To reform or to replace? : institutional succession in international organizations

Abstract

We construct and test a model explaining why states sometimes replace existing international institutions. Recent literature in International Relations has theorized the conditions in which states reform existing institutions, shift between existing institutional fora, or create new rival institutions to challenge or constrain incumbents. However, the notion that states might directly swap an existing institution for a new replacement is rarely considered. We show that institutional replacement is a common alternative to either institutional reform, ‘regime-shifting’ or ‘competitive regime-creation,’ and offer a strategic bargaining theory explaining the conditions underlying this choice. To test the formal and empirical validity of our argument, we offer a formal bargaining game and detailed empirical evidence from two historical cases.