The selections we will be reading have one main focus. They seek to answer the big question in
international relations and foreign policy: Why do states behave the way they
do in the international system? Some
people argue that this is a question of international relations theory and
others say it is a question of foreign policy theory. For our purposes, we can consider them the
same issue. Why do states behave the way
they do is the question that theories of international relations and theories
of foreign policy are trying to answer.
The fact that these are treated as separate bodies of theory says more
about political scientists than it does about the nature of state
behavior.
Since political science is concerned with theory
building, each of these books focuses on theories. As stated in the syllabus, the search for
theory is a search for rules to explain social science phenomenon (in this case
foreign policy behavior). Each author is
developing a theory to explain the behavior of all states, not just one state. That is the trick here. Can you find universal patterns of activity,
universal rules that can used to explain how any state behaves? Each author is
developing a theory (a rule about state behavior) and then testing it with case
studies. You are assessing those
theories and the evidence that supports them.
So think in those terms. Don’t be
confused by scientific jargon. Just
remember that theories are statements about cause and effect. When I heat up a liquid, it will boil. That’s cause and effect. To become a scientist, you start to experiment
– you heat up different liquids to see if they all boil at the same
temperature, then you try to make rules about the different types of liquids
you heat up, say types of juices vs. types of oil. That’s science. Now, since this is social science and we’re
dealing with nations, we can’t run experiments.
You can’t invade several nations to see what their different reactions
to invasion might be. So you use
historical data to test your theories. That’s what you’re examining in your
papers. An author has developed a theory
or tested two theories. How well does
the author’s argument hold up when tested against the historical data?
The authors might use terms that you are unfamiliar
with. I am going to provide a brief
introduction to some of the key ideas in international relations that will give
you a starting point and a quick reference for dealing with the theoretical
issues. The authors are very good at
illustrating their theories, but this might help just in case. Also, these are starting points for the
authors. They take some of these basic
notions and redevelop them. So their
views of each of these theories might be slightly different from the way I
describe them. Theories evolve and below
I’ve given you the basic starting points for each theory.
Levels of Analysis
One
of the key questions in international relations and foreign policy is the
question of how you examine state behavior.
This is the level of analysis problem.
Scholars see several levels of analysis through which state behavior can
be examined.
System level analysis examines state behavior by looking at the
international system. In this level of
analysis, the international system is the cause and state behavior is the
effect. Characteristics of the
international system cause states to behave the way they do. Change in the international system will cause
change in state behavior. The key
variable in the international system is the power of a state within the system. Some states are powerful; others are
weak. So for example, the cold war had
two powerful states. Therefore the
central cause of all state behavior in the cold war was the fact that the US
and USSR were the two powerful states in a bipolar
system. Today, there is unipolar system – one superpower (or hyperpower)
-- and that defines the behavior of all other states in the system. (See
neo-realism below). So this level of
analysis might explain the US intervention in Iraq as a matter of the US, the one and only powerful state, flexing its muscles
to police the world against states that threaten it. The US wants to preserve its dominance and therefore crushes
all challengers.
State level analysis examines the foreign policy behavior of
states in terms of state characteristics.
For example, some scholars say that all democracies behave a certain way;
they don’t fight with other democracies.
Some scholars might look at the different behaviors of weak or strong
states; states that live in rough neighborhoods (Germany or France) vs. states
that live in more benign surroundings (the US).
Some scholars might say that the foreign policy behavior of every state
is a cultural characteristic, defined by the historical legacy of the state,
the religious or social traditions, or the economic and geographic nature of
the state itself (see constructivism below).
State level of analysis might explain the US intervention in Iraq as a function of the missionary quality of US foreign policy.
The US has always had an idealist streak in its foreign
policy (some disagree with this) and sees “bad guys” out there in the
international system. The US is compelled by the nature of its political system
and its belief that some day all states will be like the US. It has a
drive to remake the world in its own image.
The job of US foreign policy is not done until all states are democratic and all
nations have free market economies.
Organizational
level analysis examines the way in
which organizations within a state function to influence foreign policy
behavior. States don’t make
decisions. Organizations bargain with
each other to create a foreign policy that is a compromise between competing
organizations. This level of analysis
for example, might look at the Iraq war and try to explain it by examining the
interests of the US military, the department of defense, the state department,
and central intelligence agency. How did
these organizations create US foreign policy would be the key question at this
level of analysis.
Individual
level analysis focuses on
people. People make decisions within
nation states and therefore people make foreign policy. Scholars might look at the roles of different
leaders. This level of analysis might explain World War II by examining the
role of Hitler. It might look at the end
of the cold war by studying Gorbachev.
