constructed frameworks designed to promote or protect actors' interests.
● Regulative Norms/Rules: Norms and rules that prescribe, proscribe, or permit specific
actions, thereby governing the behavior of actors within the international system. They
set the boundaries of acceptable conduct.
● Rules: Formal elements of international institutions that can have an existence that is
entirely separate from the agents that devised them. Rules need not correspond to what
any affected party actually prefers or thinks should be the case.
—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay examines the definition of international institutions, which the author argues is
essential to understanding their nature, causes, and effects. The current literature lacks a widely
accepted definition, leading to fragmentation and hindering theoretical development. The author
reviews existing conceptions, identifies their shortcomings, and proposes a new, comprehensive
definition. This definition aims to encompass various institutional forms while maintaining
analytical coherence.
Existing Definitions of International Institutions
● Absence of a Clear Definition: International institutions are often discussed without a
clear definition. Some works provide cursory discussions of the term "institution," if at all.
● Overly Broad Conceptions: Some conceptions of international institutions are too
broad, including elements that should be distinct. For example, institutions described in
terms of patterned practices and actions, sets of ideas or beliefs, and norms and rules.
● Non-Overlapping Conceptions: There are several generally non-overlapping
conceptions that are less than comprehensive. These conceptions can be grouped into
four categories: institutions as formal organizations, practices, rules, and norms.
Traditional Conceptions: Institutions as Formal Organizations Traditionally, the term
"international institution" has been used to refer to formal international organizations such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. This equation of organizations with
institutions was more common in the 1950s and 1960s when international organizations were
the principal subject of institutional inquiry. However, as studies of other international institutional
forms, such as regimes, have proliferated, this restricted construction has become misleading.
Early Sociological Conceptions: Institutions as Practices The emergence of the literature
on international regimes in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to broader views of international
institutions. International institutions were conceptualized as social institutions, requiring a
definition of institutions.
● Young's Definition: Oran Young defined social institutions as "recognized patterns of
behavior or practice around which expectations converge". International institutions are
social institutions governing the activities of the members of international society.
● Limitations:
○ Too Narrow: Young distinguished between social institutions and organizations,
overlooking that intergovernmental organizations are primarily sets of roles and
rules.
○ Too Broad: The definition includes war as a social institution, which many
disagree with because war is not necessarily rule-governed.
○ Problematic Association with Behavior: The emphasis on behavior requires
limiting explanatory ambitions to avoid tautological reasoning.
Rationalist Conceptions: Institutions as Rules A more common conception is that of
institutions as sets of more or less formal rules. In rationalist analysis, agents act rationally to
maximize their utilities, subject to external constraints, including institutions.
● Institutions as Constraints: Institutions are consciously constructed frameworks
established by agents seeking to promote or protect their interests. International
institutions are sets of rules meant to govern international behavior.
● Attractions:
○ Distinction Between Institutions and Behavior: This avoids the danger of
tautological reasoning.
○ Productive Explanatory Theories: This conception has proven productive in
generating powerful yet parsimonious explanatory theories.
● Limitations:
○ Omission of Important Classes of International Institutions: The status of
international organizations and international law is unclear, and there is no place
for fundamental institutions like state sovereignty.
○ Obscuring Intersubjective Characteristics: The emphasis on consciously
devised rules obscures the intersubjective and deontic characteristics often
associated with institutions.
○ Diverting Attention from Constitutive Aspects: The emphasis on behavioral
consequences diverts attention from how institutions may endow actors with
powers and capacities.
Constructivist Sociological Conceptions: Institutions as Norms Another sociological
conception, constructivism, emphasizes the intersubjective aspect of international institutions.
Constructivists view institutions as fundamentally ideational phenomena, involving shared ideas.
Institutions are often not consciously created but emerge slowly and are frequently taken for
granted.
● Emphasis on Norms: Social institutions consist of norms or sets of norms, defined as
socially shared expectations or standards of appropriate behavior.
● Types of Norms:
○ Regulative Norms: Similar to rules, they order and constrain behavior but have
an evaluative quality.
○ Constitutive Norms: Generate agents, endow them with capabilities, and
determine identities and preferences.
● Limitations:
○ Lack of Definitional Expression: Lacks a prominent definitional expression and
is the least well-developed conception.
○ Neglect of Formal Features: Neglects the formal features characteristic of
specific international institutions.
A New Definition of International Institutions A broad definition incorporating the most
important institutional forms is required to remedy the unsatisfactory state of affairs.
● Principles for an Adequate Definition:
○ Comprehensive but not Overly Expansive: Should accommodate all
commonly regarded forms of international institutions without becoming
analytically useless.
