This edited volume usefully contributes toward the ongoing effort to integrate concepts and arguments from historical institutionalism into international relations (where historical institutionalism has been relatively underutilized). While others have effectively discussed the possibilities—and the limited existing examples—along these lines (e.g., Orfeo Fioretos “Historical Institutionalism in International Relations,” International Organization 65 [Spring 2011]: 367–99), the present volume represents an important next step: it not only supplies a set of empirical chapters applying historical institutionalism to international relations but also reexamines core concepts and processes from historical institutionalism in light of the resulting findings on international institutions.

The introduction, by Thomas Rixen and Lora Anne Viola, highlights aspects of historical institutionalism that are particularly relevant to international politics—such as the importance of interactions between domestic and international institutions—and suggests several conceptual and theoretical refinements. For one, it differentiates stasis from stability: the former being the absence of change and the latter a variable describing the resistance to change. Thus, increases or decreases in the stability of an institution constitute a form of institutional development, even if the institution itself persists in the same general form. The most novel conceptual contribution—taken up as a framing device by several of the substantive chapters—is the definition of institutional development in terms of three discrete dimensions: speed, scope, and depth (pp. 18–21). New taxonomies are not always helpful, but this one usefully complements existing typologies of gradual change in historical institutionalism, which have defined ideal types of change, such as layering or drift. These have been useful, but as the authors note, such “concepts sometimes walk a blurry line between description and explanation” (p. 17). The three-part conceptualization in this volume, on the other hand, can categorize change or stability of many types and at multiple scales. Although introducing new terminology is always risky, this conceptualization is a useful refinement.

Overall, the empirical chapters offer excellent examples of how to apply these and other historical institutionalist concepts and mechanisms to international relations. The chapter by Tim Büthe examines the issue of government subsidies in the European Union, seeking to explain the European Commission’s gradual expansion of authority over this issue. It applies an “agent-centric” approach, using rationalist assumptions to define agents and their interests and then applying historical institutionalist concepts to explain how the pursuit of those interests plays out in institutional terms.

Orfeo Fioretos looks at financial-sector reform following the 2008 crisis and, applying this volume’s conceptualization, examines the speed, scope, and depth of institutional change, revealing a process of “intense incrementalism” rather than a single, sudden transformation. The study explicitly demonstrates that a historical institutionalist approach can explain more than materialist or sociological theories can on their own.

Tine Hanrieder examines how the World Health Organization came to be dominated by regional bodies, in spite of numerous efforts to centralize the organization. By applying a “power-based” theory of path dependence, the chapter shows how institutions can get locked in with dysfunctional arrangements. Moreover, it demonstrates that the increasing stability of regionalization was a form of change, not stasis, even though that increasing stability could only be observed when successive reform attempts were defeated.

The chapter by Alexandru Grigorescu considers the response to demands for increased nonpermanent membership in the League of Nations Council and the United Nations Security Council. Building on the concept of sequencing, the chapter notes that if calls for additional members came after other transparency measures were already adopted, nonpermanent membership tended to be expanded—there were no other moves toward transparency to offer as substitutes.

Manuela Moschella and Antje Vetterlein compare two different areas in which International Monetary Fund policies have changed over time—poverty reduction and financial-sector surveillance—finding that they exhibit two different forms of path dependence: self-reinforcing and reactive. Insights from sociological institutionalism on the importance of organizational culture then are used to explain the divergent trajectories.

The last empirical chapter, by Theresa Squatrito, Thomas Sommerer, and Jonas Tallberg, looks at changes in access to international organizations by transnational actors. The end of the Cold War provided a critical juncture in which two key trends converged: increasing international cooperation and domestic democratization. In addition to case studies of two organizations, this chapter also uses a large-n data set on access to 50 organizations to reveal trends over time and to identify the likely critical juncture.

Finally, the conclusion by Michael Zürn wraps the volume up effectively by highlighting the ways in which historical institutionalism may be as applicable to international relations as to the study of domestic politics. Although he notes the problematic nature of some core historical institutionalist concepts, Zürn suggests that this approach can serve as a useful “bridge module” (p. 220) connecting other theoretical components.

All of the chapters offer useful empirical contributions on specific institutions or issue areas, through careful process tracing in case studies. The Squatrito, Sommerer, and Tallberg chapter’s addition of a large-n component shows that quantitative methods, while not typically applied in historical institutionalism, have promise, especially in combination with carefully chosen case studies. As the chapter by Fioretos points out (p. 75), process tracing is often needed to adjudicate between rival explanations for institutional development because different theories can predict similar overall outcomes, but different pathways to get there.

Importing concepts, theories, or other insights from related—or distant—fields is something that international relations has often done, perhaps as a result of the subfield’s loosely defined scope. While a common practice, such importing efforts are not always successful. This volume offers an example of how to do this right: carefully thinking through exactly how the concepts or mechanisms from historical institutionalism can, and cannot, be applied effectively to international topics. What the volume does particularly well—and is far too rare among parallel importing efforts—is make an effort to speak in the other direction as well, asking how the study of international relations can address historical institutionalism as an approach. This is important not only because historical institutionalism can be usefully refined, but also because it is an excellent sign that the imported concepts are, in fact, applicable. In this case, the disciplinary proximity of historical institutionalism to international relations may make this process easier (than, for example, holding a two-way conversation with more distant fields outside of political science), but it is impressive nonetheless.

Historical Institutionalism and International Relations, in short, can be recommended to a wide range of political science audiences: scholars of international relations looking for useful concepts and mechanisms of institutional change, students of historical institutionalism interested in further development and refinement of core concepts and their operationalization, and anyone interested in the specific international institutions in the empirical chapters.