Book/Simulation1Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupB

Reading AssignmentsDiplomacy RulesPaper AssignmentLecture Outlines

 

Lecture1

Lecture2

 

Pols 426 Lecture 1

K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics

A Systemic Approach to Understanding International Politics and the Behavior of Nation-States

Contrasts this approach to what he calls the Analytic Method -- where the "whole" – here the workings of the international political system - are understood by reducing the entity to its discrete parts and examining the properties of those parts (here nation-states) and the connections (relations – interactions) among them.

Where might this approach work in "social science"?

Waltz argues that it does not work for international politics because

1. relations between parts vary based upon other factors
2. other factors have large influences on relations among the parts
3. outcomes or relations among the parts are affected not only by the properties and their interconnections but by the way they are organized

Waltz argues that we cannot predict nation-state actions simply by knowing the characteristics, purposes (goals), and interactions of the systems units – here nation-states

And he makes this argument based upon the evidence that nation-states appear to behavior similarly in similar situations despite changes in agents (agents acting on behavior of nation-states) that produce them -- So he argues that something must be at work that constrains agents – (for Waltz that is the way the international system is organized and structured)

Definition of a System – A system is a set of interacting units – what makes a system approach more than just a mere collection of units or what gives it its system level component is the structure of the system -

The structure must be distinct from the attributes and relations among the units – only in this way can it be used to explain those behaviors

What is a systems level approach to international politics supposed to accomplish

1. trace or reveal expected paths or histories of different international systems - such as their durability or peacefulness
2. show how the structure of the system affects the interacting units and how they in turn affect the structure

Let’s get a little more specific and less abstract

Waltz claim that an analytic or reductionist theory of international politics explain international outcomes by elements and combinations of elements at the national and sub-national level – internal or domestic factors or forces produce external outcomes

-- or in more direct terms nation state behavior is accounted for by internal attributes or characteristics like democratic, capitalistic, authoritarian, wealthy, Catholic, aggressive, communist, resource rich

Waltz argues this approach fails international politics because of the similarity and repetitions of international outcomes despite wide variations in the attributes and interactions of the agents that supposedly cause them – that is nation-states appear to act the same in the same conditions even though they vary widely on internal attributes

What does Waltz want to explain

1. Why the range of nation-states’ behaviors fall with certain expected limits
2. Why patterns of behavior keep recurring

The structure of the international system helps explain in the two above sense because it acts to constrain actor behavior and it disposes of actors who fail to act in appropriate ways

Political Structure

Waltz’s meaning – A set of constraining conditions that act as a selector --- it is not observable – examples are economic markets and international politics structure -- structures are not agents

Structures select and reward some behaviors and punish others

He argues that outcomes cannot be inferred from actor intentions or behaviors

Structures are not causal in a direct sense as agents and agent behavior can be – rather they are causal in an indirect sense –

Agents and agencies act – structures do not but agents and their actions are affected by the system structure - - structures limit and mold agents and their behaviors

How?

1. Through socialization of the agents -- socialization establishes norms and encourages conformity – and helps to limit and mold behavior – What is acceptable and expected behavior of international actors as established by group opinions
2. Through competition among agents -- competition encourages similarities in attributes and behaviors by a model of what succeeds to be imitated and by weeding out agents that choose behaviors that fail

Analogy to the market and firms in the market – a competitive system that regulates behavior by the "rationality" of the more successful competitors

The international political structure (IPS)

For Waltz what is important about the structure is the arrangement or ordering of the parts (nation-states)

When the parts are arranged or ordered differently, this will "cause" the parts to interact differently – so the international political structure is not a collection of institutions but an arrangement of the parts

1. Ordering Principles

Unitary actor unitary actor

States seek to ensure survival profit maximizer

Structures are spontaneously generated and create unintended consequences

Both system structures are formed by the coalition of units and are formed and maintained by a system of self-help

The IPS, like the market conditions the calculations, behaviors and interactions of the agents

II. Character of Units

International Domestic

Undifferentiated highly differentiated

Undifferentiated because anarchy requires relations of coordination among units and implies their sameness – anarchy requires sameness – in sort of a survival of the fittest evolutionary way of thinking

IPS vary only by their

1. organizing principles
2. variations in the capabilities of the units (the nation state)

States are like units in the sense that they are autonomous and sovereign

1. Distribution of Capabilities

Since states are functionally undifferentiated – they are distinguished by how much (more or less) they have of various capabilities

States are differentially placed by their capabilities – the meaning of structure and position for Waltz.

