Download International Relations: Levels of Analysis - System, State, and Individual and more Summaries International Relations in PDF only on Docsity!
Chapter 4: Levels of Analysis
Learning Objectives
Explain how the various theoretical perspectives view the international system, the state, and the individual as levels of explanation for international events. Understand the legal requirements for an entity to be a state and the politics behind the application of that definition. Describe how each of the contending theoretical perspectives explains change in the international system. Analyze what psychological factors have an impact on elite foreign policy decision making. Detail how the different levels of analysis can be used to analyze the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Chapter Outline
This chapter explores how international relations viewed through the lens of three levels of analysis —the international system, the state, and the individual—helps us better understand international politics.
I. The International System
● To understand the international system we must first define system. A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction. Because these units interact, a change in one unit causes changes in the others, and the units respond in regularized ways. While boundaries exist between systems, exchanges across boundaries can occur. The system can break down when changes within become significant, leading a new system to emerge. ● Realism and the international system o All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above the state; the state is sovereign. Each state must therefore look out for its own interests by constantly seeking power. This inevitably causes states to come into conflict.
o Polarity: system polarity refers to the distribution of power among the number of blocs of states Bipolarity: in the bipolar system, the power to conquer is concentrated in two states or coalitions of states. in the international system. There are three types of polarity:
- Multipolarity: if there are multiple influential actors in the international system, a balance-of-power, or multipolar , system is formed. When alliances are formed, they are formed for a specific purpose, have a short duration, and shift according to advantage and changes in the distribution of power rather than ideology.
- Alliances tend to be long term and based on relatively permanent, not shifting, interests. In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or are ineffective. In a looser system, international organizations may develop primarily to mediate between the two blocs. The Cold War is an example of a bipolar system.
- Unipolarity: under unipolarity, one state commands influence in the international system by virtue of its large size, great economic and/or military capability, or organizational competence. Realists disagree on whether the world has ever seen a true unipolar system. Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that the international system had become unipolar, with no effective counterweight to the power of the United States. Today, although the United States remains the unipole in absolute terms, its ability to exercise hegemony is being challenged by other states and questioned by some in the United States. o System management and stability: realists do not agree on how polarity matters. ▪ Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, because neither uncommitted states nor international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either of the two blocs. Informal regulation may be easier. Realists disagree over how stable a bipolar system is.
o Constructivists reject the notion that the international system exists objectively or gives rise to objective rules and principles. To them it is socially constructed; thus, concepts like anarchy and sovereignty are socially construed and can change across time and space. o Martha Finnemore traces at least four European international orders, including balance, concert, spheres of influence, and finally the current order prioritizing the promotion of liberal democracy, capitalism, and human rights. ● Change in the international system o Realists ▪ Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative power relationship among the actors may in turn change the international system. Wars are usually responsible for changes in power relationships, such as at the end of World War II. ▪ Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in technology and the advent of nuclear warfare are examples of such change. o Liberals
- Liberals see changes coming from several sources: ▪ Changes occur as a result of exogenous technological developments, such as communication and transportation systems. ▪ Change may occur because of changes in the relative importance of different issues, such as the increasing focus on the economy, human rights, and the environment. ▪ Change may occur as new actors, including multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, augment or replace state actors. ▪ As it relates to war, the increasing economic cooperation promoted by liberalism may, over time, lead to more universal professional
standards, security cooperation, and an evolution toward perpetual peace. o Constructivists ▪ Changes in social norms can lead to a fundamental shift of the system. How individuals understand the international system has altered over time and is socially constructed; there have been different international orders, different views of threats, and different ways to maintain order. The current system, centered on states, is a historical creation that could transform. ▪ Social norms may change through collective action or through individuals. At the collective level, while coercion may lead to change, in the current era international institutions and law, the legal profession, and social movements are more critical. At the individual level, change occurs through persuasion and through internationalization of new norms. Over time, changes in social norms can fundamentally alter the international system. ● The international system as a level of analysis: the Russia-Ukraine conflict ▪ Realists argue that Ukraine’s shift in distribution of power toward the West led Russia to pursue military action to prevent this change in the balance of power. ▪ Liberals argue that the trade agreement Ukraine was seeking to sign with the EU would increase interdependence with the West and reduce Ukraine’s dependence on Russia. This led Russia to take military action. ▪ Constructivists proffer that Russia viewed Western influence in Ukraine as a threat, given that the West has identities that diverge from those of Russia.
