Blog 6—

Just as World Politics is composed of different IR theories attempting to explain how international politics works, or how it should work, so too do these theories attempt to explain an international institution like Bretton Woods. Looking at IR as a whole, it is clear that not every state or individual with tangible influence in the system is in agreement with what philosophy is the best, and therefore each practices a different flavor of theory. The same could be true about how the different theories interact with international institutions. Is it possible that the three different premises could work harmoniously to achieve a general positive outcome? Or when the three IR theories are combined are their diversions simply too sharp to reconcile?

There is proof that they are in some way compatible because few, if any, of the current international institutions are homogenous in their IR views. Separate states enter with undeniably separate identities and many times unique goals and intentions, creating a sort of melting pot of IR thought. In these situations what ends up happening is that there is a majority or general consensus on how the institution is going to be run. The theory the institution operates under is not necessarily strictly one philosophy or another, but it is the ideology best fit for the organization; or at least that is the intention. In order for a state to enter into an international institution and experience any level of success, they are forced to concede some part of their views because these organizations are inherently based on cooperation and frequent compromise. A Hobbesian realist would be hard put to adhere to these standards of institutional involvement, which is one of the reasons why realists have an expressed disdain for these organizations.

Entering into an international institution like Bretton Woods brings radical realists or liberals back from the fringes of IR thought, into a situation that is more conducive to cooperation. Bretton Woods has a more liberal feel to the organization because it has a focus in installing a fair monetary measure for all states involved. However, there is also the realist aspect of states being interested in achieving the best value for their currency. Each institution is a conglomerate of ideas because if it were simply one theory it wouldn’t be a whole. There are gaps in realist, liberal, and constructivist thinking, and international institutions use each to subsidize the shortcomings of the others.