516 International Organization Second,a theoretical restatement should be rigorous and coherent,offering a clear definition of its own boundaries.This restatement does so by demonstrating that institutionalist theories of regimes-commonly treated as liberal due to ideological and historical connotations-are in fact based on assumptions closer to realism than to liberalism.This helps to explain why IR theorists have found it difficult to distill a set of coherent microfoundational assumptions for liberal theory. Third,a theoretical restatement should demonstrate empirical accuracy vis-a-vis other theories;it should expose anomalies in existing work,forcing reconsideration of empirical findings and theoretical positions.This restatement of liberal theory meets this criterion by revealing significant methodological biases in empirical evalu- ations of realist theories of "relative gains-seeking"and constructivist analyses of ideas and IR due to the omission of liberal alternatives.If these biases were corrected, liberal accounts might well supplant many widely accepted realist and institutional- ist,as well as constructivist,explanations of particular phenomena in world politics. Fourth,a theoretical restatement should demonstrate multicausal consistency.By specifying the antecedent conditions under which it is valid and the precise causal links to policy outcomes,a theory should specify rigorously how it can be synthe- sized with other theories into a multicausal explanation consistent with tenets of fundamental social theory.This restatement does so by reversing the nearly universal presumption among contemporary IR theorists that"systemic"theories like realism and institutionalism should be employed as an analytical "first cut,"with theories of "domestic"preference formation brought in only to explain anomalies-a prescrip- tion that is both methodologically biased and theoretically incoherent.In its place,this restatement dictates the reverse:Liberal theory is analytically prior to both realism and institutionalism because it defines the conditions under which their assumptions hold. If this proposed reformulation of liberal IR theory meets these four criteria,as I argue it does,there is good reason to accord it a paradigmatic position empirically coequal with and analytically prior to realism and institutionalism,as well as construc- tivism,in theory and research on world politics. Core Assumptions of Liberal IR Theory Liberal IR theory's fundamental premise-that the relationship between states and the surrounding domestic and transnational society in which they are embedded criti- cally shapes state behavior by influencing the social purposes underlying state pref- erences-can be restated in terms of three core assumptions.These assumptions are appropriate foundations of any social theory of IR:they specify the nature of societal actors,the state,and the international system. Assumption 1:The Primacy of Societal Actors The fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups, who are on the average rational and risk-averse and who organize exchange and collective action to promote differentiated interests under constraints imposed by material scarcity,conficting values,and variations in societal influence.516 International Organization Second, a theoretical restatement should be rigorous and coherent, offering a clear definition of its own boundaries. This restatement does so by demonstrating that institutionalist theories of regimes-commonly treated as liberal due to ideological and historical connotations-are in fact based on assumptions closer to realism than to liberalism. This helps to explain why IR theorists have found it difficult to distill a set of coherent microfoundational assumptions for liberal theory. Third, a theoretical restatement should demonstrate empirical accuracy vis-a-vis other theories; it should expose anomalies in existing work, forcing reconsideration of empirical findings and theoretical positions. This restatement of liberal theory meets this criterion by revealing sign$cant methodological biases in empirical evalu￾ations of realist theories of "relative gains-seeking" and constructivist analyses of ideas and IR due to the omission of liberal alternatives. If these biases were corrected, liberal accounts might well supplant many widely accepted realist and institutional￾ist, as well as constructivist, explanations of particular phenomena in world politics. Fourth, a theoretical restatement should demonstrate multicausal consistency. By specifying the antecedent conditions under which it is valid and the precise causal links to policy outcomes, a theory should specify rigorously how it can be synthe￾sized with other theories into a multicausal explanation consistent with tenets of fundamental social theory. This restatement does so by reversing the nearly universal presumption among contemporary IR theorists that "systemic" theories like realism and institutionalism should be employed as an analytical "first cut," with theories of "domestic" preference formation brought in only to explain anomalies-a prescrip￾tion that is both methodologically biased and theoretically incoherent. In its place, this restatement dictates the reverse: Liberal theory is analytically prior to both realism and institutionalism because it defines the conditions under which their assumptions hold. If this proposed reformulation of liberal IR theory meets these four criteria, as I argue it does, there is good reason to accord it a paradigmatic position empirically coequal with and analytically prior to realism and institutionalism, as well as construc￾tivism, in theory and research on world politics. Core Assumptions of Liberal IR Theory Liberal IR theory's fundamental premise-that the relationship between states and the surrounding domestic and transnational society in which they are embedded criti￾cally shapes state behavior by influencing the social purposes underlying state pref￾erences--can be restated in terms of three core assumptions. These assumptions are appropriate foundations of any social theory of IR: they specify the nature of societal actors, the state, and the international system. Assumption I: The Primacy of Societal Actors The fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups, who are on the average rational and risk-averse and who organize exchange and collective action to promote differentiated interests under constraints imposed by material scarcity, conflicting values, and variations in societal influence