Lecture 4 - Structural Realism

Question 1

difference realism (morgenthau) - neorealism (waltz)

Answer 1

realism is a very actor based theory, while neorealism looks more to the overlapping system and its structural explanation.

Question 2

Law

Answer 2

an inherent relationship between phenomena, behaviors, or variables

Question 3

second great debate

Answer 3

realism vs. neorealism

traditionalism vs. behaviouralism

Question 4

actor-based explanation (morgenthau)

Answer 4

National interest = power

reason for power struggle and conflictual inter-state relations

solely the behaviour of parts (states), but not at the greater scope in what way they stand in relation to each other

Question 5

systemic / structural explanation

Answer 5

Anarchy and arrangment of units reason for power struggle and conflictual inter-state relations

Question 6

Explanatory Power of Systemic/Structural Theories

Answer 6

A systems theory shows why changes at the unit state level produce less change of outcomes than one would expect

it explains why states show similar behaviour despite their differences

systemic theory explains continuities / recurrences / repetitions

Question 7

Waltz’ Three Images = Levels of Analysis

Answer 7

=> Each level provides a different view of an event. These levels cannot be used separately, they are complementary, but each level has its own and unique value.

1st image = human nature

2nd image = nation states

3rd image = international system

The 1st and 2nd images describe the forces in world politics, but without the 3rd image it is impossible to assess their importance or predict their results’

The 3rd image describes the framework of world politics, but without the 1st and 2nd images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policyconflictual inter-state relations

Question 8

how do reductionist theories explain international phenomena

Answer 8

Internal/unit-level forces produce external outcomes (aims, policies, actions of states).

Theory about the behavior of units

Examines international politics in terms of what states are like and how they interact, but not in terms of how they stand in relation to each other

Question 9

probem with reductionist theories according to waltz

Answer 9

They cannot explain similar outcome despite unit-level differences

Question 10

political structure

Answer 10

Structure abstracts from the characteristics of the units.

determines how all the units realte to each other and act like a disposing and constraining force.

structure is defined by the arrangement of its parts and by the principle of that arrangement (positioned).

Question 11

internal political structure

Answer 11

ordering principle = hierarchy (government / super- and subordination)

functional differentation of the units

relative capabilities = Performing of function increases or decreases relative capabilities.

Question 12

external political structure (international)

Answer 12

ordering principle = anarchy (no formal authority / self-help systems)

character of units = sovereign states, no functional differentiation

arrangement of units = Distribution of relative capabilities/power across units. Number of great powers (defined by their overriding amount of power compared to others) determines the type of polarity in the system

Question 13

number of powers in system

Answer 13

one great power = unipolar system;

two great powers = bipolar system;

more than two great powers = multipolar system

Question 14

structural effects - leveling effects

Answer 14

produces uniformity of outcomes, despite variety of inputs

neutralizes differences and produces sameness in the behaviour of states

Question 15

stuctural effects - structure selects

Answer 15

rewarding some behaviors and punishing others

Question 16

structural effects - socialisation

Answer 16

Brings states into conformity with structural dictates

Reduces variety (states get pulled towards each other, and they grow to other norms, which reduces variety)

Question 17

structural effects - competition

Answer 17

Competition spurs the actors to accomodate their ways to socially most acceptable and successful practices –> reduces variety too

Question 18

waltz - security dilemma in a self-help international system

Answer 18

In the absence of a government, all units have to provide and strive for security through either –> internal / external balancing and bandwagoning

Question 19

internal balancing

Answer 19

increase internal power resources. makes itself less weak or stronger.

Question 20

external balancing

Answer 20

alliance formation. this can be done by choosing the weaker group and therefore contributing to the balance of power. choosing for the stronger group might mean submission

Question 21

bandwagoning

Answer 21

alliance with the powerful

Question 22

absolute security is impossible

Answer 22

this is because the everlasting distrust between allies: the allies can be the enemies of tomorrow.

also the thinking in a zero-sum game: one unit’s security is another unit’s insecurity. so the win of one state is the loss of another state

Question 23

offensive Realism

Answer 23

Anarchy compels major states to maximize their power and to seek superiority rather than equality
–> aggressive expansion to ensure security

ultimate goal is to become a hegemon

Rationale: The stronger the state, the less likely target of others and the more other will be dissuaded from challenging it

conquest and territorial expansion pays off

Question 24

defensive realism

Answer 24

Anarchy propels states to maximize their security by preserving existing balance of power.
–> moderate and restrained behaviour to ensure security

Conquest is rarely profitable= self-defeating behaviour because aggression provokes counterbalancing, which results in encirclement, overextension and strategic
exposure.

if balancing is the norm and if states understand this tendency, agression is discouraged, because those who contemplate it will anticipate resistance

Question 25

relative power

Answer 25

relative power = power in relation to and compared to other units

a system theory requires a baseline to define the distribution of capabilities across units (states), the rank of an unit depends on how they score on all the following 6 items:

size of population and territory, resource endowment , economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence

the various dimensions of power cannot be sectored and seperately weighed, to be an influencial state, a state must score high on all of these points

Question 26

relative power vs. effective power

Answer 26

The concentration of capabilities does not generate effective power

Capabilities are not to be confused with the (in-)ability to solve problems; ranking states does not require predicting success in war or other endeavors

Question 27

polarity determined by the number of great powers

Answer 27

there is a large number of states, but the inequality (in capacity) between them limits the number of great powers –> oligopolistic.

Inequality is inherent in the system and cannot be removed

‘In a world of highly unequal nations, some are severely limited while others have wide ranges of choice; some have little ability to affect events outside of their borders while others have immense influence

–> states are all constrained, but not equally

Question 28

bipolar system and stability

Answer 28

stabilizing effects:
internal balancing and great power differences add stability
unceratinty lessens and calculations are easier to take
high barrier of entry
self-dependence: clarity of danger

sources of danger:
overreaction
no peripheries - anything that is happening everywhere of concern
competition widely extended (millitary / economic growth)

Question 29

multipolar system and stability

Answer 29

stabilizing effects:
flexibility through external balancing. yet, this imposes limits on strategy/

sources of danger:
too many powers
intransparency who is danger
miscalculation
buckpassing
problem of surveillance
difficulty of predicting and detecting deals that others may make to one‘s own disadvantage

–> there are too many to enable anyone to see for sure what is happening and too few to make what is happening a matter of indifference

Question 30

bipolar system and balancing

Answer 30

balancing through internal efforts = internal balancing

Question 31

multipolar system and balancing

Answer 31

balancing through internal and external efforts, like alliances = external balancing (adds in flexibility)

Question 32

Bipolar vs. Multipolar Systems and Stability

Answer 32

Smaller systems are more stable, and their members are better able to manage affairs for their mutual benefit“

when a groups is smaller, the influential states have a larger stake so they will try to maintain this balance

larger group can be problematic when priorities (and thus the functionality of agreements) change / harder to overview the situation and survaillance of priorities

Question 33

Polarity – Stability – Change

Answer 33

Anarchic systems are transformed only by changes in the organizing principle and by consequential changes in the number of their principal parties

stability in international political system
- anarchy remains
- no consequential variation in the number of principal parties constituting the system

stability of the system — as long as anarchic — closely linked with fate of great powers.