Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination Author(S): Peter M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination Author(s): Peter M. Haas Source: International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1, Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination (Winter, 1992), pp. 1-35 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706951 . Accessed: 05/01/2011 14:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Organization. http://www.jstor.org Introduction:epistemic communities and internationalpolicy coordination Peter M. Haas The growingtechnical uncertainties and complexitiesof problemsof global concern have made internationalpolicy coordinationnot only increasingly necessarybut also increasinglydifficult. If decisionmakers are unfamiliarwith the technicalaspects of a specificproblem, how do theydefine state interests and develop viable solutions? What factorsshape their behavior? Under conditionsof uncertainty,what are the originsof internationalinstitutions? And how can we best studythe processes throughwhich international policy coordinationand orderemerge? While a varietyof analytic approaches have been used to address the problems of internationalcooperation, the approaches have yielded only fragmentaryinsights. At itscore, the studyof policycoordination among states involvesarguments about determinismversus free will and about the ways in which the internationalsystem is maintainedand transformed.Among the overlappingtopics of debate are whethernational behavior is determinedor broadlyconditioned by system-level factors, unit-level factors, or some complex interplaybetween the two; whetherstate policymakerscan identifynational interestsand behave independentlyof pressuresfrom the social groupsthey nominallyrepresent; and whetherstates respond consistently to opportunities to create,defend, or expandtheir own wealth and power,to enhancecollective materialbenefits, or to promotenonmaterial values.' A related question of For theircomments on earlier versionsof this article,I am gratefulto Pete Andrews,Peter Cowhey,Barbara Crane, George Hoberg,Raymond Hopkins, Ethan Kapstein,Peter Katzenstein, StephenKrasner, Craig Murphy,John Odell, Gail Osherenko,M. J.Peterson, Gene Rochlin,and RichardSclove. 1. See, for example, Alexander E. Wendt, "The Agent-StructureProblem," Intemational Organization41 (Summer 1987), pp. 335-70; Margaret S. Archer, "Morphogenesis Versus Structuration:On CombiningStructure and Action," BritishJoumal of Sociology33 (December 1982), pp. 455-83; David Dessler, "What's at Stake in theAgent-Structure Debate?" Intemational Organization43 (Summer1989), pp. 441-73; PeterGourevitch, "The Second Image Reversed:The InternationalSources of Domestic Politics,"Intemational Organization 32 (Autumn 1978), pp. 881-912; Peter J. Katzenstein,ed., BetweenPower and Plenty:Foreign Economic Policies of IntemationalOrganization 46, 1, Winter1992 ? 1992 bythe WorldPeace Foundationand the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology 2 InternationalOrganization debate is the extentto whichstate actorsfully recognize and appreciate the anarchic nature of the systemand, consequently,whether rational choice, deductive-typeapproaches or interpretiveapproaches are mostappropriate for the studyof internationalcooperation.2 In focusingon the structureof internationalor domesticpower in their explanationsof policycoordination, many authors ignore the possibilitythat actors can learn new patternsof reasoningand may consequentlybegin to pursue new state interests.While othersmention this possibility, few investi- gate the conditionsthat foster a change in state interestsand the mechanisms throughwhich the new interestscan be realized.3 In this volume of articles,we acknowledgethat systemicconditions and domesticpressures impose constraintson state behavior,but we argue that thereis stilla wide degree of latitudefor state action. How statesidentify their interestsand recognizethe latitudeof actionsdeemed appropriatein specific issue-areasof policymakingare functionsof the mannerin whichthe problems are understoodby the policymakersor are representedby those to whomthey turn for advice under conditionsof uncertainty.Recognizing that human agency lies at the intersticesbetween systemicconditions, knowledge, and nationalactions, we offeran approach thatexamines the role thatnetworks of knowledge-basedexperts-epistemic communities-play in articulatingthe cause-and-effectrelationships of complex problems,helping states identify their interests,framing the issues for collective debate, proposingspecific policies,and identifyingsalient points for negotiation. We argue thatcontrol overknowledge and informationis an importantdimension of power and that AdvancedIndustrial States (Madison: Universityof WisconsinPress, 1977); Peter J. Katzenstein, Small States in WorldMarkets (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UniversityPress, 1986); Robert Putnam, "Diplomacyand Domestic Politics:The Logic ofTwo-Level Games," IntemationalOrganization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 427-60; Peter B. Evans, DietrichRueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringingthe StateBack In (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1985); Eric A. Nordlinger, "Taking the State Seriously,"in MyronWeiner and Samuel P. Huntington,eds., Understanding PoliticalDevelopment (Boston: Little,Brown, 1987), pp. 353-90; Roger Benjamin and Raymond Duvall, "The CapitalistState in Context,"in Roger Benjamin and Stephen L. Elkin, eds., The DemocraticState (Lawrence: UniversityPress of Kansas, 1985), pp. 19-57; Stephen D. Krasner, "Approaches to the State," ComparativePolitics 16 (January1984), pp. 223-46; and Howard M. Lentner,"The Conceptof the State:A Response to Krasner,"Comparative Politics 16 (April 1984), pp. 367-77. 2. See Robert0. Keohane, "InternationalInstitutions: Two Approaches,"Intemational Studies Quarterly32 (December 1988), pp. 379-96. 3. Krasneracknowledges the importanceof sharedbeliefs in explainingthe Group of 77 (G-77) cooperation and also discusses the role of shared understandingin regime creation. See the followingworks of Stephen D. Krasner: StructuralConflict (Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1985), p. 9; and "Regimes and the Limitsof Realism: Regimes as AutonomousVariables," in Stephen D. Krasner,ed., IntemationalRegimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UniversityPress, 1983), p. 368. Keohane notesthe possibilitythat states may learn to recalculatetheir interests, and Gilpin also acknowledgesthat states occasionally"learn to be more enlightenedin theirdefinitions of theirinterests and can learn to be more cooperativein theirbehavior." See Robert 0. Keohane, AfterHegemony (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 131-32; and RobertGilpin, Warand Changein WorldPolitics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 227. Introduction 3 thediffusion of new ideas and informationcan lead to newpatterns of behavior and proveto be an importantdeterminant of internationalpolicy coordination. An epistemic communityis a networkof professionalswith recognized expertiseand competencein a particulardomain and an authoritativeclaim to policy-relevantknowledge within that domain or issue-area.4Although an epistemiccommunity may consist of professionalsfrom a varietyof disciplines and backgrounds,they have (1) a shared set of normativeand principled beliefs,which provide a value-based rationalefor the social actionof commu- nitymembers; (2) sharedcausal beliefs,which are derivedfrom their analysis of practicesleading or contributingto a centralset of problemsin theirdomain and whichthen serve as the basis forelucidating the multiplelinkages between possible policyactions and desired outcomes;(3) shared notionsof validity- thatis, intersubjective,internally defined criteria for weighing and validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise; and (4) a common policy enterprise-thatis, a set of commonpractices associated with a set of problems to which their professionalcompetence is directed,presumably out of the convictionthat human welfare will be enhancedas a consequence.5 The causal logic of epistemic policy coordinationis simple. The major dynamicsare uncertainty,interpretation, and institutionalization.In interna- tional policy coordination,the formsof uncertaintythat tend to stimulate demandsfor information are thosewhich arise fromthe strongdependence of states on each other'spolicy choices forsuccess in obtaininggoals and those 4. The term "epistemic communities"has