Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
McCarthy, D. R.; Fluck, M. (2017)
Publisher: Sage
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: UOW10
Transparency is an important concept in International Relations. The possibility of realizing transparency in practice operates as a central analytical axis defining distinct positions on core theoretical problems within the field, from the security dilemma to the function of international institutions and beyond. As a political practice the pursuit of transparent governance is a dominant feature of global politics, promoted by a wide range of actors across a vast range of issue areas, from nuclear proliferation to Internet governance to the politics of foreign aid. Yet, despite its importance, precisely what transparency means or how the concept is understood is frequently ill-defined by academics and policy-makers alike. As a result, the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of approaches to transparency in IR often sit in tension with their wider theoretical commitments. This article will examine the three primary understandings of transparency used in IR in order to unpack these commitments. It finds that while transparency is often explicitly conceptualized as a property of information, particularly within rationalist scholarship, this understanding rests upon an unarticulated set of sociological assumptions. This analysis suggests that conceptualizing ‘transparency-as-information’ without a wider sociology of knowledge production is highly problematic, potentially obscuring our ability to recognize transparent practices in global governance. Understanding transparency as dialogue, as a social practice rooted in shared cognitive capacities and epistemic frameworks, provides a firmer analytical ground from which to examine transparency in International Relations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Aarts, B, Chalker S, and Weiner, E (eds) (2014) The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Adorno, T and Horkheimer, M (2002) Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. Edmund Jephcott.
    • Baker, A (2010) Restraining regulatory capture? Anglo-America, crisis politics and trajectories of change in global financial governance. International Affairs 86 (3): 647-663.
    • Best, J (2005) The Limits of Transparency: Ambiguity and the history of international finance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    • Bentham, J (1838-1843) A Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace. In: Bowring J (ed) The Works of Jeremy Bentham Volume 2. Edinburgh: William Tait, 546-556.
    • Bianchi, A (2013) On Power and Illusion: The Concept of Transparency in International Law. In: Bianchi, A and Peters, A (eds) Transparency in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-20.
    • Blainey, G (1973) The Causes of War. London: Macmillan.
    • Booth, K and Wheeler, NJ (2007) The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Brenner, R (2006) The Economics of Global Turbulence. London: Verso.
    • Buchanan, A and Keohane, RO (2006) The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions.
    • Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4): 405-37.
    • Bull, H (1977) The Anarchical Society. London: Macmillan.
    • Debs, A and Monteiro, NP (2014) Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War.
    • International Organization 68 (1): 1-31.
    • Donaldson, M and Kingsbury, B (2013) “The Adoption of Transparency Policies in Global Governance Institutions: Justifications, Effects and Implications. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9: 119-47.
    • Dryzek, JS (1992) How far is it from Virginia and Rochester to Frankfurt? Public Choice as Critical Theory. British Journal of Political Science 22 (4): 397-441.
    • Elster, J (1994) Rationality, emotions and social norms. Synthese 98(1): 21-49.
    • Farrell, J and Rabin, M (1996) Cheap Talk. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3): 103-118.
    • Fearon, JD (1994) Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.
    • American Political Science Review, 88(3): 577-92.
    • Fearon, JD (1995) “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization, 49(3): 379-414.
    • Fearon, JD (1997) Signalling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs.
    • The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(1): 68-90.
    • Finel, BI and Lord KM(1999) The Surprising Logic of Transparency. International Studies Quarterly 43(2): 325-39.
    • Fluck, M (2014) The best there is? Communication, objectivity and the future of Critical International Relations Theory. European Journal of International Relations 20(1): 56-59.
    • Fluck, M (2015) The Promise of Global Transparency. In: Azmanova, A and Mihai, M (eds) Reclaiming Democracy: Judgment, Responsibility and the Right to Politics. London: Routledge, 144-162.
    • Foucault, M (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977.
    • Gamble, A (2009) The Spectre at the Feast: Capitalist crisis and the politics of recession.
    • Gartzke, E (2007) The Capitalist Peace. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 166- 91.
    • Geanakoplos, J (1992) Common Knowledge. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(4): 53-82.
    • Geras, N (1985) Marx and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend. London: Verso.
    • Geras, N (1999) The View From Everywhere. Review of International Studies 25(1):157-63.
    • Gerring, J (1999) What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity 31(3): 357-93.
    • Gettier, EL (1963) Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis, 23(6): 121-3.
    • Giddens, A (1981) A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, volume 1: Power, property and the state. London: The Macmillan Press.
    • Glaser, CL (1997) The Security Dilemma Revisited. World Politics 50(1): 171-201.
