Book/Simulation1Book/Simulation2

Reading AssignmentsPaper 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

Pols 426 Lecture 2

R. Gilpin, War and Change In World Politics

Claim: International Relations is a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy --- realist but a bit different than Waltz

Gilpin’s Five Assumptions about how International Relations works

1. An international system is stable (in equilibrium) if no state believes it profitable to attempt to change the system
2. A state will attempt to change the international system if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs (i.e., an expected net gain)
3. A state will seek to change the international system through territorial, political, and economic expansion until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal benefits.
4. Once an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further change is reached, the tendency if for the economic costs of maintaining the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support the status quo.
5. If the disequilibrium in the international system is not resolved, then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting the redistribution of power will be established.

States are assumed to act as if they are guided by cost benefit calculations

Definition of equilibrium -- an international system is in a state of equilibrium if the more powerful states in the system are satisfied with the existing territorial, political, and economic arrangements – such that not powerful state believes that a change in the system will yield additional benefits that are greater than the costs required to make the change

System equilibrium ->	diff growth in power ->	redistribution of power
^ |		| \/
Resolution of System crisis (War)	<--------	system disequilibrium

System disequilibirum --- economic, political, and technological developments help create differential rates of growth on these dimensions for states – at some point this differential growth changes the cost/benefit calculations for one or more major powers concerning changing the structure of the system

What is at stake in changing the system – the existing structure (prestige, division of territory, international division of labor, and rules of behavior in the system) reflect the interests of the dominant power or powers

If the relative power in the system changes, then other powers may see it in their interest to change the system so that the above features more reflect their interests

The disjuncture between the existing structure and the interests of the new more powerful nation or nations, creates a crisis and requires resolution –

Gilpin claim based on historical experience – War is the mechanism for system crisis resolution.

State Objectives

1. Territorial gain to advance, security, economic and other interests.
2. Increase influence over the behavior of other states (threats, coercion, alliances, spheres of influence)
3. To control and exercise influence over the world economy

International System - an aggregation of diverse entities (essentially states) united by regular interaction (diplomatic, economic, and military relations) according to some form of control (claims anarchic but high degree of order due to the distribution of power among states)

Dominant states organize and maintain the international system --Dist of power principal form of control.

Types of international Change

Systems change – change in the nature of the actors that compose the system – change in the state system

Systemic change –change in the form of control or governance of an international system – new leader, new hierarchy or form of control

Stability and Change

Repeated Assumptions

1. An international system is stable (in equilibrium) if no state believes it profitable to attempt to change the system
2. A state will attempt to change the international system if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs (i.e., an expected net gain)

Imperfect information – uncertainty

Assessments of costs and benefits are subjective

Actions can lead to unanticipated consequences

What creates change

Technology – transportation, communication, information, production

Military Innovation

Social, political, economic organization of a society

Demographic change

Economic Factors -- means of production and changes in the means of production - factors which tend states in expand and to attempt the change the international system

1. developments that increase economics of scale that effect the production of a collective or public good – public goods like protection of an enlarged area
2. internalization of externalities – externalities are conferred on political actors for which payment or compensation is not made -- expansion to force parties to pay for positive externalities (free trade) or be responsible for negative externalities (pollution)
3. expansion due to diminishing rate of returns -- fi factors of production (land, labor, capital) then growth rates decline – (Lenninism)

Gilpin’s take on the role (effects) of the international structure on state behavior -- like oligopolistic market – interdependent decision-making and sufficiently few competitors so that behavior of one effects others -- expand due to relative power concerns -- same set of alliance counterbalancing alliance notions as Waltz

Gilpin – System stability and political chance is less a function of the static distribution of power and more a function of uneven and differential growth in rates of power among states

Final claim -- whether or not change will take place is ultimately indeterminant

R. Gilpin, War and Change In World Politics

Growth and Expansion

3. A state will seek to change the international system through territorial, political, and economic expansion until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal benefits.

Territorial, political, and economic expansion of the state increases economic surplus and ability to control - rise and decline of dominant states and empires is a function of the generation and dissipation of economic surplus

The logistic (S-curve Thesis) first increasing then decreasing returns to scale

And the attendant "relative capability curve"

The modern pattern - cycles of hegemonic nation-states

a. The triumph of the nation-state
b. Modern economies - industrial, capital accumulation - solves temporarily diminishing returns to scale of territorial state
c. World market economy - efficiency, gains from trade - rise in importance of economic competitiveness

Expansion by territorial conquest and economic expansion

S-curve and relative capability curve dynamics create new equilibria - succession of hegemonic powers
Equilibrium and Decline

4. Once an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further change is reached, the tendency if for the economic costs of maintaining the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support the status quo.

Running an empire or leading the world economy is costly - At some point the costs overtake the benefits of leading and establishing and at that point the leader goes into decline

Running the "empire" - costs - military, financing allies, costs with maintaining the world economy

The costs of maintaining the status quo increase faster than the capacity to finance the status quo

The classic struggle between consumption, protection and investment strain the leader -- consumption rises (the good life), protection costs rise, and investment is reduced - reducing long term competitiveness

Military, technological, economic, or organizational advantages "created" and employed by the leading state eventually are copied or imitiated by other states and the advantages are lost Followers free ride

All this gives rising states the advantage on the growth curve and relative capability curve - till a point where there is a disequilibrium

Hegemonic War and International Change

5. If the disequilibrium in the international system is not resolved, then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting the redistribution of power will be established.

Hegemonic war the historic mechanism for systemic change

Others -
1. Internal rejuvenation and restructuring
2. preemptive war on rising challenger
3. Reducing costs by expanding further - defies logic of argument
4. reduction of foreign commitments - retrenchment

Book/Simulation1Book/Simulation2

Reading AssignmentsWar and TradePaper AssignmentLecture Outlines