Chapter 2 Flashcards
transnational relations
contacts, coalitions and interactions across state boundaries that aren’t controlled by the central foreign policy organs of governments
*may involve governments, but not only governments : NGOs must play an important role
*can include transnational actors activities that may not directly involve movements across state boundaries, as activities in home countries may have consequences outside
areas of inquiry
what are the authors mainly concerned about with this article?
- effect of transnational relations on government ability to deal with environments (loss of control?)
- implications of transnational relations for the study of world politics (end of state-centrism?)
- effect of transnational relations on inequalities/asymmetries between states
- effect transnational relations on US foreign policy (as main center transnational relations)
- challenges transnational relations raise for IOs
What types of global interaction are there?
- communication (information, beliefs, ideas, doctrines)
- transportation (physical objects)
- finance (money and instruments of credit)
- travel (persons)
many international activities involve all types of interaction at the same time
- e.g. trade and warfare
transnational interactions
movement of tangible or intangible items across state boundaries when at least one actor is not an agent of a government or an IGO
How can individuals and organizations in a given society play roles in world politics?
J. David Singer
- participate as members of coalitions that control or affect their governments
- play direct roles vis-a-vis foreign governments or foreign societies and thus bypass their own government
* = transnational relations
actors position
- governmental
- intergovernmental
- nongovernmental
roles may slide back and forth in between these 3
geocentric (institution)
composition of leadership and pattern of behavior of an organization indicate that it has lost all special ties to one or two particular states
- to be a transnational actor doesn’t require this: you can be a company located/operating in the Netherlands, but have a global impact
*transnational organizations tend to become geocentric gradually and after outside pressure (mostly by host governments)
how do transnational interactions or organizations affect interstate politics?
5
transnational relations increase sensitivity of societies to one another -> alter relationships between governments
five major effects:
- attitude changes (face-to-face interactions + travel etc. + transnational organizations can create myths, symbols, and norms)
- international pluralism (linking national interest groups in transnational structures, e.g. for coordination)
- increases in constraints on states through dependence and interdependence (economy, finance)
- increase in the ability of certain governments to influence others (new instruments for influence, mostly for large/powerful states at the center of transnational networks): e.g. affect the flow of international trade or use tourists as spies
e.g. US wanted to stop France nuclear capability by forbidding IBM_France to sell certain computers to the French government - emergence of autonomous actors with private foreign policies that may deliberately oppose or impinge on state policies
e.g. revolutionary movements, trade unions, multinational business enterprises, Roman Catholic church
e.g. role of oil companies in British-Iranian relations and American-Cuban relations: aggravated existing interstate conflict
e.g. zionism: worked for good American relations with Israel, at the cost of US relations with tegenstanders Israel
how do transnational interactions or organizations affect interstate politics?
- examples
- international trade and finance: small change in state policy has big impact on the whole economic system : states are sensitive to outside influence
- global mass communications: mass communication leads to groups copying behavior of other groups without being in direct contact with each other
cybernetic + neo-functionalist school
cybernetic = studies effect of transactions on mass attitude changes
neo-functionalist = emphasize roles of interest groups and elites, or international pluralism
thus they touch upon the first 2 effects transnational relations have on interstate politics
transnational relations -> dependence and interdependence on states
e.g. dependent on transnational communication network or transnational travel
dependent on transnational organizations, e.g. if they provide something states need
dependence in policy: certain policies which a government might otherwise follow can become prohibitively costly
- bureaucratic cost of changing
- transnational organizations can alter patterns of domestic interests -> some policy can become costly
coping with dependence and interdependence is mostly costly for large states: they have to take changes in the international system (they cause) + the perception of other large states into account (e.g. retaliate actions if they choose for a certain policy)
Perceptions of transnational relations by governmental elites are therefore a crucial link between dependence or interdependence, on the one hand, and state policies on the other
loss of control by governments?
governments remain the most important actors
after WW1 there have been more transnational organizations, but states have also adopted more areas of activity
- e.g. international monetary flows: governments more and more try to protect the state from intrusion on national economic policy
increased aspirations for control + increased interdependence are connected
! loss of control is deceptive: governments are rarely able to control their environment for long periods of time, also without transnational relations
governments try to get as much control as possible, they adapt to transnational forces/relations -> transnational relations essential to understand behavior of governments
control gap
governments become more ambitious, they want more control
impact of transnational relations creates a control gap between aspiration for control and the capability to achieve it
does the phenomenon of transnational relations make the state-centric paradigm inadequate for understanding contemporary world politics?
state-centric view has excluded transnational relations from the interstate system:
- small direct political importance
- indirect effects enter into formation of national foreign policies
states are and remain the main actors in world politics (e.g. they monopolize large-scale organized force = ultimate bargain)
we shouldn’t put aside state-centrism, we should pay more attention to transnational relations
continuing importance of transnational actors -> state-centric paradigm progressively more inadequate
better = alternative world politics paradigm
definitions of politics
classic model: world politics as the actions and interactions of states
domestic politics students: process by which societies make binding decisions
problem with moving past state-centrism = no clear limits to the definition
writers of the book: politics = relationships in which at least one actor consciously employs resources (material and symbolic, incl. threat or exercise of punishment) to induce other actors to behave differently than they would otherwise behave
definition politics + world politics (writers)
politics = relationships in which at least one actor consciously employs resources to induce other actors to behave differently than they would otherwise behave
world politics =
all political interactions between significant actors in a world system
significant actor =
any somewhat autonomous individual or organization that controls substantial resources and participates in political relationships with other actors across state lines
- e.g. oil companies: they act to maintain political stability in producing countries
who benefits from transnational relations
- enrich and strengthen the strong and the rich, because only these can take full advantage
some say ‘transnational relations’ is a new word for imperialism (marxist)
- better to focus on transnational relations as is, not as imperialism, as the definitions/implications of imperialism differ
- better to focus on asymmetries or inequalities than trying to employ older terms
definition imperialism
imperialism = virtually any relationship across state boundaries between unequals that involves the exercise of influence
- almost no analytic value as it includes most of world politics
imperialism = cross-national relationships in which unequal power is used to achieve ‘‘unfair’’ allocations of value
Context of this article
realism dominates international relations
- focus on states
- focus on security (war and peace)
- neglect for economic issues (-> neoliberal institutionalism)
Do Keohane and Nye argue that governments are losing control?
they say it’s an empirical question that needs to be determined by research
so they don’t make an argument
