Keohane and Lisa' emphasis on the value of institutions may be correct. However, one deems that this assertion that institutions work for the cooperation between states is problematic. Yes, states construct institutions as both authors argue, but one claims that the internal procedures and rules are set by the agents of these principal states that create these institutions. Hence, practically these regimes concern only the interests and benefits of the states that make them.
Institutionalists' argue that institutions effect state behavior, and there is evidence that institutions have impacted the states' decision-making. One believes that this assertion is only true to the extent that states pursue interests and whatever means fulfill them they opt for those means. Hence, one claims that institutions are mere means in the hands of states to pursue their interests.
Even though, institutions provide useful information as institutionalists' argue, but one counters this argument by saying that institutions are mere abstractions that cannot actively keep track of facts and figures. The individuals that work inside these institutions are the real agents of information and it becomes very hard to determine what part of their information is real and what part is assumed unless the information is analyzed and scrutinized.
Hence, there is no reason why institutions cannot disseminate disinformation. Moreover, the assertion about the informational aspect of the authors becomes a sort of fallacy, because they have not discussed any sort of mechanisms that lead to the collection and spread of information through institutions. While reading their argument it sounds like states always get correct information from institutions that one finds intuitively and logically unsound.
Good post and you highlight several key limitations of institutions. I particularly liked your points on information and this is something worth unpacking in class after the break.
ReplyDelete