The key capability for Waltz is POWER – a capability or attribute of the state mostly military and economic in nature --- unlike other capabilities it is important in a relative sense – to the power of others

The distribution of capabilities (power) is a key attribute of the system – not any one nation-state

How the ordering principle of anarchy shapes behavior --- states are constrained to take care of themselves – and so cannot take care of the system – a self-help competitive world

They must act in their own selfish interest, must protect themselves and help others only when it is in their interest to do so not out of kindness or altruism

To not do so in such an environment will quickly lead to a state’s demise

Realpolitik State objectives arise from the unregulated competition of states – given these necessities states discover policies that best serve state interests -- success is the ultimate test of good policy – where success is defined as preserving and strengthening the state

States seek preservation and to maximize the drive for universal domination

Internal Means – Increase Economic and Military capability –

External - enlarge by conquest and alliance formation – thereby shrinking the relative capability of the opposition

Balance of Power – the game of alignment and realignment -- balance may be the aim to project – imbalance may be the aim of those seeking domination

International relations marked by changing distribution of power among units and recurrent formations of balances of power

Two traits or conditions

Balancing to block would be leaders when there is no clear leader in sight

Bandwagoning (jumping on board with the winner) and not blocking or building coalitions when there is a clear leader or winner

Historical Claim (1979) – Two kinds of international structures 1) Multipolar from 1500 to WW II; 2) bipolar – The Cold War --- What now?

Theoretical Claim – When are IPS’s stable

In a balance of power world two great powers is unstable – It takes at least 4 and 5 with a balancer is in historical terms most stable -- three is never stable

But Waltz goes on to argue that a bipolar world – different from a balance of power world with two great powers, is both stable and preferred to a mulitpolar world – Why?

Less uncertainty, less room for miscalculation, less difficulty in managing diplomacy

As you read the instructions for Diplomacy and as you play the game, think about how well Waltz’s arguments account for how the simulation progresses

Book/Simulation1Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupB

Reading AssignmentsDiplomacy RulesPaper AssignmentLecture Outlines

---

Pols 426 Lecture 2

K. Waltz and Diplomacy Simulation Discussion

Features

Waltz (Realism)	Diplomacy World	Real IR
Anarchic Environment/Self help	Yes	usually
Undifferentiated actors/ Only resource power	Yes	No
Non-hierarchical/	De-centralized	Yes
Goal – ensure survival/ Maximize Power/universal Domination	Yes	sometimes
Essential system feature – Distribution of power	Yes	important

Behavior
Trust	No	Yes and No
Alliance–balancing	Yes	Sometimes
Bandwagoning	Yes	sometimes
System constrain actor Behavior and disposes of Those who fail to act in Appropriate ways	Yes	usually/sometimes
Structure selects and rewards Behavior and punishes others	Yes	usually

Group A - Results

Country Start F 1903 F 1904 F 1905 S 1906
Eng 3 8 10 11 11
France 3 5 5 2 1
Russia 4 3 2 2 2
Ger 3 2 2 2 2
Turkey 3 6 8 10 10
Italy 3 5 5 5 5
A-H 3 4 2 2 2
Total 22 33 34 34 33
Ave. 3.1 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7
Range 3-4 2-8 2-10 2-11 1-11

Group A Dynamics

Spring 1901
Simulation started slowly -- There was a fair amount of talk among nations but not as much as usual -- five separate bilateral interactions - all nations engage in talk - Eng, Germany, Italy talk with 2, others with one no explicit support of one country by another

Fall 1901 - five separate bilateral interactions
Ger-Russia
AH-Turkey
Eng-Italy
Ger-Eng
Italy-Germany

All except France are talking - Germany with 3 England and Italy with 2

No Explicit Supports (Alliance behavior)

Supply center Gains

Eng 2
Turkey 2
AH 1
Rus 1
Ger 1
Italy 1
France 1

Total gain 9

As is typical to the simulation, all nations can gain supply centers (since there is an oversupply at the start) without it necessarily coming at the expense of other nations. So, structurally in the early stages of the game all nations can gain without direct competition. Note that the nations have 31 of 34 available supply centers so competition is right around the corner.

