Power and International Relations
In Handbook of International Relations, eds. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons. 2nd Ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013): 273-297.

Success and Failure in Foreign Policy
Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 3: 167-82.
Abstract:
The field of foreign policy analysis needs a common set of concepts and analytical frameworks to facilitate comparison of atlernative policy options. Not only is general agreement lacking, there is not even a common understanding of what is meant by success. In order to build policy-relevant knowledge concerning success and failure of foreign policy, the following questions must be addressed: How effective is a policy instrument likely to be, with respect to which goals and targets, at what cost, and in comparison with what other policy instruments? Failure to address each question may lead to serious policy mistakes.

The Sanctions Debate and the Logic of Choice
International Security. Vol. 24, Issue 3: 80-107.
Abstract:
Do economic sanctions "work"? Is this the question scholars should be asking? David Baldwin of Columbia University addresses "the basic paradox" he sees at the core of the sanctions debate: nation-states and international organizations are using sanctions with growing frequency at the same time that many in the scholarly community discount the utility of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. To explain this seeming contradiction, Baldwin maintains that while scholars tend to frame the debate in terms of whether economic sanctions "work," policymakers focus on the question of whether they should be used. In addition, scholars often use different concepts and methodologies when discussing sanctions, which results in disjointed and ultimately ineffective argumentation. According to Baldwin, the stakes for the scholarly community are high, because "until researchers agree on which questions to ask and on how to seek answers, the sanctions debate is unlikely to produce useful policy-relevant knowledge."

The Concept of Security
Review of International Studies. Vol. 23: 5-26.
Abstract:
Redefining 'security' has recently become something of a cottage industry. Most such efforts, however, are more concerned with redefining the policy agendas of nation-states than with the concept of security itself. Often, this takes the form of proposals for giving high priority to such issues as human rights, economics, the environment, drug traffic, epidemics, crime, or social injustice, in addition to the traditional concern with security from external military threats. Such proposals are usually buttressed with a mixture of normative arguments about which values of which people or groups of people should be protected, and empirical arguments as to the nature and magnitude of threats to those values. Relatively little attention is devoted to conceptual issues as such. This article seeks to disentangle the concept of security from these normative and empirical concerns, however legitimate they may be.

Security Studies and the End of the Cold War
World Politics. Vol. 48, Issue 1: 117-41.
Abstract:
The end of the cold war is arguably the most momentous event in international politics since the end ofWorld War II and the dawn of the atomic age. Paraphrasing John F. Kennedy on the advent of nuclear weapons, one scholar sees the end of the cold war as changing "all the answers and all the questions."1 Another scholar, however, denies that there have been any "fundamental changes in the nature of international politics since World War II" and asserts that states will have to worry as much about military security as they did during the cold war (Mearsheimer, in Allison and Treverton, 214, 235). Most of the fifty or so authors whose work appears in the books reviewed here take the more moderate position that the end of the cold war changes some of the questions and some of the answers, but they disagree over which questions and answers are at issue.

Economics and National Security
Co-authored with Helen V. Milner
In Power, Economics, and Security, ed. Henry Bienen. (New York: Westview, 1992): 29-50.

Politics, Exchange, and Cooperation
In Generalized Political Exchange, ed. Bernd Marin, Volume I (Frankfurt/New York: Campus/Westview, 1990): 101-18.

Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis
International Organization. Vol. 34, Issue 4: 471-506.
Abstract:
The concept of dependence—mutual or otherwise—in world politics has stimulated a lively scholarly controversy during the last decade. Some view it as helpful in explaining the distribution of power in the world, while others condemn it as an "unhelpful" and "misleading" analytical category. Many scholars complain about the lack of conceptual clarity," and some even deny that there is any generally accepted definition of the term. The purpose of this essay is to examine the concept of dependence, to clarify it through explication, to consider recent conceptual distinctions in analytical and historical perspective, and to address the question of whether "dependence" can be treated as part of a larger family of social science concepts sometimes called "power terms." It is important to be clear as to what this essay is about, but it is equally important to understand what it is not about. It does not offer empirical observations as to whether dependence or interdependence is increasing or decreasing. It does not offer normative observations as to whether dependence or interdependence is "good" or "bad." And it is not an attempt either to refute or to understand dependencia theory as recently formulated by certain Latin American scholars.

Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends vs. Old Tendencies
World Politics. Vol. 31, Issue 2: 161-94.
Abstract:
From Niccolo Machiavelli and David Hume to E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau, power has been an important (some would say too important) variable in international political theorizing. Although some may regard power analysis as old-fashioned and outdated, recent refinements in social science thinking about power suggest the possibility of revitalizing this approach to understanding international relations. Exact turning points in intellectual history are difficult to identify, but many would regard the publication of Power and Society by Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan as the watershed between the older, intuitive and ambiguous treatments of power and the clarity and pre- cision of more recent discussions. Since then, Herbert Simon, James March, Robert Dahl, Jack Nagel, and others have developed the idea of power as a type of causation. This causal conception of power, according to Nagel, has proved attractive for three reasons: First, there are compelling similarities between intuitive notions of power and causation. Second, causal conceptions of power are less likely to lead to tautologies. And third, "treatment of power as causation enables power researchers to employ methods developed for more general applications."

Power and Social Exchange
American Political Science Review. Vol. 72, Issue 4: 1229-42.
Abstract:
This article examines the basic social science concepts of "power" and "social exchange" in order to determine the possibility and desirability of integrating them. It is argued that: (1) all exchange relationships can be described in terms of conventional power concepts without twisting the common-sense notions that underlie such concepts; (2) most-but not necessarily all-power relationships can be described in terms of exchange terminology; (3) there are some advantages to conceiving of power in this way; (4) recent social exchange theorists have neither illuminated nor recognized most of these advantages. After a preliminary examination of the concepts of "power" and "exchange", the discussion focuses on the analytical and conceptual problems associated with volition, exchange media, asymmetry, sanctions, and authority.

Inter-Nation Influence Revisited
Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 15, Issue 4: 471-86.

The Power of Positive Sanctions
World Politics. Vol. 24, Issue 1: 19-38.
Abstract:
Political science has made valuable contributions to the progressive clarification of the concept of power since World War II. In view of the attention political scientists have traditionally lavished on the concept of power, it seems fitting that they should help clarify it. Thanks to the efforts of such men as Harold Lasswell and Robert Dahl, many political scientists today are keenly aware of the need to define power in relational terms, to distinguish power relations from power resources, to specify scope, weight, domain, and so on. There is, however, one distinction that is rarely considered by political scientists - that between positive and negative sanctions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify this distinction and show how and why it matters

Money and Power
Journal of Politics. Vol. 33, Issue 3: 578-614.
Abstract:
Political scientists are fond of observing that "power is to us what money is to the economist: the medium via which transactions are observed and measured." The analogy sometimes implies, as it does in this quotation, that money and power perform similar social functions. At other times it seems to mean that political scientists ought to spend as much time thinking about power as economists do thinking about money. At still other times one detects an envious tone that seems to say, "How lucky are the economists to have money, while our nearest equivalent is that slippery concept of power." The precise implication rarely matters, however, since the analogy is usually more a rhetorical than an analytical device. The article cited is typical in its use of the analogy as little more than a device to introduce a discussion of power.