62 International Organization bureaucracy that reflected internationally oriented interests tried to use American power to reorganize the world's political economy,while portions of the government tied to domestically oriented sectors insisted on limiting America's international role.The crisis of the 1930s dissolved many of the entrenched interests that had kept policy stalemated and allowed a new group of political leaders to reconstitute a more coherent set of policies. This article builds on the work of historians investigating the interwar period3 and on the contributions of other social scientists concerned with the relationship between the international and domestic political economies. The work of Charles Kindleberger and Peter Gourevitch,among many others,has shown the importance of sectoral economic interests in ex- plaining domestic politics and foreign policymaking in advanced industrial societies.Both Gourevitch and Thomas Ferguson have used a sectoral ap- proach to elucidate domestic and international events in the 1930s.The present article is thus an attempt to build on existing sectoral interpretations of modern political economies,and an extension of the approach to prob- lems in international relations. The argument summarized Between 1900 and 1920,the United States went from a position of relative international economic insignificance to one of predominance.A major inter- 3.The historical literature on the period is so enormous that it is feasible only to cite the most recent important additions.Two review essays and a forum are a good start:Kathleen Burk, Economic Diplomacy Between the Wars,Historical Jour(December 191),pp.1003 15;Jon Jacobson,"'Is There a New International History of the 1920s?"'American Historical Review 88(June 1983),pp.617-45;and Charles Maier,Stephen Schuker,and Charles Kin- dleberger,"The Two Postwar Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth-Century Western Europe,"American Historical Review 86(April 1981).Other important works include Denise Artaud,La question des dettes interalliees et la reconstruction de I'Europe (Paris: Champion,1979);Frank Costigliola,Awkward Dominion:American Political,Economic,and Cultural Relations with Europe 1919-1933 (Ithaca,N.Y.:Cornell University Press,1984); Michael J.Hogan,Informal Entente:The Private Structure of Cooperation in Anglo-American Economic Diplomacy,1918-1928 (Columbia:University of Missouri Press,1977);Melvyn Leffler,The Elusive Quest:America's Pursuit of European Stability and French Security,1919- 1933 (Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press,1979);William McNeil,American Money and the Weimar Republic (New York:Columbia University Press,1986);Stephen Schuker,The End of French Predominance in Europe (Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press,1976);and Dan Silverman,Reconstructing Europe after the Great War (Cam- bridge:Harvard University Press,1982).Many of the leading scholars in the field summarize their views in Gustav Schmidt,ed.,Konstellationen Internationaler Politik 1924-1932 (Bochum,W.Ger.:Studienverlag Dr.N.Brockmeyer,1983). 4.Charles Kindleberger,"Group Behavior and International Trade,"Journal of Political Economy 59 (February 1951),pp.30-46;Peter Gourevitch,"International Trade,Domestic Coalitions,and Liberty:Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873-1896,'Journal of Inter- disciplinary History 8(Autumn 1977),pp.281-313;Peter Gourevitch,"Breaking with Or- thodoxy:the Politics of Economic Policy Responses to the Depression of the 1930s," International Organization 38 (Winter 1984),pp.95-129;Thomas Ferguson,"From Normalcy to New Deal:Industrial Structure,Party Competition,and American Public Policy in the Great Depression,"'International Organization 38 (Winter 1984),pp.41-94.62 International Organization bureaucracy that reflected internationally oriented interests tried to use American power to reorganize the world's political economy, while portions of the government tied to domestically oriented sectors insisted on limiting America's international role. The crisis of the 1930s dissolved many of the entrenched interests that had kept policy stalemated and allowed a new group of political leaders to reconstitute a more coherent set of policies. This article bbilds on the work of historians investigating the interwar period3 and on the contributions of other social scientists concerned with the relationship between the international and domestic political economies. The work of Charles Kindleberger and Peter Gourevitch, among many others, has shown the importance of sectoral economic interests in ex￾plaining domestic politics and foreign policymaking in advanced industrial societies. Both Gourevitch and Thomas Ferguson have used a sectoral ap￾proach to elucidate domestic and international events in the 1930s. The present article is thus an attempt to build on existing sectoral interpretations of modern political economies, and an extension of the approach to prob￾lems in international relation^.^ The argument summarized Between 1900 and 1920, the United States went from a position of relative international economic insignificance to one of predominance. A major inter- 3. The historical literature on the period is so enormous that it is feasible only to cite the most recent important additions. Two review essays and a forum are a good start: Kathleen Burk, "Economic Diplomacy Between the Wars," Historical Journal 24 (December 1981), pp. 1003- 15; Jon Jacobson, "Is There a New International History of the 1920s?" American Historical Review 88 (June 1983), pp. 617-45; and Charles Maier, Stephen Schuker, and Charles Kin￾dleberger, "The Two Postwar Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth-Century Western Europe," American Historical Review 86 (April 1981). Other important works include Denise Artaud, La question des dettes interallie'es et la reconstruction de ['Europe (Paris: Champion, 1979); Frank Costigliola, Awkward Dominion: American Political, Economic, and Cultural Relations with Europe 1919-1933 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984); Michael J. Hogan, Informal Entente: The Private Structure of Cooperation in Anglo-American Economic Diplomacy, 1918-1928 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1977); Melvyn Leffler, The Elusive Quest: America's Pursuit of European Stability and French Security, 1919- 1933 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979); William McNeil, American Money and the Weimar Republic (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); Stephen Schuker, The End of French Predominance in Europe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976); and Dan Silverman, Reconstructing Europe after the Great War (Cam￾bridge: Harvard University Press, 1982). Many of the leading scholars in the field summarize their views in Gustav Schmidt, ed., Konstellationen Internationaler Politik 1924-1932 (Bochum, W. Ger.: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1983). 4. Charles Kindleberger, "Group Behavior and International Trade," Journal of Political Economy 59 (February 1951), pp. 30-46; Peter Gourevitch, "International Trade, Domestic Coalitions, and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873-1896," Journal of lnter￾disciplinary History 8 (Autumn 1977), pp. 281-313; Peter Gourevitch, "Breakin with Or￾thodoxy: the Politics of Economic Policy Responses to the Depression of ti 1930s," International Organization 38 (Winter 1984), pp. 95-129; Thomas Ferguson, "From Normalcy to New Deal: Industrial Structure, Party Competition, and American Public Policy in the Great Depression," International Organization 38 (Winter 1984), pp. 41-94