te a sphere of real activity, called 'economics,' from another sphere of real activity, called 'politics,' are doomed to frustration and failure."3
Gilpin offered an interpretation of the term "international regime," which while broader, does not necessarily conflict with the views of Keohane. Gilpin stated that control "over or governance of the international system is a function of three factors."4 These three factors are, according to Gilpin, the distribution of power among political coalitions, the hierarchy of prestige among states, and the set of rights and rules that govern or at least influence interactions among states.5
Gilpin stated that control through the distribution of power has, throughout history, been characterized by: (1) hegemony or imperialism, in which a single powerful state "dominates the lesser states in the system;" (2) bipolarity, in which "two powerful states control . . . interactions within and between
4Robert Gilpin, War and change in World Politics (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 28.
their respective spheres of influence;" and "a balance of power in which three or more states control one another's actions through diplomatic maneuver, shifting alliances, and open conflict."6 Keohane, however, tended to discount the exclusivity of Gilpin's assessment of international control. In this context, he stated that claims "for the general validity of the theory of hegemonic stability are often exaggerated. The dominance of a single great power may contribute to order in world politics, in particular circumstances, but it is not a sufficient condition . . . ."7 Keohane added that hegemony "and cooperation are not alternatives; on the contrary, they are often found in symbiotic relationships with one another."8 Gilpin recognized a greater power for the hegemonic state.
With respect to the hierarchy of prestige among states, Gilpin stated that, ultimately, it "rests on e...