Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:52:12.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The false promise of global IR: exposing the paradox of dependent development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2021

Ersel Aydinli Open the ORCID record for Ersel Aydinli [Opens in a new window]  and
Onur Erpul Open the ORCID record for Onur Erpul [Opens in a new window]
Ersel Aydinli*
Affiliation:
Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Onur Erpul
Affiliation:
Ihsan Dogramaci Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Ersel Aydinli, E-mail: ersel@bilkent.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerned about the continued dominance of Western International Relations (IR) theories, the global IR community has proposed various measures to address disciplinary hierarchies through encouraging dialogue and pluralism. By investigating the pedagogical preferences of instructors from 45 countries, this paper questions the global IR initiative's emancipatory potential, arguing that disciplinary practices in IR resemble those of dependent development. The study develops a new typology of IR theoretical (IRT) scholarship and examines the readings assigned in 151 IRT syllabi worldwide for evidence of similarity, replication, and assimilation. The findings show that mainstream core IRTs dominate syllabi globally, regardless of region, language of instruction, or instructors' educational/linguistic backgrounds. This domination extends to periphery scholars not using their own local products. Even when they do seek alternative approaches, they prefer to import core alternatives, that is, critical traditions, rather than homegrown IRTs. Finally, the results show that even in syllabi taught in local languages the readings remain dominated by core IRT works. These findings expose a structural defect in the current cry for global IR, by revealing the system's dependent development paradox. The paper concludes with suggestions for creating a symmetric interdependent structure, in the aim of achieving a genuine globalization of IR.

