International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order
International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order
复制标题
国际制度、交易和变革：战后经济秩序中嵌入的自由主义
DOI：
10.1017/s0020818300018993
复制
发表时间：
1982
影响因子：
7.8
通讯作者：
J. Ruggie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Ruggie
国际经济制度的主流模式在其认识论取向上是严格实证的，在其解释逻辑上强调物质力量能力的分配。它不足以说明目前的一套国际经济制度以及过去和现在的制度之间的差异。这里所阐述的模式在两个方面与主流观点不同，而在第三个方面则坚持主流观点。首先，它认为，制度不仅包括行为者所说和所做的，而且还包括他们在主体间意义框架内所理解和认为可以接受的。第二，它认为，在经济领域中，这样一个意义框架不能从物质权力能力的分配中推导出来，而必须在国家-社会关系的配置中寻找，这是政权制定国家的特征。第三，在将这些概念纳入我们对国际经济制度的形成和转变的理解时，这一提法有意识地努力保持在系统层面，避免在归因因果关系时成为还原论。因此，这篇文章可以说，主流观点本身是有缺陷的，必须加以扩展和修改。在谈到世界上的实际国际经济制度，文章认为，大英帝国的和平和美国的和平不能等同于任何有意义的意义上，和战后的货币和贸易制度仍然存在，尽管过早地宣布他们的死亡。
The prevailing model of international economic regimes is strictly positivistic in its epistemological orientation and stresses the distribution of material power capabilities in its explanatory logic. It is inadequate to account for the current set of international economic regimes and for the differences between past and present regimes. The model elaborated here departs from the prevailing view in two respects, while adhering to it in a third. First, it argues that regimes comprise not simply what actors say and do, but also what they understand and find acceptable within an intersubjective framework of meaning. Second, it argues that in the economic realm such a framework of meaning cannot be deduced from the distribution of material power capabilities, but must be sought in the configuration of state-society relations that is characteristic of the regime-making states. Third, in incorporating these notions into our understanding of the formation and transformation of international economic regimes, the formulation self-consciously strives to remain at the systemic level and to avoid becoming reductionist in attributing cause and effect relations. The article can therefore argue that the prevailing view is deficient on its own terms and must be expanded and modified. Addressing the world of actual international economic regimes, the article argues that the pax Britannica and the pax Americana cannot be equated in any meaningful sense, and that the postwar regimes for money and trade live on notwithstanding premature announcements of their demise.