SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sinop Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

A Bibliometric Analysis of International Relations In Sights Across Economics, Business Finance and Social Sciences

Uluslararası İlişkilerde Bibliyometrik Bir Analiz: Ekonomi, İşletme Finansmanı ve Sosyal Bilimler Üzerine Çıkarımlar

Muhammed Mustafa Tuncer Çalışkan(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7566-2138
Pages
726–774
Publication Date
2025-05-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings reveal deep connections between the international relations literature and economic, political, and social processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to understand the interdisciplinary structure and thematic trends in the international relations literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Articles published in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1994 and 2025 with "international relations" in their titles were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal deep connections between the international relations literature and economic, political, and social processes.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Uluslararası İlişkiler · Bibliyometrik Analiz · Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar

Abstract

This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to understand the interdisciplinary structure and thematic trends in the international relations literature. Articles published in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1994 and 2025 with "international relations" in their titles were analyzed. Findings reveal deep connections between the international relations literature and economic, political, and social processes. Notably, concepts like "foreign direct investment" and "global governance" occupy a central place in the literature. While Western dominance persists, contributions from actors like China and India are increasingly significant. The thematic diversity in the literature highlights the necessity of addressing international relations within an interdisciplinary framework. This study evaluates the current state of the literature and aims to offer a new perspective on the theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches within the discipline

Özet

Bu çalışma, uluslararası ilişkiler literatürünün disiplinler arası yapısını ve tematik eğilimlerini anlamak amacıyla kapsamlı bir bibliyometrik analiz gerçekleştirmiştir. Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında 1994-2025 yılları arasında yayımlanmış ve "international relations" ifadesini içeren makaleler incelenmiştir. Bulgular, uluslararası ilişkiler literatürünün ekonomik, politik ve sosyal süreçlerle derin bağlarını ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle "doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar" ve "küresel yönetişim" gibi kavramların literatürde merkezi bir yere sahip olduğu, Batı merkezli akademik baskınlığın yanı sıra Çin ve Hindistan gibi aktörlerin artan katkılarının dikkat çekici olduğu belirlenmiştir. Literatürdeki tematik çeşitlilik, uluslararası ilişkilerin disiplinler arası bir bağlamda ele alınmasının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, literatürün mevcut durumunu değerlendirerek, disiplinin teorik çerçevelerine ve metodolojik yaklaşımlarına dair yeni bir perspektif sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çalışkan, M. M. T. (2025). A Bibliometric Analysis of International Relations In Sights Across Economics, Business Finance and Social Sciences. Sinop Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 726–774. https://doi.org/10.30561/sinopusd.1627431

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (80)

