The primary concern of Krasner and Enloe is that the relationships between states regarding economic and how the economic factor has made a significant effect in exercising power. Kranser is using a deductive approach where he begins by examining the two central theoretical perspectives in international political economy (liberalism and realism) and seeks to derive hypotheses from those views, drawing to empirically cases in countries such as the USA and Russia (Krasner, 1996). Enloe, on the other hand, is indeductive. She begins by looking at the experiences and emotions on ‘those apparently silent on the margins’ who are ‘those at the bottom of the pyramid of power’ using an appropriate novel concerning the Chiapas native people in the Guatemala border of Mexico (Enloe, 1996, p. 187). Hence, this review will address Krasner’ methodology followed by Enloe’s and explore further their different approach in an ontology.
During the 1950s and 1960s international relations were placed security as a primary, concern leaving economic as a secondary (Krasner, 1996). With the increasing of troublesome global economic, international relations tended to locate its attention to enhance international political economy centred on the two main theories: liberalism and realism (ibid). Krasner seems to believe that scientific explanations should be possible regarding the way in which the world functions economically. He made it clear by drawing from those three points as his methodology to explain how liberalism is switching away from their emphasis on creating international institutions (functionalism), companies and organisations (transnationalism) that work beyond national borders together with or without government’s intervention to promote cooperation via trade deals. Conversely, he notes that cooperation may indeed have created or preserved peace in places like Europe, but it has not attained when looking at places such Middles East or Africa. Krasner, therefore, continues to analyse realism’s assumptions look particularly at the effective relations among world affairs and national states, and their distinctive practise of power. Considering an essential aspect of neo-realism that state is the only actor that seeks power to achieve self-interest (anarchic), Krasner points before Cold War, where states are considered to have used their economic as a weapon to attempt dominance. By taking the USA as an example in a period of under threat with the rise of Russia’s renewed strength (should continue in the book). Although according to Krasner both theories appeared to a certain extent explain the exemplary problems, however, he added that these theories should also have to be considered with some new evidence that emerges which in the degree Krasner thinks they have failed to do so. Nevertheless, he believes that liberalism and realism both theories are viewed as scientific materialism; therefore ontological could be accomplished to operate scientifically in international affairs, although there might be various unexpected facts and circumstances arise.
Both Krasner’s and Enloe’s methodology differs from another. Enloe interpreted a novel (The Nine Guardian by Rosario Castellanos) that reveals Chiapas’ experiences and its important occurrences – the communiqué issued by Zapatista National Liberation Army in 1994 (Enloe, 1996, p. 191). Moreover, she carries on by examining the way in which power is exercised in favour of specific groups. She noticed in the 1910s and 1930s when Chiapas’ government promises were discharged which giving addition courage for them to rebel (could say more about the government’s promises). Likewise, in any way in which women’s groups have shifted from being neglected by the patriarchal society to their needs to be heard. Thus, Enloe could be identified as an interpretation since her methodology was based on the history (fictional discourse), which it cannot be classified as a science due to a certain extent of unjustifiable.