Lecture 4 - Structural Realism Flashcards
difference realism (morgenthau) - neorealism (waltz)
realism is a very actor based theory, while neorealism looks more to the overlapping system and its structural explanation.
Law
an inherent relationship between phenomena, behaviors, or variables
second great debate
realism vs. neorealism
traditionalism vs. behaviouralism
actor-based explanation (morgenthau)
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
systemic / structural explanation
Anarchy and arrangment of units reason for power struggle and conflictual inter-state relations
Explanatory Power of Systemic/Structural Theories
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
Waltz’ Three Images = Levels of Analysis
=> 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
how do reductionist theories explain international phenomena
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
probem with reductionist theories according to waltz
They cannot explain similar outcome despite unit-level differences
political structure
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).
internal political structure
ordering principle = hierarchy (government / super- and subordination)
functional differentation of the units
relative capabilities = Performing of function increases or decreases relative capabilities.
external political structure (international)
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
number of powers in system
one great power = unipolar system;
two great powers = bipolar system;
more than two great powers = multipolar system
structural effects - leveling effects
produces uniformity of outcomes, despite variety of inputs
neutralizes differences and produces sameness in the behaviour of states
stuctural effects - structure selects
rewarding some behaviors and punishing others
structural effects - socialisation
Brings states into conformity with structural dictates
Reduces variety (states get pulled towards each other, and they grow to other norms, which reduces variety)
structural effects - competition
Competition spurs the actors to accomodate their ways to socially most acceptable and successful practices –> reduces variety too
waltz - security dilemma in a self-help international system
In the absence of a government, all units have to provide and strive for security through either –> internal / external balancing and bandwagoning
internal balancing
increase internal power resources. makes itself less weak or stronger.
external balancing
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
bandwagoning
alliance with the powerful
absolute security is impossible
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
offensive Realism
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
defensive realism
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
relative power
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
relative power vs. effective power
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
polarity determined by the number of great powers
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
bipolar system and stability
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)
multipolar system and stability
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
bipolar system and balancing
balancing through internal efforts = internal balancing
multipolar system and balancing
balancing through internal and external efforts, like alliances = external balancing (adds in flexibility)
Bipolar vs. Multipolar Systems and Stability
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
Polarity – Stability – Change
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.
