Week 2: Structural theories of IR Flashcards
Title: Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace
a. Author(s)?
Hans J. Morgenthau
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
This reading addresses what main issue?
morgenthau is interested in understanding realism vs. idealism and how realism helpx explain internaional politics and what the balance of power is
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
What makes this paper different from others?
Morgenthau lays out a foundational theory of realism grounded in human nature similar to the work of Hobbes. he systemtatically details out realism and its tenents
He suggests that indealism believs that a rational and moral poltiical order, derived from abstract principles can be achieved. So like it assumes inherent goodness and the malleability of human nature and blames the failure of social order on a lack of knomwledge and understanding – you can trust in education and reform and use for force to remedy these defects
The rationlist view of the world thinks that the world is the way it is due to forces inherent to human nature. To improve the world you have to work with those forces not against them. so morality can never fully be realized and can be approcimated through balancing of interests and pwoer
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
How did the author(s) address this issue?
Morgenthau starts off by distinguishing between idealism and realism whcih thinks we can change human nature for the good using things such as insitutions, spreading ideology etc.
The core principles of realism:
1. Politics is governed by objective laws that are rooted in human nature. Trying to change this makes things worse
2. Interests are defined in terms of power. We shouldn’t deal with trying to figure out 1) motives; or 2) ideological preferences
3. Interests as power is an objective category, but doesn’t have a fixed meaning
4. Tension between morality and “successful” political action. Can’t worry about the former
5. One nation’s morality is not universal
6. Realism is profoundly different from other schools of thought. Politics is distinct from other areas
Realists believe in ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason that is testing the rational hypothesis against the actual facts and their consequences.
Ralists dont link what
Building on these principles, Morgenthau identifies 2 factors that are the foundation of international society: 1) multiplicity of states; 2) antagonism between them from their inherent desire for power
The equilibrium between states is one of preserving the status quo of power. States will attempt to prevent others from gaining too much power and balance each other
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
Why did the authors address this issue in this way?
The goal of this paper was to distinguish realism from idealism which was the dominant view at the time.
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
What are the major findings of the paper?
Morgenthau finds that distinct balanace of powers can be identified in the international system. He thinks through these as direct opposition - meaning country A pursues an impiriealist policy which leads country B to do the same
And then competition: where for ex. if A does imperialist policy in country C, country B will counter bc they want to preserve the status quo or they want to dominate C themselves.
Everything is about maintaining the status quo or about accumulating power
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
What are the implications of this paper and their methodology?
If morgenthau’s thinking is correct then much of what we covered in class would technically speaking be harmful since we are indeed tryign to understand motives and domestic politics and even trade
Politics among nations, Morgenthau 1985
How does this paper contribute to the broader literature?
mogrnthau presents a foundational theory of a new paraggidm of studying IR
power is inherently intersectional ther eis no objective assesment of pwer it is bound in isms so disaggregating the notion of power implicitly mean assessing wealth, race, gdner, class etc. I just dont agree
the poltiical realist is just like the economist and the laywer he thinks of things as deindeb by power. The economist thinks of things as defined by wealth
political realism is based off of a pluralistic conception of human nature – that real man is composite of economic man, political man, moral man, religoius man etc. so you should comprartmentalize. and to understand one part you have to deal w it on its own termss o you have to abstract away from other parts
Title: Theory of international politics
a. Author(s)?
Kenneth Waltz
or
Waltz 1979
Theory of internatioanl poltiics, Waltz 1979
This reading addresses what main issue?
Waltz is intereste din understanding the best theory we can use to explain the internatioanl system as it is.
Theory of internatioanl poltiics, Waltz 1979
What makes this paper different from others?
Still in Realism contrary to lots of other authors, but distinct from Morgenthau in that he emphasizes anarchy and structure instead of things that are intrinsic to human nature
Theory of internatioanl poltiics, Waltz 1979
How did the author(s) address this issue?
