oponents of the systemic hypothesis and those of the second image hypothesis tend to interpret international events differently. Under the systemic hypothesis, liberal arrangements for international trade and finance may be interpreted as responses to the need for policy coordination created by the fact of interdependence, as such arrangements contain the rules, norms, principles and decision making procedures required for international intercourse (Rogowski, 1987, pp. 1121 1137). By contrast, within the context of the second image hypothesis, the broad character of international trade and financial arrangements are recognized, but the underlying motivation for these actions are held to be the pressures present in the domestic political structures of the nations concerned, and to the competing economic interests of these actors (Katzenstein, 1978, pp. 295 336).
The formation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Redevelopment (the World Bank), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), thus, could be explained by either the systemic hypothesis or the second image hypothesis. The systemic hypothesis would justify the creation of the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT on the basis of the economic interdependence of the states involved, while the second image hypothesis would explain such creations on the basis of the domestic economic motivations of the same states.
The difference between the two hypotheses in relation to the creation of the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT stems not from the creation of these international organizations and agreements, but, rather, from the restrictions placed on the participation in these international organizations and agreements. The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and the communist satellite states were excluded from participation in the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT. These acts of exclusion cannot be attributed to...