•Levels of Analysis
•Chapter 3
•PS130 World Politics
•Michael R. Baysdell
•Where Do We Focus Our Study
of International Politics?
• Three levels of analysis:
– Individual-level: People make policy
– State-level: States make policy
– System-level: International Arena
encourages/discourages certain types
of behavior
2
•Man, the State, and War—Kenneth Waltz (1959)
• Classified theories of international relations into three
categories, or levels of analysis.
• The first level explained international politics as being driven
primarily by actions of individuals, or outcomes of psychological
forces.
• The second level explained international politics as being driven
by the domestic regimes of states.
• The third level focused on the role of systemic factors, or the
effect that international anarchy was exerting on state behavior.
"Anarchy" in this context is meant not as a condition of chaos
or disorder, but one in which there is no sovereign body that
governs nation-states.
•Waltz’s First Level: Man (Human
Behavior)
•
•
•
•
Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity.
If these are the primary causes, the elimination of war must come through uplifting and
enlightening men (p.16).
For pessimists, peace is at once a goal and a utopian dream, while optimists take seriously the
proposition to reform the individual. Pessimists (Niebuhr, Morgenthau) have countered the
theory of politics built on an optimistic definition of man but also expose the important error of
exaggerating the causal importance of human nature. Since this nature is very complex, it can
justify any hypothesis we may entertain. If men can be made good, then one must discover
how to alter human nature. This expectation is often buried under the conviction that individual
behavior is determined more by religious and spiritual inspiration rather than material
circumstance. If man's evil qualities lead to wars, then one must worry about ways to repress
them or compensate for them. Control rather than exhortation is needed, tends to assume a
fixed human nature, which shifts the focus away from it, toward social and political institutions
that can be changed (p.41).
Not every contribution the behavioral scientist can make has been made before and found
wanting, but rather, the proffered contributions of many of them have been rendered ineffective
by a failure to comprehend the significance of the political framework of international action.
Social and psychological realism has produced political utopianism (p.77).
•Waltz’s Second Level: Internal Structure of States
•
•
•
•
The internal organization of states is the key to understanding war and peace.
Removing the defects of states would establish the basis for peace. Definition of a
``good'' state: (a) Marx - according to the means of production, (b) Kant - according
to abstract principles of right, (c) Wilson - according to national self-determination
and democracy. Hobbes, Mill, Adam Smith.
The use of internal defects to explain external acts of a state can take many forms:
(i) type of government generally bad - deprivations imposed by despots upon their
subjects produce tensions that find their expression in foreign adventure; (ii) defects
in governments not inherently bad - restrictions placed on the state in order to
protect the rights of its citizens interfere with executing foreign policy; and (iii)
geographic or economic deprivations - state has not attained its ``natural'' frontiers,
or ``deprived'' countries undertake war to urge the satisfied ones to make the
necessary compensatory adjustments (p.83).
Liberal thought has moved from reliance upon improvement within separate states to
acceptance of the need for organization among them. Rigorous application of this
logic leads to asking to what extent organized force must be applied in order to
secure the desired peaceful world. Arguing for a world government and settling for
balance of power as an unhappy alternative reveals the limits of the second image
analysis. Even though bad states may lead to war, the obverse that good states
mean peace is doubtful. Just like societies they live in make men, the international
environment makes states (p.122).
War results from states seeking to further their own national interest
•Waltz’s Third Level: International Anarchy
• With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among
them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the
dictates of its own reason or desire - conflict, sometimes leading to war, is
bound to occur. To achieve a favorable outcome from such a conflict, a state
has to rely on its own devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its
constant concern (p.159). Machiavelli, Rousseau, Thucydides, Clausewitz.
• In anarchy, there is no automatic harmony. Because some countries may be
willing to use force to achieve their ends, and because there is no authority
to prevent them from doing so, even peacefully inclined states must arms
themselves. Goodness and evil, agreement and disagreement, may or may
not lead to war.
• War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it: there is no automatic
adjustment of interests among states and there is a constant possibility that
conflicts will be settled by force (p.188).
