You guys, it was so easy to be a political scientist in the 80s. Structural realism still reigned supreme, and so you could get stuff like this:

The prevailing model postulates one source of regime change, the ascendancy or decline of economic hegemons, and two directions of regime change, greater openness or closure. If, however, we allow for the possibility that power and purpose do not necessarily covary, then we have two potential sources of change and no longer any simple one-to-one correspondence between source and direction of change.

Ruggie, 1982. "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order." International Organization, 36 (2).

Did you get that? He's basically saying, "So previous literature all assumes that regime configuration has entirely to do with what's happening to the hegemon's power. But I think that we can explain more complex outcomes if we assume that it's not just what's happening to power but also what people want to do with the power.

That's the kind of ideas it took to get published in the 80s.

(Not to say that Ruggie's paper isn't good and useful. It is - there's also a lot more too it than just that assertion. It's just there was a lot of basic spadework that hadn't been done in the 80s.)