Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupBDiplomacy RulesPaper
AssignmentLecture OutlinesBook/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupBDiplomacy RulesPaper
AssignmentLecture OutlinesK. 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
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
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
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?
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
International Domestic
Decentralized Centralized
Anarchic Hierarchic
He argues that the IPS creates order without an orderer and organizational effects without organization
The analogy to economic markets
International System Market
Nation state Firm
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
States are like units in the sense that they are autonomous and sovereign
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/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupBDiplomacy RulesPaper
AssignmentLecture Outlines
| 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 F 1906
Eng 3 5 5 6 5
France 3 4 4 4 2
Russia 4 5 4 4 3
Ger 3 6 6 6 6
Turkey 3 3 3 2 1
Italy 3 5 6 7 9
A-H 3 5 5 5 9
Total 22 33 33 34 34
Ave. 3.1 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8
Range 3-4 3-6 3-6 2-7 1-9
Group A Dynamics
Simulation started slowly -- There was considerable talk among nations -- seven separate bilateral interactions - all nations engage in talk - Eng talks with 3 Turkey talks with one other nations - others in between - no explicit support of one country by another
Fall 1901 - six separate bilateral interactions - countries talking less -- no support moves - Every nation except Russia gains at least one supply station - So in effect nations expanded but not at the expense of their neighbors -- doable since nations start with 22 supply centers but there is a maximum of 34
Spring 1902 - eight separate bilateral interactions Russia talking with six other nations, England 3, France 2, Germany 2, Italy 1, Turkey 1, A-H 1 -- no explicit support by one country of another
Fall 1902 lots of talk - 9 separate bilateral interactions - but all interactions are between nations that "border" each other - interactions getting serious
Explicit support - "alliances"
A-H supports Italy - against Turkey
Turkey Supports Russia against A-H
England supports Germany against France
"World divided" - England Germany and France preoccupied with each other - Russia, Turkey, A-H, and Italy preoccupied with each other
Turkey loses two units
Spring 1903 -- Interactions continue but at a reduced rate
Germany supports England against France -returning "favor"
from last round
France loses one unit -- could not retreat
Fall 1903 -- Some talk - 5 bilateral interations - note who is talking - England and Germany (against France); Italy and A-H (against Turkey); both A-H, and Turkey to Russia (note Turkey wanting to maintain relations with Russia and A-H trying to break them)
Only one explicit support move Italy supports A-H vs Turkey (or maybe Russia) in Bulgaria
33 of 34 available supply centers controlled
Relatively even distribution - range 3-6 - no big power starting
to run away
Spring 1904
A-H and Italy trying to eliminate Turkey
England and Germany going after France
Germany moving toward Russia
Russia moving against A-H
England and Russia squabbling over Norway and Sweden
England supports Germany against France
Fall 1904
Germany supports England against France
All 34 supply centers controlled - still relatively even distribution of supply centers - "balance of power" Germany and Italy with 6 two with 5 Turkey 3 and France 4 --
Turkey and France need friends - why not help each other?? - Why didn't Russia and Turkey allign against A-H and Italy
Spring 1905
Italy supports A-H against Turkey
Germany supports England against France
Turkey forced to disband an army
Fall 1905
A-H supports Italy vs Turkey
Still balance in the system but the distribution of power is changing - Italy at the top with 7 followed closely by England and Germany with 6 - A-H with five is next - Is it a surprise that those that align and help each other are doing well ???
The targets - France and Turkey are hurting particularly Turkey - Why doesn't Russia (also hurting with 4) join a "side"
Is A-H starting to worry about its strong partner Italy?
Spring 1906
England supports Germany vs France
Italy supports A-H vs Turkey
A-H starts to move against Germany - a real shift in the game!!
Turkey and England forced to disband one unit each
Fall 1906
Turkey all but eliminate - 1 unit left
A-H and Italy join together to go after Russia
A-H explicitly support Italy vs Russia
A-H makes its own move against Russia
Germany moves against Russia
England and Germany continue to move against France
Turkey effectively out of the game
France with two supply units in serious jeopardy - survial unlikely
Russia with 3 units and three nations going after it in serious
jeopardy
Russia makes big mistake not working more effectively with Turkey early in the game -or later working with perhaps Germany to punish A-H and defend itself
Likely outcome of Game
Scenario 1 A-H and Italy eliminate Turkey and those two and Germany successfully eliminate Russia - England and Germany successfully eliminate France -- We are left with 4 nations and two coalitions -They balance and all four survive
Scenario 2 The two alliances of the four surviving nations collapse as Italy and Germany the two stronger members Italy 9 - A-H 6 and Germany 7 England 5 go after each other
Scenario 3 -- A-H and Germany with tacit support from England align to "block" the Italian runaway train
Scenario 4 England sees the handwriting on the wall and knows it is the weakest potentially remaining power so it teams with France, and Russia to slow down Germany
Scenario 5 - Germany and England get concerned about the A-H and Italy alliance - They seek both France and Russia to create a blocking coalition
Some additional thoughts
1) undifferentiated agents ? -- skill differences, how well play, socialization and leaning - do you think people would play differently if they played again?