• A balance of power may exist because some countries consciously make it
the end of their policies, or it may exist because of the quasi-autonomous
reactions of some states to the drive for ascendancy of others. It is not so
much imposed by statesmen on events as it is imposed by events on
statesmen (p.209).
•SYSTEM-LEVEL ANALYSIS
• A top-down approach to studying
politics:
•
•
•
•
Structural Characteristics
The Actors
Scope and Level of Interaction
The Role of Power
• Let’s examine each, one by one
7
•Structural Characteristics of
International System
• State-centric system with no overarching
authority to make rules, settle disputes, and
provide protection. Anarchic.
• Horizontal organization of authority (as
opposed to most organizations, which are
vertical)
• Sovereignty on the decline with rise of UN,
WTO, EU
• U.S. steel tariffs provide good example of loss
of sovereignty (European case in WTO)
8
• The Actors
• National actors:
• States--dominate the system and are not
responsible to any higher authority
• International government actors
• Transnational actors:
• Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
• Multinational corporations (MNCs)
• Terrorist groups
• The SCOPE, LEVEL, and INTENSITY of
interactions is increasing between all these
actors.
9
•Power Configurations and
Relationships
• System poles=powerful actors
• Can be single country/empire, an alliance, a
global IGO (The UN), or a regional IGO (the EU)
• Unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and
multipolarity all have models that more or less
explain how they function
• All states are power seeking, seek to dominate
• Other states will attempt to block hegemony
• Classic example: The Concert of Europe
• Debate over whether preponderence of force or
force equality causes conflict
10
• Economic Patterns
 Interdependence: Leading to peace or
creating tension?: U.S.-China relations
 Where natural resources are produced
and consumed: Persian Gulf
 Maldistribution of development: NorthSouth rivalry
11
•Norms of Behavior
 Understanding changes
 Transnational forces: Travel, trade,
education, communication, and Internet
 Greater emphasis on human rights
 Weakening support for war
 Recognition of dangers of global climate
changes
 Nuclear war norm
 Minimizing civilian casualties norm
12
•STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS
 Assumes relative freedom of states in
policy making
 Closer look at the making of national
foreign policy
 Policy type and actor analysis
 Political culture
13
•Making Foreign Policy:
Types of Government, Situations, and How
They Impact Policy
 Democracy versus Authoritarian Governments:
 Democracy and foreign policy choices are different
 Situations:
 Crisis--decisions taken by high-level, small groups. Must
feel surprised, threatened, and believe they only have a
short time to react
 Crisis can spark “rally effect” (9/11, Iraq War)
 Status quo--incremental policy changes
 Non–status quo--changes in policy direction
 Types of policy:
 Many policies are intermestic and cannot be dealt with
only by 1 state
14
•Making Foreign Policy: Political Culture
 Political Culture: A patterned set of ways of
thinking about how politics and governing
ought to be carried out
 Not the same as political IDEOLOGY—
consistent sets of views as to the policies
government ought to pursue
 Allows leaders to take a certain general
policy direction
 Changing nature
 Not monolithic or all-inclusive
15
American Political Culture
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We take it for granted—ex. Peaceful transfer of power
American culture “Exceptionalism” with missionary impulse
Clashes with Chinese sinocentrism (“Middle Kingdom”)
5 important elements: Liberty, Equality, Democracy, Civic Duty,
Individual responsibility
Americans are more willing to tolerate economic inequality than
political inequality
Regions can have subcultures—American South differs from
NE…south more conservative
Political culture can be consensual or conflictual. Consensual
cultures come to compromises—conflictual ones come to blows
U.S., France are conflictual
Consensual: Japan, Sweden
•Making Foreign Policy:Actors
 Understanding the many actors involved
in the foreign policy–making process







Political executives
Bureaucracies
Legislatures
Political opposition
Interest groups
Allied nations
And, of course, the people
17
•Heads of Government/
Political Executives
 Generally strongest subnational actors
• Capabilities include administrative, legislative
skills, public persuasion ability
• Real power of U.S. President is not in the
Constitution, but rather politics and public opinion
 May often use two-level game strategy-•
1) negotiating at the international level with
representatives of other countries;
•
2) negotiating at the domestic level with
legislators, bureaucrats, interest groups, and the
public for political support.
18
• Bureaucracies
 Bureaucratic perspective: Organizations favor
a certain policy based on their mission
 Department of Defense more likely to accept
conflict than Department of State
 Tools: Collecting, filtering, and evaluating
information, making recommendations,
implementing policies--e.g., multi-layered
roles of CIA and U.S. Department of
Defense in the run-up and execution of the
Iraq war
19
•Legislatures
 Less powerful than executive
 Support executive during crisis
 More active role in high-profile issues-e.g., Iraq war and human rights abuses
at Abu Ghraib.
 Constraints: belief in a unified national
voice, most legislation is domestic
 Exception: Boland Amendment, 1982 (led
to Iran-Contra Affair)
20
•Political Opposition
 May be less overt and/or less peaceful in
nondemocratic systems
 Influential actors in democratic systems
 WTO protests in Seattle
 Democrats' use of Congressional spending
and oversight powers to frame Iraq war
debate and push for withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Iraq
21
• Interest Groups
 Cultural, economic, issue-oriented,
and transnational interest groups
 Different goals from political parties
 Political parties—goal is electing
members
 Interest groups—goal is getting one
specific policy enacted
22
• The People
 More involved in domestic issues than in
foreign issues
 Most Americans can’t locate Darfur on a
map
 Leader-citizen opinion gap (similar to
interest group leader v. rank and file)
 Direct democracy is growing
 Indirect influence
23
•INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANALYSIS
• Cognitive factors: try to choose rationally, try to make good
tactical and strategic choices
– Limited by internal/external boundaries (Iraq WMD)
– Limited by wishful thinking/heuristic devices like stereotypes
and analogies (Munich Analogy)
– Limited by cognitive capabilities (Wilson after stroke re:
Treaty of Versailles)
– Individuals seek cognitive consistency
• Emotional factors: leaders subject to emotions
– Truman letter, Jimmy Carter protest, Bush 43 examples
• Psychological factors:
– Frustration-aggression theory: frustration aggression
• Biological factors:
– Ethology (animal behavior—LBJ example); gender
• Perceptions: We attribute worst possible motives to
adversary and the best to ourselves (Fundamental
24
Attribution Theory from Sociology)
•Organizational Behavior
 Appropriate role behavior influences
leaders
 Complex relationship between role and
issue position
 Group decision-making behavior: causes
and effects of groupthink
25
•Idiosyncratic Behavior:
Personality Factors in Making Decisions
 Barber's active-passive, positive-negative typology
 Physical and mental health of leader (Kennedy during
CMC, Yeltsin, Hitler)
 Ego and ambition (Persian Gulf War II?)
 Political history and personal experiences:
 Munich and Vietnam analogies
 Perceptions:
 Operational reality--the link between
perception and policy
 Operational code--how an individual acts
when faced with a situation
26
•The Future System: Three Directions
 Traditional, state-centered
 Alternative non–state centered:
McWorld tendency
 Alternative non–state centered: Jihad
tendency
 A scenario of the future world
system: politics of identity
©2007 McGraw-Hill Higher Education
27
•CHAPTER OBJECTIVES: CHECKLIST
•
After reading this chapter, students should be able to:
•
•
•
1. Define individual-level analysis in world politics.
2. Examine how fundamental human characteristics influence policy.
3. Show how organizational behavior, including role-playing and group decision
making, can influence policy decisions.
4. Analyze the idiosyncratic or personal characteristics of leaders that influence their
decision-making and policy outcomes.
5. Discuss the major emphases of state-level analysis.
6. Analyze the foreign policy process, based on the type of government, situation,
and policy.
7. Discuss the importance of political culture on foreign policy.
8. List the foreign-policy making actors and evaluate the role and influence of
subnational actors.
9. Describe the structural characteristics of the international system and discuss the
actors.
10. Analyze the power relationships in the international system.
11. Discuss economic realities in the political system.
12. Outline the norms of behavior in the international system.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
28