(Mis)constructing the Third World? Constructivist analysis of norm diffusion

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes This review discusses ‘mainstream’ constructivism as distinct from feminist constructivism and other critical variants. See E Adler, ‘Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics,’ European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3), 1997, p 334. H Gould, ‘What is at stake in the agent–structure debate?’, in V Kubalkova et al (eds), International Relations in a Constructed World, Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe, 1998, p 81. S Whitworth, Feminism and International Relations: Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non‐Governmental Institutions, New York: St Martin's Press, 1994, p 67. J Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, New York: Routledge, 1998, p 4. J Sterling‐Folker notes that pre‐existing state motivations to adopt new norms, such as the desire for legitimacy, are actually exogenous interests smuggled in on the sly. Sterling‐Folker, ‘Competing paradigms or birds of a feather? Constructivism and neoliberal institutionalism compared’, International Studies Quarterly, 40, 2000, p 108. A Florini, ‘The evolution of international norms’, International Studies Quarterly, 40, 1996, p 377. usaid, ‘A history of foreign assistance’, no date, at http://www.usaid.gov/about/usaidhist.html, accessed 22 November 2002. Whitworth, Feminism and International Relations, p 67. This debate is far from ‘sterile’—indeed, as it has raged within ngo fora at UN Women and Population Conferences during the past two decades, the debate has resulted in greater interest in, if not full implementation of, grassroots organising and client‐driven development policy among some Northern ngos. Scholte notes that ‘fewer than 15 per cent of the ngos with consultative status at the UN are based in the so‐called South’. JA Scholte, ‘The globalization of world politics’, in J Baylis & S Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p 30. JT Checkel, ‘Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43, 1999, pp 89–91. JT Checkel, ‘International norms and domestic politics: bridging the rationalist–constructivist divide’, European Journal of International Relations, 3 (4), 1997, p 483. Ibid, pp 103, 105. Ibid, p 108. T Risse, ‘Constructivism and international institutions: toward conversations across paradigms’, in I Katznelson & HV Milner (eds), Political Science: State of the Discipline, New York: WW Norton, 2002, p 620. According to Risse, an additional division of labour ‘between the two institutionalisms could emerge. Constructivists would be in charge of explaining actors’ preferences, while rationalist approaches would explain how agents act on the basis of these preferences'. Risse, ‘Constructivism and international institutions’, p 609. JT Checkel, ‘Review of the power of human rights’, Comparative Political Studies, 33 (10), 2000, pp 1339–1340. Additional informationNotes on contributorsLaura K Landolt Laura K Landolt is a Ph.D candidate at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, USA. Email: landolt@ email.arizona.edu. Laura K Landolt is a Ph.D candidate at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, USA. Email: landolt@ email.arizona.edu.