    • Glaser, CL (2010) Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logics of Competition and Cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Goertz, G (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Green, D and Shapiro, I (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Application in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    • Habermas, J (1985) Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2. McCarthy, Thomas trans.
    • Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.
    • Habermas, J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Habermas, J (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Habermas, J (1992) Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jurgen Habermas, Revised Edition. London: Verso.
    • Hale, TN (2008) Transparency, Accountability, and Global Governance. Global Governance 14 (1): 73-94.
    • Hindmoor, A (2011) 'Major Combat Operations Have Ended?' Arguing about Rational Choice. British Journal of Political Science 41(1): 191-210.
    • Hoad, TF (ed) (2003) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Horkheimer, M (1972) Traditional and Critical Theory. In Critical Theory: Selected Essays.
    • New York: Continuum, 188 - 243.
    • Jay, M (1993) Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    • Jervis, R (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Jervis, R (1978) Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2): 167-214.
    • Johnson, J (1991) Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action. Political Theory, 19(2): 181-201.
    • Kahler, M (1998) Rationality in International Relations. International Organization 52(4): 919-941.
    • Kant, I (1970a) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'. In: Reiss, H (ed) Kant's Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-130.
    • Kant, I (1970b) An Essay in Answer to the Question 'What is Enlightenment? In: Reiss, H (ed) Kant's Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 54-60.
    • Keohane, RO (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4): 379-96.
    • Kurizaki, S (2007) Efficient Secrecy: Public versus Private Threats in Crisis Diplomacy.
    • American Political Science Review 101(3) 543-58.
    • Levine, DJ (2012) Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique.
    • Linklater, A (1998) The Transformation of Political Community. Cambridge: Polity.
    • Lord, KM (2006) The Perils and Promise of Global Transparency. Albany: SUNY Press.
    • Lynch, M (2002) Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement.
    • European Journal of International Relations, 8(2): 187-230.
    • Manzo, G (2013) Is rational choice theory still a rational choice of theory? A response to Opp. Social Science Information, 52(3): 361-82.
    • McCarthy, DR (2015) Power, Information Technology, and International Relations Theory: The Power and Politics of US Foreign Policy and the Internet. London: Palgrave.
    • McCarthy, TJ (1978) The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Mearsheimer, JJ (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
    • Mercer, J (2005) Rationality and Psychology in International Politics. International Organization, 59(1): 77-106.
    • Mercer, J (2012) Audience Costs Are Toys. Security Studies, 21(3): 398-404 Morrow, JD (1989) Capabilities, Uncertainty, and Resolve: A Limited Information Model of Crisis Bargaining. American Journal of Political Science 33(4): 941-72.
    • Morgenthau, HJ (1946) Scientific Man Versus Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Morrow, JD (1994) Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Niou, EMS and Ordershook, PC (1999) Return of the Luddites. International Security, 24(2): 84-96.
    • Quackenbush, S (2004) The Rationality of Rational Choice Theory. International Interactions 30 (2): 87-107.
    • Rasler, K and Thompson, WR (2005) Puzzles of the Democratic Peace: Theory, Geopolitics and the Transformation of World Politics. London: Palgrave.
    • Rathbun, BC (2007) Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3): 533-57.
    • Sartori, AE (2002) The Might of the Pen: A Reputational Theory of Communication in International Disputes. International Organization 56(1): 121-49.
    • Sayer, A (2000) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, Second Edition. London: Routledge.
    • Schelling, T (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Schiemann, JW (2000) Meeting Halfway Between Rochester and Frankfurt: Generative Salience, Focal Points, and Strategic Interaction. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1): 1-16.
    • Schultz, KA (2012) Why We Needed Audience Cost and What We Need Now. Security Studies, 21(3): 369-75.
    • Snyder, J and Borghard, ED (2011) The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound.
    • American Political Science Review, 105(3): 437-56.
    • Stasavage, D (2004) Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining. International Organization 58 (4): 667-703.
    • The Sunlight Foundation (2013) International List of Transparency Organizations.
    • http://freegovinfor.info/node/3950, date accessed November 24 2014.
    • Tarar, A and Leventoglu, B (2012) Limited Audience Costs in International Crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution 57(6): 1065-1089.
    • Taylor, M (2006) Rationality and the Ideology of Disconnection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Trachtenberg, M (2012) Audience Costs: An Historical Analysis. Security Studies 21(1): 3- 42.
    • Wagner, RH (2007) War and the State: The Theory of International Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    • Wang, H and Rosenau, JN (2001) Transparency International and Corruption as an Issue of Global Governance. Global Governance 7(1): 25-49.
    • Wendt, A (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Williams, R (1976) Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Press.
    • Williams, MC (2005) The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article