IR Notes on Power and Levels of Analysis

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

IR Notes on Power and Levels of Analysis

Power =

            - Ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants

            - Ability to get others to do what they wouldn’t otherwise do

            *This is the difference between getting your kids to go outside and play and getting them to clean their room

- Typically realists align with hard power (using force to get what you want)

            Hard power = military (but this hard power comes in degrees: WAR vs COIN)     

            Soft power = material power/ideas

**Power must be addressed/examined in context because each situation may require different power resources

- Power is a relational concept that must be though of within BoP context

- BoP can be outcome or policy

- Walt also talks about the “balance of threat”

- Levels of analysis is a method of categorized events/causes:

           

            System (neorealists)

                        Structure (mechanical metaphors)

                        Process (biological metaphors)

            State (liberalists for the most part)

                        Types of states (democracies, autocracies)

                        Traits of states (nationalism)

            Sub-state

                        Aspects of states (bureaucratic politics, organizational process)

                        Disaggregated sovereignty

            Individuals (constructivists for the most part)

                        Human nature (psychological processes)

                        Particular people

Notes on "The Relationship between theory and policy in IR" by Walt

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Stephen Walt, The Relationship between theory and policy in IR, 2005

The gap between theory and policy can be narrowed only if the academic community begins to place greater value on policy relevant theoretical work

-policy-makers disdain academics and are rarely selected for their IR scholarship

-on the other side of the coin, scholars have little incentive to develop ideas that might be useful

What types of knowledge do policy makers need?

- policy-makers rely on factual knowledge, rule of thumb, typologies, empirical laws and theories.

- IR theory work: “efforts to account for interstate and trans-state processes, issues and outcomes in general causal terms”

What is a good theory?

- should be logically consistent and empirically valid, complete, explanatory, explain an important phenomenon, be useful in its recommendations, and be stated clearly

How Theory can Aid Policy

- Bad IR policies can lead policy makers astray and good IR theory can make good policy

- policy problems can also bring innovation in IR as happened with the advent of nuclear weapons

*4 ways theory can help:

            - Diagnosis (coopt or contain, relevance of information)

            - Prediction (anticipate events, behaviors, preferences) however, policy-makers    can also affect event outcomes themselves

            - Prescription (show how to affect a desired outcome, don’t bomb civilian pop,    just military targets)

            - Evaluation (did we achieve the desired results)

THESIS:
So realists believe China is out to get US?  This seems to be the prevailing view among military leadership…are military leaders more prone to realism?

Different Agendas

- Policy makers can be less interested in figuring out a tendency than how to overcome it

- Even the best theory does not often help policy makers with their large hurdle of implementation

Notes on Stephen Walt's "IR: One World, Many Theories"

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Stephen Walt, IR: One World, Many Theories 1998

*We are better off with a diverse array of competing ideas than a single theoretical orthodoxy.

Where are we coming from?

-  study of IR is protracted competition between realist, liberal and radical

*Realism: struggle for power among self-interested states, pessimistic about prospects for peace

            Classical:     states (like humans) have innate desire to dominate others

            Neorealist:   effects of international system, a number of great powers trying to                                    survive

            Defensive:states merely seek to survive and guarantee security through                                                alliances and defensive military postures

*Liberalism:

            - economic interdependence would discourage states from using force against each other

            - Spread of the democracy the key to world peace (democratic states more peaceful than autocratic ones)

            - encourage states to forgo immediate gains for greater benefits of long term           

            cooperation

*Radicalism:

            - orthodox Marxism say capitalism central cause of conflict

            - neomarxist dependency theory says large capitalists states ally with elites of developing world to exploit the masses

            - deconstructionist emphasize importance of language and discourse but haven’t   

            offered a lot on alternatives to mainstream theories

New Wrinkles in Old Paradigms

*In Realism redux, the problem of relative and absolute gains arises. 

*New Liberalism:

            - Democratic peace theory says democracies rarely fight each other, however in new democracies, the states are more prone to war, so promoting democracy can actually promote instability

            - Institutionalist point to NATOs ability to adapt

*Constructivism

            - the impact of ideas, such as Gorbachev embracing ‘common security’

            - Wendt: Anarchy is what states make of it

Domestic politics Reconsidered:

- emergence of interest in the concept of culture which intersects and overlaps with constructivists

*Walt points to realism as the most compelling framework for the future