● One of the largest national groups currently agitating for a state are the Kurds, who reside in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. ● International relations perspectives and the state o Realists ▪ Hold a state-centric view. ▪ View the state as a sovereign entity, which acts as an autonomous unitary actor in its pursuit of its national interests defined in terms of power. o Liberals The state enjoys sovereignty but is not an autonomous actor and does not have consistent national interests. The state is a pluralist arena in which government and societal interest compete in the game of politics to prioritize their interests. o Constructivists States have socially constructed material and conceptual goals, values, and interests. These goals and values are not static but rather are ever changing in response to domestic factors and international norms and ideas. The state as a level of analysis: the Russia-Ukraine conflict o Realists: Russia’s fear that its national security was under threat by the growth of U.S. and European power in the region led them to act militarily against their weaker neighbor. o Liberals: both Russia and Ukraine lacked many of the characteristics of democracies that curtail warfare; thus, once their interests diverged, conflict increased. o Constructivists: differences in the ideas and identities of Russia and the West led Russia to see increasing Western power in the region as a threat.
III. The Individual
Sometimes individual motives and preferences make a difference in international politics.
The role of elites o Political elites are individuals who play an influential role in international politics. The extent of individual influence is affected by the elite’s personal characteristics and thought processes as well as by situational factors. o The influence of personality and personal interests Two orientations to foreign affairs emerge as important: Independent: adopted by leaders with high levels of nationalism, a strong belief in their ability to control events, a strong need for power, low levels of conceptual complexity, and high levels of distrust of others. Participatory: adopted by leaders with low levels of nationalism, little belief in their ability to control events, a high need for affiliation, high levels of conceptual complexity, and low levels of distrust of others. Personality characteristics affect the leadership of dictators in weak democracies more than that of leaders in strong democracies because of the absence of institutional checks. o The influence of information processing Individual elites use a variety of psychological techniques to process and evaluate information and tend to rely on existing perceptions as “screens” through which they process new information. Perceptions allow elites to synthesize and interpret information, providing them with guidance about future expectations and helping expedite planning for future contingencies. When perceptions form a relatively integrated set of images, they are called a belief system. Scholars such as Holsti have used the extensive written records of key policy makers to compare statements from before, during, and after they held positions of power to test and show the existence of consistent elite perceptions that influence foreign policy.
Social media has enabled private individuals to reach a wide audience and have a great impact. o Mass publics: public opinion The masses may have opinions about foreign policy that differ from those of the elites; they can affect international relations if the elites listen to them. Typically, the masses do not share a single view but rather hold a variety of differing opinions on foreign policy. In democracies, public-opinion polling provides leaders with a useful barometer of public attitudes. While elections allow the masses to register their opinion, it is an imperfect measure of general public opinion because voters select leaders on the basis of only a few issues. Mass publics: mass actions The masses might also have a profound impact on international relations, independent of elite preferences. At times, the masses, essentially appearing leaderless, can take collective actions that have significant effects on the course of world politics. At other times, a small group of elites act behind the scenes to mobilize mass protests that lead to political change. International relations perspectives and the individual o Realists: individuals are not important because the state is a unitary actor; the personality or style of a leader is not important. Realists see leaders as constrained by the state they govern, and neorealists see leaders as constrained by the international system. o Liberals: individuals have an important impact on international relations. Individual leaders, their personal characteristics, and their decision-making processes make a difference in foreign policy. Hence, when leadership change occurs in a major power, speculation about possible foreign policy changes
increase. Mass publics can also influence international relations through mass actions. o Constructivists: individuals are important. Individual state leaders can shape popular understanding of certain events through the discourse they use to explain those events. Mass publics are also agents of potential change through discourse. The individual as a level of analysis: the Russia-Ukraine conflict o Realists: focus on Putin’s desire for power led to the conflict with Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. o Liberals: focus on the impact the mass public had on Putin’s decision to pursue conflict with Ukraine. Russia was in an economic crisis, which, on the one hand, increased the negative perception of the mass public toward Putin but, on the other hand, created an opportunity for him to exert substantial influence. Conflict with Ukraine was a diversion that would lead the mass public to rally around the flag, which increases Putin’s popularity. o Constructivists: In the discourse before conflict, Putin framed Crimea as being important to Russian history and identity, thus rallying public opinion in his favor and increasing support for the annexation of Crimea.