Spring 1902 -

Four bilateral negotiations

Eng-Fr
Eng-IT
Eng-Turkey
Ger-Rus

AH not talk to anyone

No explicit support moves

Fall 1902

Seven bilateral negotiations
Ger-Rus
IT-FR
IT-AH
IT-Eng
Eng-Fr
Eng-Ger
Tur-AH

IT (3) Eng (3)

Explicit support "Alliances"

Germany supports Russia against A-H
A-H supports Turkey against Russia
England supports France against Germany

Germany and Russia (one "alliance)
Other states getting ready to gang up on Russia (Turkey, AH and England) and also getting ready to gang up on Germany

England gains 2 units
Germany gains 1 unit
France gains 1 unit
Russia loses 1 unit

Eng 7
Turkey 5
A-H 4
Rus 4
Ger 5
It - 4
Fr - 5

Total equals 34 - all possible supply centers

Spring 1903 --

Interactions continue but at a reduced rate - Five bilateral interactions

IT-Eng
IT-AH
AH-Tur
Eng-Fr
Ger-Rus

This round characterized by some bad moves by nations - efforts to provide support were either written correctly and failed or failed because they were to remote places - mistakes were made and they were costly for some

England supports France from an attack from Germany on France

A-H supports Turkey in an attack on Russia

Fall 1903 -- Considerable talk - 6 bilateral interactions -

Eng-Tur
Eng-Fr
IT-AH
IT-Fr
AH-Tur
Rus-Ger

Clearly Germany and Russia are weak and isolated and only talking to each other - England and Turkey working on a plan of attack on Russia,

England- France and It and AH vs Germany

A-H supports Italy attack on Germany
England supports Turkey's attack on Russia

Gains Eng, It, Tur gain 1
A-H and France gain 0
Russia losses 1
Germany losses 3

Eng 8, Turkey 6, AH 4, Rus, 3, Ger 2, It 5, Fr 5
Units = 33

Spring 1904

Seven bilateral negotiations

Eng supports AH vs Russia to help its own cause

Turkey is going after Russia
Other countries jockeying for position

Fall 1904

Seven bilateral negotiations
France and Russia not negotiating

Eng - (Turkey, Ger, Italy, AH)
A-H (Tur, It, Eng)
Tur (AH, Eng)

Turkey supports Eng vs Rus

Turkey and Eng going after Russia
AH going toward Turkey
Eng going after France
France attacking Italy

Eng 10, Turkey 8, AH 2, Rus, 2, Ger 2, It 5, Fr 5
Units = 34

England and Turkey look to be emerging superpowers, Everyone else needs friends - maybe need to band together or support one of the superpowers

Spring 1905

Seven bilateral negotiations

Rus talks to France
Eng and Turkey talk as does eng and Italy
France only talks to Russia
Germany is a "colony" of England

England supports Italy vs France (alliance)
England makes a big move on France
Turkey setting up to wipe out Russia and AH

Fall 1905

Five bilateral talks (negotiations down considerably)

Eng (Ger, It, Turk)
IT (AH, Eng, Ger)
Tur (Eng)
Russia and France don't talk to anyone

Italy supports England vs France
Italy supports AH vs Turkey
Eng supports Ger vs Russia
England attacking France
Turkey attacking Russia and AH

France, Russia and Germany trying to survive

Eng and Turkey gain and France is the big loser but the rest are in trouble. Failure to balance but probably too late as the weak states in the "middle" try to survive and don't organize or support one power vs the other - Why didn't France and Italy help each other

Eng 11, Turkey 10, AH 2, Rus, 2, Ger 2, It 5, Fr 2
Units = 34

Spring 1906

Four bilateral negotiations

Eng - (Ger, It)
IT - (Eng, Ger)
AH- (IT)

England supports Italy vs France
England supports Rus vs Turkey (just using Russia)
Italy supports England vs Rus

Turkey attacking AH and Russia
England using Ger and Russia to thwart Turkey
England aligned with Italy to wipe out France

Likely outcome of Game

Scenario 1 England and Italy wipe out France and Turkey eliminates AH with Russia soon to follow. This leaves three countries - England and Italy aligned vs Turkey. Does this system balance? Probably not. If England and Italy stick together, they can wear down Turkey but then what happens to Italy after that? Another option is for England and Turkey to join and eliminate Italy with the two remaining somewhat balanced.