After critiquing existing systemic theories for not really being theories at all, Waltz builds a new theory of the international system that does not conflate unit-level with systemic-level characteristics
Since states are the “unit” of the system, we can’t look inside of them to build a theory of the system
The differentiating variable between states/units is the amount of relative power they possess
We cant look inside states to build a thoery of the system we need to understand the intersactions between states/untis in the amount of relative power they possess
Theory of internatioanl poltiics, Waltz 1979
Why did the authors address this issue in this way?
Really is rooted in an ontological disagreement about what comprises a “theory” and what that necessitates for our ability to understand the anarchic international system
Theory of internatioanl poltiics, Waltz 1979
What are the major findings of the paper?
There is a tendency towards balancing in the anarchic international system
Anarchy limits cooperation between states for 2 reasons: 1) they don’t know the relative gains that will be distributed from cooperating; 2) being dependent on others reduces chance of survival
The lower bound for understanding states is that they are aiming for self-preservation, upper that they want universal world domination.
Theory of internatioanl poltiics, Waltz 1979
What are the implications of this paper and their methodology?
Big advance in how to make a theory of the entire system
If Waltz is correct vs. Morgenthau, then we don’t even need to consider aspects of human nature to understand how we have a self-help international system
If Waltz is correct more broadly, gives us predictions for what to expect in terms of periods of tension, as well as why states of varying power behave in the way that they do
We should be skeptical of the causal effect of things like IOs, norms, trade and so forth because while they might appear to be playing an independent role they are actually just manifestations of states balancing power
Title: The evolution of the pwoer transition perspective
a. Author(s)?
lemke and kugler
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
This reading addresses what main issue?
The likelihood of conflict in conditions of power preponderance versus power parity
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
What makes this paper different from others?
Lemke & Kugler argue that unlike what BOP predicts, the chances of conflict are actually higher when states have relatively closer levels of power than when there is a big imbalance
Still operating in a “realist” world, but they place less emphasis on alliances and more on the ways in which states can get their own power
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
What did the author(s) do to address this issue?
Uses original data from The War Ledger to show difference between the role of power parities and disparities in the initiation as well as the outcome of wars
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
Why did the authors address this issue in this way?
Bringing new empirical evidence to the theorizing of different views within the realist framework
Trying to understand the discrepancy between what these schools would predict in terms of war initiation (PT is more right) and war outcomes (BP is more right)
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
What are the major findings of the paper?
Power parity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for war between two states in a dyad
War is more likely in this circumstance than when there’s an imbalance (what BP predicts)
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
What are the implications of this paper and their methodology?
Empirically, at least some of the predictions of BP are not correct, and their overall theories should be at least re-visited to figure out why
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
How does this paper contribute to the broader literature?
Provides additional predictions for the likelihood of conflict from a realist approach, outlines how the characteristics of states can additional impact their relative power beyond just alliances
Evolution of pwer transition perspective, Iemke and Kuger
What are my critiques? What does a world without their contribution look like?
I personally really like this peace because it helps to synthesize the debates within realism. I’m not really sure what a critique could be since it’s largely an overview type piece introducing other articles, but I suppose you could just use the standard critiques against realism for PT theory too
Title: Anarchy is what states make of it: the social consturctions of power
a. Author(s)?
alexander wendt
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
This reading addresses what main issue?
Intervening in the debate between liberalism and realism, both of which are within the broader rationalist choice school
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
What makes this paper different from others?
Disagrees both w/ realism and liberalism about the origins of the self-help nature of the anarchic system (but importantly does not disagree that that is broadly the contemporary dynamic)
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
What did the author(s) do to address this issue?
Constructivism uses “sociological social psychological”systemic theories- treats identities & interests as dependent variables unlike rationalists
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
How did the author(s) address this issue?
Three cases of identities and interests being transformed under anarchy:
Institution of sovereignty
Evolution of cooperation
Intentional efforts to transform egoistic states into collectives
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
Why did the authors address this issue in this way?
Enables him both to critique the existing state of the debate (and in my opinion show how liberalism and realism are more similar than we might think), as well as provide a positive theory of an alternative
These three cases are also addressing Waltz on his own terms of the different images, which strengthens his argument
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
What are the major findings of the paper?
