Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The term was first used by the American political scientist John Ruggie in 1982. [1] Mainstream scholars generally describe embedded liberalism as involving a compromise between two desirable but partially conflicting objectives. The first objective was to revive free trade.
Ruggie introduced the concepts of international regimes [8] and epistemic communities into the international relations field; he adapted from Karl Polanyi the term "embedded liberalism" to explain the post-World War II international economic order; [9] and he was a major contributor to the emergence of the constructivist approach to ...
John Ruggie's work on embedded liberalism also challenged hegemonic stability theory. He argued that the post- WWII international order was not just held together by material power but through "legitimate social purpose" whereby governments created support for the international order through social policies that alleviated the adverse effects ...
John Ruggie, who called the Great Transformation a "magisterial work", was influenced by the work in coining the term Embedded liberalism for the Bretton Woods system of the post-World War II period. [ 20 ]
[20] [21] [18] [22] Scholars have argued that embedded liberalism (or the logics inherent in the Double Movement) are key to maintaining public support for the planks of the LIO; some scholars have raised questions whether aspects of embedded liberalism have been undermined, thus leading to a backlash against the LIO. [23] [24] [22]
The double movement is a concept originating with Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation.The phrase refers to the dialectical process of marketization and push for social protection against that marketization.
The debate about liberal international order has grown especially prominent in International Relations. [38] Daniel Deudney and John Ikenberry list five components of this international order: security co-binding, in which great powers demonstrate restraint; the open nature of US hegemony and the dominance of reciprocal transnational relations; the presence of self-limiting powers like Germany ...
That is, the relationship between people's capacity to "freely" choose their actions and/or to "make a real difference" to the world around them, and the social "structures" in which people are always embedded, and which may powerfully shape – often against their will or in ways they are unaware of – the kinds of things they are able to do.