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
Group B Results
Country Start F 1903 F 1904 F 1905 F 1906
Eng 3 5 5 5 6
France 3 6 6 7 6
Russia 4 6 5 6 6
Ger 3 5 5 5 5
Turkey 3 4 4 3 2
Italy 3 3 3 3 2
A-H 3 4 6 5 6
Total 22 33 34 34 33
Ave. 3.1 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7
Range 3-4 3-6 3-6 3-7 2-6
Group B Dynamics
Simulation starts slowly as usual. There is considerable talk among groups - seven separate bilateral interactions - all nations engage in talks - Turkey the most active -- no nations shows explicit offer of support
Fall 1901 - again lots of talk - eight separate interactions
-- Austria-Hungary (A-H) provides explicit support for Russia
as it moves against Turkey
Every nation (all seven) gain supply centers (German and Turkey
2). 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 33 of 34 available supply
centers so competition is right around the corner.
Spring 1902 -- Much less talk Two explicit support actions
- what we can call overt forms of alliances -
Germany supports A-H move into Tyrolia (moving on Italy) also
A-H supports Russia's move into Bulgaria against Turkey - Turkey
hurt very badly as they are forced to disband a unit
Fall 1902 -- Alliances take shape
Russia supports A-H against Turkey
England supports France against Germany
Germany supports A-H against Italy
A-H and Russia vs. Turkey
England and France vs. Germany
Germany and A-H vs Italy
Turkey loses one unit - Russia gains from its alliance (one unit)
Spring 1903
Considerable negotiations -
France tried to support England against Germany but England (perhaps
by mistake) failed to make the appropriate move
Fall 1903
Against substantial negotiations
Russia supported England in an effort to convoy and support
but England double-crossed them
No other supports
England and France each gain one supply unit
Italy loses one unit
All others remain at same level
Spring 1904
Key diplomacy moves - Italy and Turkey talk - they both need
help against alliances attacking them
France and England stop talking to each other and anyone else
(not surprising given what happened in two prior rounds)
No explicit acts of support
England and Germany clash but no French support (not surprising)
Russia and Turkey continue to clash but no A-H support
A-H and Turkey clash but no Russia support
And here is why -- A-H and Russia clash disrupting that alliance
Fall 1904
Considerable negotiations among nations but negotiations becoming fragmented - No nations talks with more than two other nations and all negotiations are strictly with bordering neighbors
Germany supports Russia against England (the double-crossed
Russians seek revenge and help from Germany)- Germany gets help
in its clash with England
Germany and England continue to clash
And A-H and Turkey continue to clash
Winners A-H gains two supply centers
Russia gains one supply center
Spring 1905
High level of negotiations
Keys - England and France talk again
France a very active negotiator
Germany continues support of Russia against England
Germany and France not clashing nor England
A-H and Turkey continue their war
Italy forced to disband a unit
Fall 1905
Again substantial discussion
Italy supports France against A-H
A-H supports Russia against Turkey
England supports France against Germany
Keys England and France renew alliance against Germany
A-H and Russian renew alliance against Turkey
German Russian alliance falters
And something new - France and Italy join against A-H
Winners - France and Russia gain one supply center
Losers - Turkey and A-H lose one
Alliances help France and Italy and hurt Turkey and A-H
Spring 1906
Negotiations more restricted
A-H attacks France in Venice
Germany goes after both England and France
Russia goes after Turkey
Italy supports France against A-H
But France stabs Italy in the back
Fall 1906
Negotiations restricted
Germany and Russia talk
Turkey-A-H and Italy Talk
A-H and Russia talk
A-H and Germany talk
A-H supports Italy against France - totally predictable given what France did last time
Russia supports A-H against Turkey
Germany and England attack France
Germany also attacks England
Winners England gains one, A-H gains one
Losers France, Italy and Turkey all lose one
Final tally - fairly balanced system
Four nations with 6 supply units, one with Five
And two with 2 supply units
This simulation run seems to support Waltz's claim about nation's
efforts to balance and check leaders or potential runaways - This
system seems to be heading toward one with 5 surviving nations
- Turkey and Italy appear headed for extinction.
Whether the five and balance or not is suspect. There is bad
blood among them.
A-H and Russia worked together but England and France were not reliable partners. Germany and Russia coordinated to one scenario is Germany, A-H and Russia against England and France and England but that could collapse if A-H and Russia after disposing of Turkey turn on each other.
Final information
Here are final distributions of supply centers for the two groups from last year
Group A Group B
England 8 9
France 0 6
Germany 4 0
A-H 11 0
Russia 2 6
Italy 7 3
Turkey 1 11
Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupBDiplomacy RulesPaper
AssignmentLecture Outlines