Scenario 2 Italy, once France is eliminated, sees the handwriting on the wall and knows its next. So it seeks to align with the three little states (Ger, Rus, and AH - total of 6 units plus its own 5 to attempt to balance vs England and Turkey. Hard to do if England and Turkey cooperate. Perhaps out of such a move a balanced system of 4 states might emerge.

Group B Results

Country Start F 1903 F 1904 F 1905 F 1906
Eng 3 6 6 9 10
France 3 8 7 7 9
Russia 4 7 8 5 4
Ger 3 1 1 1 0
Turkey 3 6 7 6 6
Italy 3 4 2 2 0
A-H 3 2 3 4 4
Total 22 34 34 34 33
Ave. 3.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7
Range 3-4 1-8 1-8 1-9 0-10

Group B Dynamics

Simulation starts slowly as usual. There is very considerable talk among groups - nine separate bilateral interactions - all nations engage in talks -
no nations show explicit offer of support

Fall 1901 - again lots of talk - eight separate interactions -- again all nations participate in talks - again no nations show explicit offer of support
Every nation (all seven) gain supply centers (Italy, Russia and France gain two - the rest gain 1). As is typical to the simulation, all nations can gain supply centers (since there is an oversupply at the start) without it necessarily coming at the expense of other nations. So, structurally in the early stages of the game all nations can gain without direct competition. Note that the nations have 32 of 34 available supply centers so competition is right around the corner.

Spring 1902 -- Considerable negotiations - eight bilateral negotiations - all nations involved in talks

Two explicit support actions - what we can call overt forms of alliances -
France supports England vs Germany
Turkey supports Italy vs Austria-Hungary

Some mistakes made in writing orders to match objectives - A-H and England make such errors

Fall 1902 --

Again lots of negotiations - nine bilateral negotiations - all involved in discussions - Interestingly while there are "implicit" alliances forming and while there were explicit support efforts, "enemies" continue to talk to each other
Examples Germany and England talk
And Turkey and A-H and Italy and A-H - Hm??

In a repeat of last round, France supports England vs Germany and Turkey supports Italy vs A-H
These are two on one moves with Russia watching and gaining
Alliances
England-France vs Germany
Italy-Turkey vs A-H

Total supply centers goes to the maximum of 34
Turkey, England and France each gain one supply center - three of the four alliance partners - A-H loses one supply center - one of the two alliance targets

Spring 1903
Still considerable talk - 6 bilaternal negotiations

Eng-Fr
Tur-It
Eng-Rus
Tur-Rus
France-AH
Ah-Ger **

A-H fee beleagured - says Tur, IT and Rus in cahoots won't help

Continued Alliance support
France supports Eng vs Germany
Turkey supports Italy vs A-H
A-H forced to disband a unit

Fall 1903

Against substantial negotiations - back up to nine bilaternal negotiations - A-H talking to everyone but Italy (its enemy) Germany only talks to A-H, a weak state and not much help

Every country for themselves - no direct support or overt military alliances

Total supply centers remains at 34 but
Italy and A-H lose one unit and Germany loses 3
Rus, Tur, and Eng gain one
France gains 2

Spring 1904

Still high level of negotiations - indeed there were 10 bilateral negotiations - Only nation not talking was Germany - "throwing in the towel???

