Stephen D. Krasner was a key figure in establishing the theory as a prominent topic of study in IR, in part through the 1983 edited collection International Regimes.
The most commonly cited definition comes from Stephen Krasner, who defines regimes as "institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations".
[additional citation(s) needed] As stated above, a regime is defined by Stephen D. Krasner as a set of explicit or implicit "principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given area of international relations".
This definition is intentionally broad, and covers human interaction ranging from formal organizations (e.g., OPEC) to informal groups (e.g., major banks during the debt crisis).
Realists err by implicitly modeling the world using the classic single-play prisoner's dilemma, in which the payoff structure makes defection a dominant strategy for both players.
An example of a useful application of this approach to the study of international regime theory, is exemplified in a doctoral dissertation by Edythe Weeks, wherein she demonstrates that we can apply this type of analysis to explain and highlight key actors, unfolding political dynamics and historical-ideological shifts, related to commercial activities concerning outer space and its resources.
[12] Alternative approaches to liberal or realist regime theory tend to treat the debates over the normative bases of cooperation or otherwise as epiphenomenal.
They emphasize instead the complex intersection of social forces, including changing values, that gave rise to ongoing political and economic regimes of power in the first place.
Understanding the process, historical context, and contemporary relations of institutionalization is fundamental for making sense of the more empirical task of documenting the activities of this or that institution.