○ Facilitate Differentiation and Comparison: Should facilitate differentiation and
comparison among specific forms.
○ Contain a Logical Basis for Differentiation: Should place any taxonomy on a
solid analytical footing.
● Proposed Definition: International institutions are relatively stable sets of related
constitutive, regulative, and procedural norms and rules that pertain to the international
system, the actors in the system, and their activities.
○ Relatively Stable: Exhibiting persistence, durability, and resilience.
○ Related: Institutional elements are associated or connected in some meaningful
way.
● Two Important Distinctions: One ontological and one functional, serving as the
analytical basis for a comprehensive taxonomy.
Ontological Distinctions: Intersubjective Versus Formal Elements The first distinction is
between intersubjective (norms) and formal (rules) elements.
● Norms (Intersubjective Elements):
○ Exist in the minds of people and need not be written down.
○ Arise spontaneously rather than through negotiation, though they may be
codified.
○ Cannot be imposed but can be inculcated through persuasion and socialization.
○ Possess a deontic, evaluative, or "normative" quality, carrying "a sense of
obligation".
○ Vary in strength, determined by the fraction of members sharing the norm and the
intensity with which it is held.
○ Measured through non-behavioral evidence from surveys, experiments,
interviews, and analysis of communications.
● Rules (Formal Elements):
○ Can have an existence separate from the agents that devised them.
○ Need not correspond to what any affected party prefers and need not possess
evaluative content.
○ Can be imposed by one actor on others, who may feel no obligation to adhere to
them.
○ Exhibit differing degrees of formality or formalization, ranging from verbal
agreements to interstate treaties.
● Omission of Practices or Patterns of Behavior: Institutions are not defined in terms of
practices to avoid precluding the use of institutions to explain behavior.
● Combination of Norms and Rules: Institutional elements can be pure rules, pure
norms, or a combination, and their nature can change over time.
Functional Distinctions The second distinction concerns the functions that different
institutional elements perform. These functions are divided into three categories: constitutive,
regulative, and procedural.
● Constitutive Function:
○ Most fundamental, creating the very possibility of engaging in certain conduct.
○ Rules and norms can create social entities (actors) and determine their
capabilities and rights.
○ Examples include the sovereign state, intergovernmental bodies, supranational
executive bodies, and individual persons with specific roles.
○ Institutions determine actors' identities, interests, goals, and preferences.
○ Institutions constitute activities and categories of action, determining their social
meaning.
● Regulative Function:
○ Many rules and norms seek to regulate the everyday behavior of actors.
○ Regulative norms and rules can be prescriptive, proscriptive, or permissive.
○ Secondary regulative elements increase the likelihood of compliance with primary
ones, including transparency norms and rules for responding to noncompliance.
● Procedural Function:
○ Resembles the regulative function but governs actions by actors within the
context of institutions or with respect to the institutions themselves.
○ Provides mechanisms for actors to arrive at collective choices.
○ Often associated with formal rules, especially in IGOs, but can also be performed
by intersubjective norms.
Potential Contributions of the New Definition The new definition can improve theoretical and
empirical research.
● Clarifying the Nature of Particular International Institutions: The definition can help
scholars clarify the nature of their subject and the range of phenomena to which their
claims apply. The ontological and functional distinctions provide the analytical basis for a
comprehensive taxonomy.
● Improving Existing Institutional Scholarship: Recognizing variations in institutional
forms can prevent flawed research on the causes and consequences of international
institutions. The definition can help prevent:
○ Failure to Specify Full Range of Possible Outcomes: By emphasizing the
regulative function and neglecting constitutive choices.
○ Failure to Specify Full Range of Relevant Institutional Causal Variables:
Overlooking norms as determinants of institutional design.
○ Failure to Identify and Differentiate Among Distinct Causal Pathways:
Obscuring different causal mechanisms at work in different international
institutional contexts.
○ Failure to Select Institutional Cases That Are as Comparable as Possible:
Differences in regulative rules and norms can account for variation in institutional
effects.
● Generating New Research Questions: The definition can help generate new research
questions by reconsidering assumptions and exploring differing causal relationships and
the basic forms institutions take.
Conclusion The essay concludes that a comprehensive and differentiated definition of
international institutions is essential for theory development. The proposed definition, with its
ontological and functional distinctions, can serve as a solid foundation for understanding the
nature, causes, and consequences of international institutions. It promises to advance the study
of international institutions by promoting appreciation of institutional forms, improving existing
work, stimulating richer theories, and opening valuable avenues of research. By relating
different institutional forms and differentiating them into constituent components, the definition
can deepen understanding of specific institutional types.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Link:
[Link]