  1. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international relations theo-ry? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcm012
  2. Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and discovery: In search of international relations theories beyond the West. Millennium, 39(3), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811406574
  3. Acharya, A. (2014). Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–659. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43868815
  4. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, Ş., & Sayek, S. (2004). FDI and economic growth: The role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics, 64(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00081-3
  5. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science map-ping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.joi.2017.08.007
  6. Ashraf, N. (2023). Revisiting international relations legacy on hegemony. Review of Eco-nomics and Political Science, 8(6), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-05-2019-0061
  7. Aydinli, E., & Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 289–303. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44218134
  8. Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2016). The Road to Paris: Contending Climate Govern-ance Discourses in the Post-Copenhagen Era. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1150777
  9. Baena-Rojas, J. J., & Herrero-Olarte, S. (2020). From preferential trade arrangements to free trade agreements: One of the downturns of cooperation in international relations? Social Sciences, 9(8), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9080139
  10. Baldwin, R. E. (2003). Openness and growth: What’s the empirical relationship? (NBER Working Paper No. 9578). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w9578
  11. Baldwin, R. E. (2016). The great convergence: Information technology and the new glob-alization. Harvard University Press.
  12. Béné, C., Fanzo, J., Prager, S. D., Achicanoy, H. A., Mapes, B. R., Alvarez Toro, P., & Bonil-la Cedrez, C. (2020). Global drivers of food system (un)sustainability: A multi-country correlation analysis. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0231071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231071
  13. Bermeo, S. B., & Leblang, D. (2015). Migration and foreign aid. International Organiza-tion, 69(3), 627–657. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818315000119
  14. Best, J. (2014). Governing failure: Provisional expertise and the transformation of global development finance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139542739
  15. Biermann, F., & Dingwerth, K. (2004). Global environmental change and the nation state. Global Environmental Politics, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638004773730185
  16. Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J.-W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 45(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(97)00033-0 Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2012). From Europeanisation to diffusion: Introduction. West European Politics, 35(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.631310
  17. Breuning, M., Bredehoft, J., & Walton, E. (2005). Promise and performance: An evaluation of journals in international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6(4), 447–461.
  18. Broome, A., Homolar, A., & Kranke, M. (2018). Bad science: International organizations and the indirect power of global benchmarking. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 514–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117719320
  19. Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The play of international practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12202
  20. Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2015). The global transformation: History, modernity and the making of international relations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565073
  21. Büthe, T., & Milner, H. V. (2008). The politics of foreign direct investment into developing countries: Increasing FDI through international trade agreements? American Jour-nal of Political Science, 52(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00340.x
  22. Callahan, W. A. (2016). China dreams: 20 visions of the future. Oxford University Press.
  23. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003
  24. Checkel, J. T. (2001). Constructivism and its critics. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (pp. 223–248). SAGE Publications.
  25. Cobham, A., & Janský, P. (2018). Global distribution of revenue loss from corporate tax avoidance: Re‐estimation and country results. Journal of International Development, 30(2), 206–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3348
  26. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
  27. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
  28. Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of history. Columbia University Press.
  29. Drelich-Skulska, B., & Domiter, M. (2020). Security in the science of international relations and economic security: A contribution to the discussion. Transformations in Busi-ess & Economics, 19(2A), 551–564.
  30. Dunning, J. H. (1988). The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490372
  31. Enloe, C. (1990). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. University of California Press.
  32. Epstein, C. (2013). Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in international rela-tions: Why returning to language is vital to prolonging the owl’s flight. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494669
  33. Fuentes, S. S. (2012). Another world is possible: Critique of neoliberal thought and its uni-versal and lineal vision of the International Relations and world system. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 57(214), 54–85.
  34. Genschel, P., & Schwarz, P. (2011). Tax competition: A literature review. Socio-Economic Review, 9(2), 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr004
  35. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Consequences-of-Modernity-by-Anthony-Giddens.pdf
  36. Gill, S. (1995). Globalisation, market civilisation, and disciplinary neoliberalism. Millenni-um, 24(3), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298950240030801
  37. Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.
  38. Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the interna-tional economic order. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4j53
  39. Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. Academic Press. http://www.carme-n.org/?sec=books5
  40. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. https://pratclif.com/economy/money_files/harvey_a_brief_history_of_neoliberalism.pdf
  41. Held, D., & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2007a). Globalization theory: Approaches and controver-sies. Polity Press.
  42. Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2007b). Globalization/anti-globalization: Beyond the great di-vide? (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
  43. Helleiner, E. (2011). Understanding the 2007–2008 global financial crisis: Lessons for scholars of international political economy. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050409-112539
  44. Jensen, N. M. (2003). Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International Organization, 57(3), 587–616. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303573040
  45. Kentikelenis, A. E., & Seabrooke, L. (2017). The politics of world polity: Script-writing in international organizations. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 1065–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417728241
  46. Kirshner, J. (2014). International relations then and now: Why the Great Recession was not the Great Depression. History of Economic Ideas, 22(3), 47–69.
  47. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
  48. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
  49. Kristensen, P. M. (2015). Revisiting the "American Social Science" – Mapping the Geogra-phy of International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 16(3), 246-269. Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12061
  50. Lake, D. A. (2011). Why “isms” are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 465–480. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23019696
  51. Li, Q., & Resnick, A. (2003). Reversal of fortunes: Democratic institutions and foreign direct investment inflows to developing countries. International Organization, 57(1), 175–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303571077
  52. Luo, P., Ngai, E. W. T., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2024). Supply chain network structures and firm financial performance: The moderating role of international relations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 44(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2022-0434
  53. Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. J. (2007). The view from the ivory tow-er: TRIP survey of international relations faculty in the United States and Canada. College of William & Mary, Program on the Theory and Practice of International Relations.
  54. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. J. (2012). TRIP around the world: Teaching, re-search, and policy views of international relations faculty in 20 countries. Teach-ing, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project, Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, College of William & Mary. https://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/
  55. Meyer, K. E., & Li, C. (2022). The MNE and its subsidiaries at times of global disruptions: An international relations perspective. Global Strategy Journal, 12(3), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1436
  56. Mendes, M. V. I. (2020). The limitations of international relations regarding MNCs and the digital economy: Evidence from Brazil. Review of Political Economy, 33(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2020.1730609
  57. Moschella, M. (2011). Different varieties of capitalism? British and Italian recapitaliza-tion policies in response to the sub-prime crisis (Document No. 1557). Yale Univer-sity, Yale Program on Financial Stability. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ypfs-documents/1557
  58. Motowidlak, T., & Motowidlak, U. (2024). The impact of economic and behavioural fac-tors on the shaping of international relations with the Russian Federation: A com-parative analysis of Poland and Germany. Argumenta Oeconomica, 53(2). https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2024.2.08
  59. Narula, R., & Driffield, N. (2012). Does FDI cause development? The ambiguity of the evidence and why it matters. The European Journal of Development Research, 24(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2011.51
  60. Oatley, T. (2011). The reductionist gamble: Open economy politics in the global economy. International Organization, 65(2), 311–341. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23016814
  61. Obstfeld, M. (2011). The international monetary system: Living with asymmetry (NBER Working Paper No. 17641). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17641
  62. Ociepka, B., & Arendarska, J. (2021). Cultural diplomacy as a network and networking in international relations: The case of cultural diplomacy in Russia. SAGE Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211054119
  63. Prasad, E. S., Rajan, R. G., & Subramanian, A. (2007). Foreign capital and economic growth. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2007(1), 153–209. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27561577
  64. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4gqx Robertson, R. (2000). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  65. Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W. W. Norton.
  66. Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstituting the global public domain: Issues, actors, and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 499–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104047847
  67. Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. Schneider, F., & Frey, B. S. (1985). Economic and political determinants of foreign direct investment. World Development, 13(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(85)90002-6
  68. Shambaugh, D. (2015). China’s soft-power push: The search for respect. Foreign Affairs, 94(4), 99–107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24483821
  69. Shilliam, R. (2011). International relations and non-Western thought: Imperialism, colo-nialism and investigations of global modernity. Routledge.
  70. Steger, M. B. (2017). Globalization: A very short introduction (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001
  71. Sauvant, K. P., & Sachs, L. E. (2009). The effect of treaties on foreign direct investment: Bilateral investment treaties, double taxation treaties, and investment flows. Ox-ford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388534.001.0001
  72. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. W. W. Norton & Company. Tickner, J. A. (2001). Gendering world politics: Issues and approaches in the post–Cold War era. Columbia University Press.
  73. Tickner, A. B., & Wæver, O. (Eds.). (2009). International relations scholarship around the world. Routledge. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2020). World investment report 2020: International production beyond the pandemic (30th anniversary ed.). Unit-ed Nations. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2020_en.pdf
  74. Wallerstein, I. (2011). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century (New ed.). University of Cali-fornia Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnrj9
  75. Wang, H. (2014). From “taoguang yanghui” to “yousuo zuowei”: China’s engagement in financial minilateralism (CIGI Paper No. 52). Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/from-taoguang-yanghui-to-yousuo-zuowei-chinas-engagement-in-financial-minilateralism/
  76. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183
  77. Woo, B., & Verdier, D. (2020). A unifying theory of positive and negative incentives in international relations: Sanctions, rewards, regime types, and compliance. Econom-ics of Governance, 21(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-020-00239-2
  78. Xie, W. (2023). The impact of geopolitical risks and international relations on inbound tourism—evidence from China and key source countries. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244 Yoon, J. (2009). Globalization and the welfare state in developing countries. Business and Politics, 11(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1205
  79. Zhang, Y., & Buzan, B. (2012). The tributary system as international society in theory and practice. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pos001
  80. Zürn, M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198819974.001.0001