Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T12:13:51.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moving Forward, One Step at a Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2003

Barbara Koremenos  and
Duncan Snidal

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We reply to John Duffield's critique of the Rational Design project, a special issue of International Organization that explains the features of international institutions from a game-theoretic perspective. The project was deliberately limited to the analysis of explicit and observable institutional arrangements, and focused on the specific institutional properties of centralization, membership, scope, control, and flexibility. Its empirical contribution relies on case studies, but it is significantly amplified by the tight connections provided by a common theoretical perspective that is oriented toward testing a set of specific conjectures about institutional design. The results raise further issues of measurement and cross-case comparisons that provide valuable lessons for future work on institutional design. Although all of these research design choices are worth revisiting and questioning, as Duffield does, the initial results of the Rational Design project show that it provides a good basis from which to explore alternative research design decisions.

Information

Type
Comment and Response
Information
International Organization , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , Spring 2003 , pp. 431 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2003

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization. 54 (3):421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2002. Values and Interests: International Legalization in the Fight Against Corruption. The Journal of Legal Studies XXXI (1)(Pt. 2):5141–78.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, John. 2003. The Limits of “Rational Design.” International Organization. 57 (2):411–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara. 2000. Bending but Not Breaking: Flexibility in International Financial and Monetary Agreements. Working Paper 1.73. Berkeley: Center for German and European Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara. 2001. Loosening the Ties That Bind: A Learning Model of Agreement Flexibility. International Organization 55 (2):289–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan, eds. 2001a. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan, eds. 2001b. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan, eds. 2001c. Rational Design: Looking Back to Move Forward. International Organization 55 (4):1051–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, and Verdier, Daniel. 2002. Does European Integration Bind or Signal? Entry and Exit Costs in Institutional Design. Paper presented at the 98th Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August-September, Boston.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2001. Trust Building, Trust Breaking: The Dilemma of NATO Enlargement. International Organization 55 (4):801–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. 1992. Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattli, Walter. 2001. Private Justice in a Global Economy: From Litigation to Arbitration. International Organization 55 (4):919–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen V., and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2001. The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape. International Organization 55 (4):829–57.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Ronald B., and Keilbach, Patricia M.. 2001. Situation Structure and Institutional Design: Reciprocity, Coercion, and Exchange. International Organization 55 (4):891–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D. 2001. The Institutional Features of the Prisoners of War Treaties. International Organization 55 (4):971–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oatley, Thomas H. 2001. Multilateralizing Trade and Payments in Postwar Europe. International Organization 55 (4):949–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahre, Robert. 2001. Most-Favored-Nation Clauses and Clustered Negotiations. International Organization 55 (4):859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, John. 2001. Institutions for Flying: How States Built a Market in International Aviation Services. International Organization 55 (4):993–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1980. Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review 74 (2):432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, James McCall. 2000. The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts. International Organization 54 (1):137–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2001. Driving with the Rearview Mirror: On the Rational Science of Institutional Design. International Organization 55 (4):1019–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar