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 of 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
Kaplan’s flawed systems theory example -- P. 51 – Think about what these might mean for how to "play" Diplomacy
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
Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupBDiplomacy RulesPaper
AssignmentLecture
OutlinesK. Waltz, Theory of International Politics – Continued
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
He argues that the IPS creates order without an orderer and organizational effects without organizations
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
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
| 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 |
| Start | Fall 1903 | Fall 1904 | Fall 1905 | |
| Eng | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Fr | 3 | 6 | 5 | 6 |
| Ger | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| A-H | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ru | 4 | 8 | 9 | 6 |
| It | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Tu | 3 | 8 | 9 | 11 |
| Total | 22 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
| Average | 3.1 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| Range | 3-4 | 0-8 | 0-9 | 0-11 |
| Start | F 1903 | F1904 | F 1905 | F 1906 | |
| Eng | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 |
| Fr | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Ger | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| A-H | 3 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 11 |
| Ru | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| It | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Tu | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 22 | 33 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
| Average | 3.1 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.7 |
| Range | 3-4 | 2-6 | 2-7 | 1-9 | 0-11 |
Group A Dynamics
Simulation started slowly -- not much interaction (talk – or support ---alliances) among groups - early on a tacit agreement between Turkey and Russia to leave each other alone so both could prosper
By Spring 1903 game picked up – lots of interaction among groups but no direct support
Fall 1903 lots of talk and support
Russia supports England against Germany
Russia Supports Turkey against A-H
Italy supports Turkey against A-H
Turkey supports Italy against France
A-H eliminated - Germany down to one unit
Spring 1904 -- Huge talk
Turkey supports Germany against France
Turkey supports Italy against France
Turkey gets big advantage here
Fall 1904 -- Some talk
Russia not talking – hurts Russia in long run
Italy not talking
France/England – talking -- just soon enough
Germany looks to Turkey to be saved –too late
Germany out
Spring 1905
England-France-Italy talking
Russia not talking
Turkey not talking
Italy does not want to help France – "They lie"
Fall 1905
England – France talking
France – Italy talking
Russia – England Talking -- probably too late
Russia – Turkey talking
Mistakes – failing to align quickly enough (A-H, Germany, Italy, Russia)
Failing to break an alliance soon enough (Russia)
Failing to make smart or correct tactical moves (lots of nations)
The flow and the future – Russia/Turkey successful strategy early
A-H and Germany never make essential alliance with others or themselves
England – France alliance Italy joins but probably too late
Russia slow to break with Turkey slow to establish alliances with others -- consumes Germany but makes others remaining mad
Turkey makes good connections with others early – consumes A-H but others not mad as early as Russia - breaks with Russia and gets the lead
Likely outcome 1) Turkey wins dominance
2) Coalition of Eng/France/Russia block with Italy sacrificed
3) Coalition of Eng/France blocks Turkey –Russia and Italy down the drain
Group B dynamics
Simulation started slowly -- not much interaction (talk - or support ---alliances) among groups
Fall 1903 - First evidence or overt cooperation - A-H supports Italy against Germany and A-H supports Russia against Turkey - -France in trouble as is Turkey
Spring 1904, Fall 1904, Spring 1905 - talk among groups but no explicit support - France and Turkey on verge of extinction - A-H building a lead
Fall 1905 - A-H and Italy working together - Italy angry with England, Russia seeking friends, A-H - Russia - England talking -- but no explicit support
Spring 1906 lots of pairs of nations talking explicit support Frances supports England, Germany supports England - vs. Italy
Fall 1906 A-H tries to talk to Turkey - Turkey says no way - Russia supports Turkey vs A-H, Germany - Russia- England support against Italy but A-H has successfully made move to gain lead
The question is whether England can rally the remaining nations to form an alliance to block A-H - From the looks of things as the map shapes up it needs Italy to block A-H but it seems it is trying to wipe Italy out --so maybe A-H can "win"
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 --
Book/Simulation2Book/Simulation3NewsgroupANewsgroupBDiplomacy RulesPaper
AssignmentLecture
Outlines