That anarchy itself is not the causal issue for how self-help arises, instead there are other causal forces at play that operate through repeated interaction between actors. In particular, predation
Anarchy plays a role, but it and predation are mediated by the structures of identity and interests for the actors in the system
Two big constraints on how identity/interests are transformed: 1) it is slow and incremental; 2) and more importantly is that it assumes the actors involved don’t have negative perceptions of each other, they need to be focused on absolute and not relative gains
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
What are the implications of this paper and their methodology?
Outlines how institutions can transform both identity and interest
Emphasis on recurring practice of interaction between actors and institutions, but with identity. Almost like a repurposing of numerous iterations of games in other weeks
Fundamentally reframes many big events and issues in the field
I.e. the durable peace in Europe after centuries of war. Liberal explanations would probably highlight interdependence and material causes. Wendt would say that over a period of time these states had their identities/interests transformed, which is why they are no longer in a state of constant conflict
Points the field towards identity and the potential for it to change over time, but focuses only on the system level. One implication is that maybe this same process is operating domestically as well
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
How does this paper contribute to the broader literature?
Encourages more focus on things beyond just material power
Provides explanations for otherwise really tricky events and issues in IR (end of Cold War, EU starting, maybe democratic peace could be connected as well?)
Arnarchy is what states make of it: social construction of pwer Wendt
What are my critiques? What does a world without their contribution look like?
I think the field would look fundamentally different - brings constructivism from focusing almost only on ontology etc. to positivist social science questions of causation and explanation
One critique (although I don’t think it’s too severe for his argument) is how much Wendt tries to argue that due to rationalism liberalism and neorealism are actually quite similar. I’ve usually thought of them as being pretty distinct
Argues against neorealist claim that self-help is exogenous to anarchic structure
Critiques neorealism, builds positive theory about how self-help and power politics are social constructs in anarchy
Classical realists (like Morgenthau) say egoism and power politics is intrinsic to human nature, neorealists (like Waltz) say that it actually comes from anarchy
Emphasizes that he is not critiquing Waltz’s description of the contemporary climate, just his explanation of how we got there
Title: International systmes and domestic politics: linking compelx interacitons with empirical models in IR
a. Author(s)?
Chaudoin, Milner, Pang
International systms and deomestic poltiics, Chaudoin, Milner, Pang
This reading addresses what main issue?
Attempting to bridge the gap between theories that consider systemic, and theories that consider domestic variables
International systms and deomestic poltiics, Chaudoin, Milner, Pang
What makes this paper different from others?
Existing studies that emphasize domestic variables do so through the lens of how they mediate the impact of systemic variables
Chaudoin et al. instead show how the interaction between domestic and systemic level variables changes over time
International systms and deomestic poltiics, Chaudoin, Milner, Pang
How did the author(s) address this issue?
They first organize the relationships between domestic and systemic variables into 5 categories of increasing complexity: independence, direct system effects, indirect system effects, moderation, and interdependence
Moderation and interdependence are at the cutting edge
International systms and deomestic poltiics, Chaudoin, Milner, Pang
What are the major findings of the paper?
Democracy is associated with lower tariffs, and the relationship holds across many possible interactions between systemic & domestic variables
Uses dataset on trade from 1970-2008 (extending from initial study that ended at 1999)
International systms and deomestic poltiics, Chaudoin, Milner, Pang
What are the implications of this paper and their methodology?
Definitely helps to show how more system-level versus domestic focused studies can be integrated, and actually how they probably should be
How does this paper contribute to the broader literature?
Provides a novel framework for organizing the existing types of variables
Expand on existing models focused on systemic variables in 2 ways: 1) present models that are hierarchical and based in spatial econometrics; 2) their model allows the amount of interdependence to vary across units
The interdependence model allows for the system and its variables to be viewed as endogenous, which allows for feedback
Interdependence model allows for things like learning, diffusion, and competition to be included, and also the way in which they vary
