Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
As part of a continuing analysis and critique of the comparative study of foreign policy (CFP), this paper addresses the question of whether or not there are substantive, theoretical, and/or logical barriers between those who have worked within the "core" tradition of CFP and those who have worked within the subfield of international political economy. Reviewing the intent and content of Rosenau's seminal "Pre‐Theories" article, I argue against an overly narrow view of CFP or of the agenda set out in "Pre‐Theories." I argue for a logic of comparative inquiry that could connect the two, and the existence of common issues as introduced in "Pre‐Theories."
Harvey Starr (Mon,) studied this question.