Remaining six nations are all talking to at least three other nations - with Rus talking to five - Key point as leaders are shaking out (France, Russia, England, and Turkey)

A-H supports Rus vs. Turkey

France moving on Italy
Eng moving on Germany
Rus moving on Turkey
Turkey protecting from Rus
Turkey moving on Italy

So looks like Germany and Italy are targets with A-H to follow

Fall 1904

Seven bilateral negotiations
France with - AH, Eng, Tur
Eng with Tur, Ger, Fr
AH with Fr and Rus
Italy the odd state out

Italy gets attacked by Turkey, AH and France
Russia supports AH vs Turkey and goes after Turkey
Eng moving on Ger but really Russia

Some states gain one supply unit - Italy the big loser - loses two supply units
Eng 6, Ger 1, AH 3, It 2, Tur 7, Rus 8, Fr 7

Spring 1905

High level of negotiations - Eight bilateral negotiations - Eng, Fr, AH Turkey talking
Italy no negotiations at all and Russia only with AH

Russia and Italy the targets with Eng and Turkey working with others to make this happen

France continues its attack on Italy
Russia attacks Ger and Turkey
Eng positioning to move on Russia
Turkey supports AH vs Russia but AH stabs Turkey in the back as it helps Rus vs Turkey

Eng set to Move on Russia
France moving on Italy as it Turkey and neither worrying about England

Italy and Russia in trouble

Fall 1905

Fr, Eng, and Turkey talking together
Russia, Italy and AH isolated - AH makes the wrong choice in backstabbing Turkey?

A-H supports Russia vs Turkey
France supports Eng vs Russia
Turkey attacks Russia
France attacks Italy
England attacks Russia
England supports France vs Germany
Russia defending dual attack by England and Turkey

Winner England the big winner
Russia the big loser

Eng 9, Ger 1, IT 2, AH 4, Fr, 7, Tur 6, Rus 5

Spring 1906

Interesting shift in negotiations

Eng still talking with France and Ger but now Rus
FR still talking to Eng and Turkey
But Russia now talking with Eng, Turkey, and AH

England continues attack on Russia
France continues attack on Italy
Turkey continues attack on Russia
AH continues to support Russia vs Turkey

Italy and Turkey are forced to disband a unit

Fall 1906

Fair amount of negotiation
Eng continues talking to FR, Turkey and Rus
Fr talks to Eng, Rus, AH and Ger but not Turkey
Turkey only talking to Eng

The big battle lines are drawn.

France wipes out both Italy and Germany
England attacks Turkey and supports France vs Germany
Russia supports Eng vs Turkey
Russia supports AH vs Turkey
AH attacks Turkey
So Eng, AH, and Russia vs Turkey
Eng and France help to eliminate Ger and Italy
AH clashing with France

Big winners England and France
Big losers Germany and Italy
But Turkey in trouble as is AH and Russia

End talley

Eng 10, Fr 9, Tur 6, Rus 4, AH 4 - Ger and It eliminated

Eng and Fr setting up for a big struggle

Likely scenarios were simulation to continue

This system more balance than group A - Here the leading states have 19 units among them whereas in Group A they had 21 and in Group A there were a number of states (4) with two or less units. Here, while two states have been eliminated all remaining five states have at least four units so balancing is more likely

1. AH and Russia have been working for some time and England has joined the mix. This group has 18 supply units. AH knows it is France's next target and Russia must work with either Eng or France if it is to survive. So one scenario is that those three states in effect end up fighting and possibly balancing against a combined France and Turkey - with the possibility of one either AH or Russia disappearing.

2. There is momentum in the simulation for the gang of 4 (eng, Rus, AH and France) to eliminate Turkey. If this coalition were to hold and proceed to eliminate Turkey, then four states would remain and this could be stable though geographically is would work only if Russia and AH basically both took over Turkey. As a result it might turn into a three nation struggle.

3. Or - France and Eng could manage to wipe out everyone else with the two remaining relatively balanced

Some additional thoughts

1) undifferentiated agents ? - Were thre skill differences among the groups? how well did each group play play, socialization and leaning - do you think people would play differently if they played again? How important was negotiation? Did it matter how talked with whom? Was there any evidence of altruism or did all act clearly in their self-interest? Did emotion matter?

2) balance of power - geography, location, spacing matter too

3) some "mistakes" - fail to align soon enough, fail to break alliances soon enough, fail to align with states that have injured the state in the past, fail to make appropriate or smart moves -

4) evidence of balancing and/or bandwagoning

5) what systems are stable and what relation to various scenarios - remember Waltz said 2 nations cannot balance, 3 cannot balance, 4 can balance and 5 can - implications for the above scenarios

Book/Simulation1Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupB

Reading AssignmentsDiplomacy RulesPaper AssignmentLecture Outlines