Institutionalism beyond methodological nationalism? The new interdependence approach and the limits of historical institutionalism

This article critiques New Interdependence Approach (NIA) explanations of global regulation, positing instead a State Transformation Approach (STA). Rightly critical of state-centric frameworks on the politics of globalisation, the NIA seeks to explain the emergence and distributional outcomes of global regulatory regimes, arguing that they stem from struggles sparked by overlapping rules that cut across national boundaries and which reshape domestic and international institutions. While the NIA presents a useful description of this process, and its efforts to overcome methodological nationalism are welcome, its explanatory power is limited by its roots in historical institutionalism, which fails to specify adequately the context that shapes political struggles, producing unsystematic, ad hoc accounts. Conversely, the STA explicitly locates struggles over global regulatory regimes within the wider context of evolving global capitalism and associated shifts in the nature of statehood, providing a more grounded and determinate explanation of outcomes. The argument is illustrated empirically throughout with reference to the global anti-money laundering regime. This study’s findings raise question marks regarding historical institutionalism’s potential to advance International Political Economy.