It might suggest that the economic reforms in China are a result of the transition from Mao Zedong’s leadership to Deng Xiaoping’s rule. This level of analysis also includes
cognitive theories --- theories that explain foreign policy by looking at the way
leaders perceive the world. Larson’s book is an example of this. This is a focus on perception, misperception,
and communication. Individual level
analysis might ask questions such as these: Are there aspects of George W.
Bush’s character and belief systems that have defined the US response to the 9/11 attacks? Would Al Gore or John Kerry have behaved any
differently in a similar situation? How
do Bush and his senior decision makers perceive the world and their role in it?
The
books that we have for this class, examine foreign policy behavior from several
different levels.
Theories of State Behavior
The
following list illustrates some of the theories that you’ll be reading
about. Each one is a specific theory
that tries to explain the way states behave.
You’ll get plenty of ideas within the books, so I’ll give you the brief
outline. Remember though that the
authors will take these basic ideas and modify them. Again, these are starting points for theory
and the authors are modifying them to build better theory.
Classical realism is a state level theory that argues that all states
seek power. That is the first and last
principle of state behavior. States seek
to increase their power; they seek to decrease the power of their enemies; and everything
they do is in the name of amassing power.
States see other powerful states as rivals because power, when it is not
in your hands, is threatening. People
are greedy, insecure, and aggressive, so the states they govern will have those
same characteristics. This doesn’t mean
war, however. There can be peace, but a
durable peace is based upon a stable balance of power – the big players in the
international systems are roughly equal in power resources, so therefore no one
thinks they can win a war. If you don’t
think you can win a war, you generally don’t start one. The US and USSR were rivals in the cold war because they were the two
most powerful states after WW II. They were both wary of each other’s power and
became enemies. But they did not go to
war because they were roughly equal in power.
Neo-realism is a system level theory that is an offshoot of
classical realism. It argues all of what
classical realism does. However, it sees
the cause of all the power struggles and rivalries not as a function of the
nature of states, but as a function of the nature of the international
system. States are out there alone. There is no world government, no one looking
out for states, no rules that can’t be easily broken. The world is anarchy and states do what they
can get away with to gain power and they do what they must to protect
themselves. Power creates rivalry
because it is threatening by its nature.
If some other state is more powerful than your state, you have no way to
protect yourself but to defend yourself or attack your rival first. A neorealist might say the cold war was
caused by the fact that there were only two powerful states that survived WW
II. Sine there was no world government
or rules of behavior to restrain the rivalry it became the cold war. This theory dominates scholarly thinking
today and will be discussed in a lot of the books.
Neo-classical realism is a sort of revival of classical realism. It accepts all of the above about power
rivalries, but it suggests that state characteristics (state level variables)
play a large role in the behavior of states.
States don’t just seek power and they don’t just fear other powerful
states, there are reasons that states seek power and there are reasons that
states fear other states. It’s a sort of
combination of classical and neo-realism that factors in both system level and
state level variables. For example, a
neo-classical realist might look at the cold war and say that the differences
in ideology between the US and USSR was a factor in the US-USSR rivalry that exacerbated
the tendency for two powerful states to form rivalries.
Liberalism adds values into the equation. It is often called idealism. It is a state
level theory which argues that there is a lot of cooperation in the world, not
just rivalry. States don’t just compete
or worry about power. States try to
build a more just world order. They
often do so because they have learned that in many instances cooperation is a
better strategy that conflict. States
try to create enforceable international law.
States are progressive forces for social justice. Liberalism might look at the cold war and
examine the different values of the US and USSR and point out the repressive and murderous nature of
the Soviet state as the key to the US and USSR animosity. It
also might look at the decades-worth of US-USSR cooperation in the midst of the
cold war (arms control, the lack of direct conflict).
Neo-liberalism is an offshoot of liberalism. It is a system level
version of liberalism and focuses on the way in which institutions can
influence the behavior of states by spreading values or creating rule-based
behavior. Neo-liberals might focus on
the role of the United Nations or World Trade Organization in shaping the
foreign policy behavior of states.
Neo-liberals might look at the cold war and suggest ways to fix the UN
to make it more effective.
Cognitive Theories are those mentioned above which examine the role of
psychological processes – perception, misperception, belief systems – on the
foreign policy behavior of states. It
can be state, organization, or individual level of analysis depending on
whether the research is focusing on the psychological dynamics of a state
decision maker or the shared perceptions of an organization, or the shared
belief systems of a nation. Cognitive
theorists might look at the shared images of the US and USSR political leaders had of each other and explain the
cold war as the product of these negative images and the inability of either
state to reshape the perceptions of the other.
0 comments:
Post a Comment