Disruptions to the rule-based liberal international order expose a disconnect between the complexity of geopolitical and geoeconomic dynamics and the explanatory power of existing theories of International Relations (IR). Addressing this gap requires a problem-driven research programme that integrates analytical frameworks and methodological approaches across IR subfields. This workshop builds on efforts to bridge International Political Economy (IPE) and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), including a roundtable at ISA 2024 and a forum in Cooperation and Conflict (Fouquet, Baydag et al. 2026). It aims to advance this programme and explore the possibility of developing a special issue, should suitable contributions emerge.
IPE and FPA share overlapping research interests at the intersection of the domestic and the international. Both unpack the black box of the state, yet have developed largely in isolation. This produces two symmetrical blind spots. FPA’s core concern with decision-makers’ agency remains a blind spot in IPE: how individual preferences, beliefs, personality, and micro-level decision-making processes shape policy choices. Conversely, IPE’s concern with distributional politics remains largely invisible in FPA: how international economic conditions shape the domestic societal context within which governments make decisions, and how domestic distributional pressures, electoral incentives, and their institutional aggregation shape foreign economic policy.
A growing body of scholarship has drawn attention to these blind spots and explored ways of addressing them. A dedicated forum has laid a foundation for dialogue between the two subfields, clarifying conceptual differences and identifying avenues for future research (Fouquet, Baydag et al. 2026). Yet important disconnects remain: although the forum has brought FPA tools into IPE questions, systematic two-way integration needs sustained engagement grounded in concrete policy challenges where cross-level explanation is most urgently needed.
Bauerle Danzman S and Meunier S (2024) The EU’s geoeconomic turn: From policy laggard to institutional innovator. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 62(4): 1097–1115.
Baydag RM (2025) Domestic ideas and interests in development cooperation of emerging donors: The case of Mexican development policy. Contemporary Politics 31(5): 684–706.
Blavoukos S and Bourantonis D (2014) Identifying parameters of foreign policy change: An eclectic approach. Cooperation and Conflict 49(4): 483–500.
Brummer K (2024) A leader-centered theory of foreign policy change: U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba under Obama. Bristol University Press.
Calvert J and Kaarbo J (2025) The profits of personality: Advancing the fourth ‘I’ in international political economy research. Review of International Political Economy 32(5): 1361–1385.
Da Conceição-Heldt E and Mello PA (2018) Two-level games in foreign policy analysis. In: Thies CG (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, pp. 770–789.
Di Carlo D, Moretti L and Moschella M (2025) What’s in a polity? Political institutions and varieties of economic interventionism in the United States and the European Union. Governance 38(4): e70066.
Farrell H and Newman AL (2019) Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security 44(1): 42–79.
Fioretos O (2001) The domestic sources of multilateral preferences: Varieties of capitalism in the European community. In: Hall PA and Soskice D (eds) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press, pp. 213–246.
Fouquet S (2024) Beat the elite or concede defeat? Populist problem (re-)representations of international financial disputes. Review of International Studies. Epub ahead of print 26 November. DOI:10.1017/S0260210524000743.
Fouquet S, Baydag RM, Brummer K, Schirm SA, Oktay S, Moro FN, Moschella M, Thies CG and Wehner LE (2026) Dialogue instead of mutual neglect? International Political Economy meets Foreign Policy Analysis. Cooperation and Conflict (first view), 1–30. DOI: 10.1177/00108367261424470.
Frieden J and Martin LL (2003) International political economy: Global and domestic interactions. In: Katznelson I and Milner HV (eds) Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Norton, pp. 118–146.
Goldstein J and Keohane RO (1993) Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. In: Goldstein J and Keohane RO (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change. Cornell University Press, pp. 3–32.
Gourevitch PA (1978) The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics. International Organization 32(4): 881–912.
Hall N and Woods N (2018) Theorizing the role of executive heads in international organizations. European Journal of International Relations 24(4): 865–886.
Hudson VM (2005) Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1): 1–30.
Kaarbo J (2015) A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in IR theory. International Studies Review 17(2): 189–216.
Kaarbo J and Thies CG (2024) Repositioning foreign policy analysis in international relations. In: Kaarbo J, Thies CG (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–21.
Milner HV and Tingley DH (2015) Sailing the Water’s Edge. Princeton University Press.
Moravcsik A (1997) Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization 51(4): 513–553.
Oktay S (2022) Governing Abroad: Coalition Politics and Foreign Policy in Europe. University of Michigan Press.
Schirm SA (2020) Refining domestic politics theories of IPE: A societal approach to governmental preferences. Politics 40(4): 396–412.
Schirm SA (2026) The domestic politics of European responses to Trump’s demands in defence and trade. International Politics. DOI: 10.1057/s41311-026-00762-9.
Sil R, Katzenstein PJ (2010) Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 411–431.
Thies CG and Wehner LE (2019) The role of role theory in international political economy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32(6): 712–733.
Young AR (2026) 2025: The year in which Trump transformed Transatlantic trade. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.
1: How individuals, distributional politics, and external pressures interact to produce foreign policy variation.
2: How IPE approaches generate analytical payoffs for FPA on elite decision-making and foreign policy change.
3: How FPA tools applied to international economic institutions can advance core IPE questions.
4: How geoeconomics reshape domestic political economy and actors translate them into foreign economic policy.
5: How and under what domestic conditions and external policy spaces populists contest international institutions.
1: Great power competition, geoeconomic crises
2: Trade policy, industrial policy, sanctions, supply chain
3: Leader preferences, leader-society nexus in foreign economic policy
4: Populist politicisation of the global economy
5: Public opinion and foreign economic policy
6: Societal foundations of the new international economic order
7: Legitimacy of Global Governance and International Organizations
8: Elite deliberation and decision-making processes in economic non-state actors