Keywords

Global IRnon-Western IRcore and peripheryhomegrown IR theorydependencypedagogysyllabus studies
Type
Research Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , November 2022 , pp. 419 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2011. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 619–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 647–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav, and Buzan, Barry. 2017. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten Years On.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 17 (3): 341–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav, and Buzan, Barry. 2019. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at Its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alejandro, Audrey. 2017. “The Narrative of Academic Dominance: How to Overcome Performing the ‘Core-Periphery’ Divide.” International Studies Review 19 (2): 300–04.Google Scholar
Amin, Samir. 1987. “A Note on the Concept of Delinking.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 10 (3): 435–44.Google Scholar
Andrews, Nathan. 2020. “International Relations (IR) Pedagogy, Dialogue and Diversity: Taking the IR Course Syllabus Seriously.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 9 (2): 267–82.Google Scholar
Andrews, Nathan, and Okpanachi, Eyene. 2012. “Trends of Epistemic Oppression and Academic Dependency in Africa's Development: The Need for a New Intellectual Path.” Journal of Pan African Studies 5 (8): 85–103.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. 1988. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique.” Millennium 17 (2): 227–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avey, Paul C., and Desch, Michael C. 2014. “What Do Policymakers Want From Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers.” International Studies Quarterly 58 (2): 227–46.Google Scholar
Aydinli, Ersel. 2020. “Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-Reflections on Dialogue with the Core.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 13 (2): 287–312.Google Scholar
Aydinli, Ersel, and Biltekin, Gonca. 2018. “Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 7 (1): 45–68.Google Scholar
Aydinli, Ersel, and Mathews, Julie. 2000. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1: 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydinli, Ersel, and Mathews, Julie. 2008. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory Out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34: 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoob, Mohammed. 1997. “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective.” In Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Strategies, edited by Krause, Kenneth and Williams, Michael C., 121–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, and Owens, Patricia (eds.). 2020. The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations, Eighth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bencherif, Adib, and Vlavonou, Gino. 2020. “Reflexive Tension: An Auto-Ethnographic Journey Through the Discipline of International Relations in Western Academic Training.” African Identities, 1–20.Google Scholar
Bertucci, Mariano, Hayes, Jeffrey, and James, Patrick. 2016. “Constructivism in International Relations: The Story so Far.” In Constructivism Reconsidered: Past, Present and Future, edited by Mariano, B., Hayes, J. and James, P., 15–32. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas. 2009. “The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for ‘American’ International Relations.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Tickner, Arlene B. and Wæver, Ole, 308–27. London: Worlding Beyond the West, Routledge.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2016. “The Impact of the ‘Global Transformation’ on Uneven and Combined Development.” In Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development Over the Longue Durée. Global Dialogues: Developing Non-Eurocentric IR and IPE, edited by Anievas, Alexander and Matin, Kamran, 171–84. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.Google Scholar
Çapan, Zeynep G. 2017. Re-writing International Relations: History and Theory Beyond Eurocentrism in Turkey. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Fernando H., and Faletto, Enzo. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Steve. 2002. “On Different Types of International Relations Scholarship.” Journal of Peace Research 36 (6): 747–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilcote, Ronald H. 1978. “A Question of Dependency.” Latin American Research Review 13 (2): 55–68.Google Scholar
Clark, Cal, and Bahry, Donna. 1983. “Dependent Development: A Socialist Variant.” International Studies Quarterly 27 (3): 271–93.Google Scholar
Colgan, John D. 2016. “Where is International Relations Going? Evidence from Graduate Training.” International Studies Quarterly 60: 486–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1992. “Towards a Post-Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun.” In Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, edited by Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto, 132–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demirer, Hayriye Asena. 2020. “The Silence of Non-Western International Relations Theory as a Camouflage Strategy: The Trauma of Qing China and the Late Ottoman Empire.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 10 (1): 99–118.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review 80: 1151–69.Google Scholar
Tim, Dunne, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve. 2010. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene, and Wight, Colin. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duvall, Robert D. 1978. “Dependence and Dependencia Theory: Notes toward Precision of Concept and Argument.” International Organization 32 (1): 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudé, Carlos. 1994. “Anthropomorphic Fallacy in International Relations Discourse.” WCFIA Working Paper, 94–06.Google Scholar
Escudé, Carlos. 1998. “An Introduction to Peripheral Realism”. In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by Neuman, Stephanie G., 55–75. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James. 1998. “Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation.” International Organization 52 (2): 269–305.Google Scholar
Gelardi, M. 2020a. “Blurring Borders: Investigating the Western/Global South Identity of Human Security.” Alternatives 45 (3): 143–161.Google Scholar
Gelardi, Maiken. 2020b. “Moving Global IR Forward – A Road Map.” International Studies Review 22 (4): 830–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovogui, Siba N. 2006. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy Memories of International Order and Institutions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagmann, Jonas A., and Biersteker, Thomas J.. 2014. “Beyond the Published Discipline: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of International Studies.” European Journal of International Relations 20 (7): 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanafi, Sari. 2011. “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally versus Publish Locally and Perish Globally.” Current Sociology 59 (3): 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayakawa, Sayuri, and Keysar, Boaz. 2018. “Using a Foreign Language Reduces Mental Imagery.” Cognition 173: 8–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Mark. 1991. “Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four Voices in Critical International Theory.” Millennium 20 (2): 169–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106 (3): 41–60.Google Scholar
Holsti, Kalevi J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 1998 23 (1): 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, K. 2018. “Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make a Difference?” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 7 (2): 65–80.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.). 1996. The Culture of National Security Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S.. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, Peter M. 2015b. “Revisiting the ‘American Social Science’ – Mapping the Geography of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 16 (3): 246–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuru, Deniz. 2018. “Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholars, Theory.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 7 (1): 69–86.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2013. “Theory Is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 567–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David. 2016. “White Man's IR: An Intellectual Confession.” Perspectives on Politics 14 (4): 1112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Kyle J. 2019. “Chinese Graduate Student Understandings and Struggles with Critical Thinking: A Narrative-Case Study.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Peterson, Susan, Powers, Ryan, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2018. “Is International Relations A, Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field.” Security Studies 27 (3): 448–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan, and Tiernay, Michael J. 2011. “International Relations in the US Academy.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 437–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Peterson, Susan, and Tiernay, Michael J.. 2012. TRIP around the World: Teaching, Research, and Politics Views of International Relations in 20 Countries. Williamsburg, VA: The College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
McMahon, Nicole, Alcantara, Christopher, and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2020. “The Qualifying Field Exam: What Is It Good For?” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (1): 94–9.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Montero-Melis, Guillermo, Isaksson, Petrus, Paridon, Jeroen Van, and Ostarek, Markus. 2020. “Does Using a Foreign Language Reduce Mental Imagery?” Cognition 196: 103–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moravcsik, A. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51 (4): 513–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Morrow, Jason D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. P. A., and Wigginton, M. J. 2020. “Canadian International Relations, American Social Science? Evidence from Academic Journals and Comprehensive Reading Lists.” International Journal 75 (1): 5–23.Google Scholar
Neuman, Stephanie G. (ed.). 1998. International Relations Theory and the Third World. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Odoom, Isaac, and Andrews, Nathan. 2017. “What/Who is Still Missing in International Relations Scholarship? Situating Africa as an Agent in IR Theorizing.” Third World Quarterly 38 (1): 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of Our Own Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parmar, Inderjeet. 2011. “American Hegemony, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of Academic International Relations in the United States.” In The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, edited by Guilhot, Nicholas, 182–209. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, Robert. 2009. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 2020. “Alternatives to the State: Or, Why a Non-Western IR Must Be a Revolutionary Science.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 9(2): 149–162.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin 2013. “Kenneth Waltz and Leon Trotsky: Anarchy in the Mirror of Uneven and Combined Development.” International Politics 50 (2): 183–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James N, Gartin, Gary, Mcclain, Edwin P, Stinziano, Dona, Stoddard, Richard, and Swanson, Dean. 1977. “Of Syllabi, Texts, Students, and Scholarship in International Relations: Some Data and Interpretations on the State of a Burgeoning Field.” World Politics 29 (2): 263–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostow, Walt W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seloni, Lisya. 2012. “Academic Literacy Socialization of First Year Doctoral Students in US: A Micro-Ethnographic Perspective.” English for Specific Purposes 31 (1): 47–59.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2010. “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 411–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, David J. 1961. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations.” World Politics 14(1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitaraman, Siri. 2016. “Power and Knowledge: International Relations Scholarship in the Core and Periphery.” Asian Journal of Peacebuilding 4 (2): 241–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2000. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2002. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.” International Studies Review 4 (2): 67–85.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack L. 2004. “One World, Rival Theories.” Foreign Policy 145: 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, Arlene B. 2003. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 32 (2): 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turton, Helen L. 2016. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turton, Helen L. 2020. “Locating a Multifaceted and Stratified Disciplinary ‘Core’.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 10 (2): 177–209.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1985. “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power.” International Security 9 (4): 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1998. “One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy (110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge): 29–46.Google Scholar
Wæver, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a not so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wæver, Ole. 2009. “Waltz's Theory of Theory.” International Relations 23 (3): 201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Wiebke, Bell, Nicholas J., Morales, Mariana Navarrete, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2016. “The IR of the Beholder: Examining Global IR Using the 2014 TRIP Survey.” International Studies Review, 18 (1): 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wight, Martin (Bull, Hedley and Holbraad, Carsten eds.). 1979. Power Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Zambrano, Diego M. M. 2020. “Decentering International Relations: The Continued Wisdom of Latin American Dependency.” International Studies Perspectives 21 (4): 403–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar