Return to Sharework

- Sharing Informal Course Info from participants - Comparing Contending Theories in International Politics 2003

Present and explain Alexander Wendt's explanation of international systemic change.
How do the following authors explain the same phenomenon: Morghenthau, Waltz, Kaplan, Gilpin and Keohane?

#	Author	key concepts	Account for Change related	key words	short hand
1	Wendt	A. Change = Change in culture of identity. - Structure change - Who they are and what they want. "Anarchy is what states make of it." B. Int'l Structure & Relationship with agents & 3 Assumptions: 1. Social rather than strict material = a. Ideational, b. material resources-capacity with meaning; c. practice 2.Structure shapes identity and interests of states - Tendency in international sys. Structuration Theory - mutually constituted and co-determined. 3.States act on shared knowledge and expectations C. Evolution of Systems [and Evolutionary moded? identity formation:] 1. "Hobbsian" = Individual - enemy - Conflict 2. "Lockian" = Rival -Competition - Mutual Recognition of Soverginty 3. "Kantian" = Friend, Collective Security, Cooperation D. Identity Formation, Causal Theory of identity formation 1. 4 Variables in all systems; Interdependence, Common Fate, Homogeneity, Self Restraint. Self Restraint most important for "self-binding" actions without expectation of reciprocity. 2. Macro & Micro Level are Important, 1st meeting, Mac Supervenes Micro 3. Identity through repeated interaction and Frequency of instances [what is tipping point?]	Change in Culture	Culture, Macro & Micro Important, Mac Supervenes Micro	Cul, MaSMi
2	Morgenthau	System Change, Change in Balance of Power between states.\| Assumes Bop natural phenomenon that exists under 3 certain conditions: – Power parity among major As [Structure] , – ideology of b-of-p, - adopt by majors of b-of-p foreign policy [Normative-Behavior] (whether b-of-p causes change or stability) weakest against the potential hegemon, Multipolar System. Anarchic; Stability & change come from multipolar b-of-p, in int'l system of anarchy w/ autonomous actors, conflict , five or more main actors. All the actors are autonomous. 2. int'l system is regulated by b-of-p, states to prevent hegemony by aligning w/ weaker side (constrained by environments, opportunities for expansion) Conclude: • causes of change & stability = relationship betw/ structure and actor:[motivation & purpose]; • change & stability are both structural AND normative; • reason for agent to seek change = opportunity for expansion or increased compensation.; • BOP is in effect for states with different internal ideologies. • BoP is main Ideology, Structure and Normative system; followed by most of the actors. • similar to Wendt’s f “frequency” num occurrences determine when system change - macro	Balance of Power; Change in Structure & Actors; Motivation, [Frequency of interaction?]	BoP, struct & Actors, Freq.	BoP, SA, F
3	Waltz	Balance of Power, Bi-polar Waltz: start – defines change & stability as follows • Change = change of distribution of capabilities [just material] in the system (w/ or w/out system-wide war) •Stability = absence of system-wide war and the maintenance of distribution of capabilities • 0 Sum?. Under the conditions of: 1. Inequality; 2. smallness of major actors = Prefers 2 main 3. bipolar most stable (contrary to Morgenthau) b/c two major powers must have commitment to b-of-p (or it won't work –declare war). Less chance for misunderstanding - actors have learned more about each other.[central focus] 2. only ideological commitment that is important [far outweigh] [like Morgenthau or G?] b-of-p not only stable but provides deterrence (avoidance of system-wide war). constrains behavior of actors	Distribution of Material Capacity	Material Capacity	MCap
4	Gilpin	Form of Control factors that account expansion of political power as a challenger to hegemon Change in system from hegemonic to bipolar, etc.: [G critic W because W BP need commit of 2 major] Explanation of systemic change: [5 rules : see page 10 1. int’l sys in equilibrium – no state sees profit in change-no state is trying to expand • dynamic equilibrium (homeostatic), cyclical old -hegemonic decline - time new 2. will attempt change if expect benefit exceed expect cost 3. Will seek change in system [via pol, eccon or territ] until cost exceed benefit - States change system through expansion until marginal cost too high • hegemons expand up to point where MC = MB. costs high (external, internal, and environmental reasons). 4. maintenance costs of staus Quo will eventual exceed capacity to Hedgemon [H1] -maintaining status quo rises faster than ability of hegemon to pay) 5. If disequilibrium not resolved – will change with new power [H2] • w/ disequilibrium, hegemon three options. : 1. increase resources devoted to int'l commitments 2. reduce commitments 3. rejuvenate your technology (make it cheaper to meet commitments) • unable to resolve disequilibrium, uneven growth causing other states to gain, leading to hegemonic war. Demise of hegemons has to do with overextension (s-curve) – mixes microeconomics w/ internal factors hegemonic ascent • G focus systemic change = structural change system (forms of control of system can produce a wide range of systems). 3 types of systems: hegemonic, etc. bipolar & b-of-p (systems classified by form of control). [change rules – change system] • Hegemonic power creates and maintains - particular governance of the system Key concept = expansion (territorial & economic); Explanatory mechanism = extent of expansion -- governed by ratio of marginal benefit (MB) vs. marginal costs (MC) (for everyone) increasingly, territorial expansion is obsolete. • states act to expand interests -- perception (Keohane – perception not automatic!) is important factor in foreign policy. Factors in perception: 1. environment (tech, econ, military); 2. systemic structures [External]; 3. domestic factors (personalities, etc.) -- combine to produce financial crisis for the hegemon (while other powers are growing faster: • s-curve and their free-rider status). -- eventual means of solving disequilibrium is hegemonic war (involving all major powers) & result will be new distribution of power; start of new cycle: expansion (MC = MB), decline (w/ MC > MB), war;-- law of uneven growth is what saves theory (but where does it come from?) relative, not absolute – other countries become more powerful than hegemon or just more powerful? Systemic change: Change from H1 to H2; H1 to bigger H1expand., H1 to H3, or H1 no change adjust using methods mentioned above	Expansion of Power, Law of uneven growth	Expansion following 5 rules = "S" Curve	Xpand-S
5	Keohane	Keohane implies - going forward to more cooperation - Wendt doesn’t predetermine outcome? – But recent articles on world state implies final process??? · important measure of change is the system of governance · int'l regime (defined as norms, rules & institutions govern the int'l system, · therefore govern state behavior (manifested in institutions informed by rules, both formal and informal Keohane: regime theory (structures + processes) Int'l system changes if the rules change: [could increase Stability or change] [Rules - increase transparency, give more info on which to base decisions, set expectations etc]r Existence of rules a natural consequence of int'l cooperation – whether system is hegemonic, bipolar, etc. level of cooperation determines change – Cooperation betw/ – hegemon & leading states – collection of the most powerful states (powerful across the board or in different issue areas); Stability of system depends on: – staying power of int'l institutions & rules independent of interests of powerful states – may change because of technological innovations - make exist power arrangements obsolete Keohane implies - going forward to more cooperation - Wendt doesn’t predetermine outcome? – But recent articles on world state implies final process???	Increased cooperation, Rules, Norms and International Institutions, Change in System of Governance	Cooperation	Coop
6	Kaplan	Kaplan: it's all a mixture of structure & behavior/motivation (essential rules, transformative rules) Kaplan's theory is based on macrosystem analysis – 6 systems, (2 actual, 4 hypothetical) Int'l system as system, not collection of states (NOT behavior) Models include Morgenthau & Waltz (some empirical support for b-of-p & bipolar) In b-of-p system, things you can do to maintain stability are specific to that system (different for different systems) 5 types of variables including 2 sets of rule [see page 388 [systems approach to int’l politics] 1. Essential rules = state the behavior necessary to maintain equilibrium [preserve stability in all] the systems. 2. Transformation rules: State the changes that occur in the system as inputs across the boundary of the system [that differ from those required from equilibrium] move the system toward instability or stability of a new system. 3. Actor classification variables [nation-state, alliance, international organization], 4. capacity and 5. information variables/[these last three probably not necessary for change question] Need to rethink this in light of above rules: IF states engage in them, will produce stability (similar to Morgenthau) ex: organize against the hegemon (b-of-p, not bipolar) –This is example of essential or transformation rules?? System changes when individuals not motivated [or not replaced] to perform the roles and functions required to maintain system equilibrium. Kaplan p.384	Structure & Motivation, Essential Rules, Motivation of Actors	Essential Rules & lack of motivation of actors	rul-Mot