One of the most common criticisms of constructivism is that constructivism devalues ​​material factors. This is based on a misunderstanding of constructivism. Constructivists recognize the role of these factors and that they are extremely important in international relations, especially when it comes to international agreements. However, constructivists believe that these material factors derive their value from social constructs and that ideas are the basis of society (Behravesh 2011). To be clear, this does not mean that these material factors are less valuable or that these social constructs are less powerful. This is relevant to international agreements because material factors such as the military and economy have a large effect. Material factors are often what push states to enter into agreements, especially when it comes to trade agreements and other financial agreements. Material factors can also encourage states to comply with agreements. Constructivism simply argues that these are still social constructs. This gives constructivists more freedom in discussing international agreements because they are not bound by more binding ideas because they recognize the dynamic nature of international relations. This is why constructivism is more effective in explaining international agreements and compliance because it can get to the heart of these problems and, because it is more adaptable, it can more easily explain the transformations that take place in the world.