Level of analysis
The next topic that I would like to discuss is systems theory, but first I think that I should briefly cover the "level-of-analysis problem" that systems theory attempts to transcend.
Level-of-analysis is a choice that an IR scholar must make when attempting to explain state behavior. One of the early and most definitive studies on level-of-analysis options, Kenneth Waltz's Man, the State, and War, posited three possible "images" that could be used to explain - in the case of Waltz's particular study - the sources of war (the universal nature of man, the particular make-up of a state, or the basic properties of the international system). However, only Waltz's second and third images comprise the basic options that current IR scholars select from when formulating their studies: the sub-systemic or the systemic.
To choose the sub-systemic level-of-analysis (the trees) is to suggest that a particular state's form of government, institutions, leaders, etc. play the predominant role in determining its behavior. For example, this approach suggests that a democracy and a dictatorship will behave differently under similar international conditions, therefore an extensive compilation of domestic factors must be included in one's analyses.
To choose the systemic level-of-analysis (the forest) is to suggest that system-level characteristics, such as anarchy and polarity, determine state behavior regardless of that state's domestic make-up. This argument takes its most extreme form in Waltz's homogeneity of states proposition.
Scholars' level-of-analysis choices have important and substantial consequences for their assumptions, definitions, methodology, and epistemology. Although this decision might be made on grounds of conceptual or methodological convenience, it should also take into account each approach's utility, for each option has inherent advantages and disadvantages based on their chosen emphases. In addition, attempts to combine data from differing levels-of-analysis studies are likely to result in the violation of scholars' assumptions or methodology.
While system theory attempts to transcend this dilemma by capturing both international and domestic influences into a system-level dynamic and world-view, Wolfram Hanrieder's "compatibility and consensus" model also does an excellent job of rationalizing the apparent dilemma between these two levels-of-analysis. Hanrieder describes a state's foreign policy/behavior as the union of what is feasible based on the make-up of international system and what is acceptable to the domestic polity. As such, compatibility and consensus are two types of constraints, one international and one domestic, that policy-makers must accommodate in crafting their policy. This perspective posits an "interpenetrated state" that is unlike the unitary actor (a.k.a. "billiard ball) approach to states that tradition IR theory utilizes.
While Hanrieder and system theory (which will be described in the next posting) make some progress towards resolving the level-of-analysis problem, this choice remains an important methodological one that IR scholars must remain sensitive to.
Level-of-analysis is a choice that an IR scholar must make when attempting to explain state behavior. One of the early and most definitive studies on level-of-analysis options, Kenneth Waltz's Man, the State, and War, posited three possible "images" that could be used to explain - in the case of Waltz's particular study - the sources of war (the universal nature of man, the particular make-up of a state, or the basic properties of the international system). However, only Waltz's second and third images comprise the basic options that current IR scholars select from when formulating their studies: the sub-systemic or the systemic.
To choose the sub-systemic level-of-analysis (the trees) is to suggest that a particular state's form of government, institutions, leaders, etc. play the predominant role in determining its behavior. For example, this approach suggests that a democracy and a dictatorship will behave differently under similar international conditions, therefore an extensive compilation of domestic factors must be included in one's analyses.
To choose the systemic level-of-analysis (the forest) is to suggest that system-level characteristics, such as anarchy and polarity, determine state behavior regardless of that state's domestic make-up. This argument takes its most extreme form in Waltz's homogeneity of states proposition.
Scholars' level-of-analysis choices have important and substantial consequences for their assumptions, definitions, methodology, and epistemology. Although this decision might be made on grounds of conceptual or methodological convenience, it should also take into account each approach's utility, for each option has inherent advantages and disadvantages based on their chosen emphases. In addition, attempts to combine data from differing levels-of-analysis studies are likely to result in the violation of scholars' assumptions or methodology.
While system theory attempts to transcend this dilemma by capturing both international and domestic influences into a system-level dynamic and world-view, Wolfram Hanrieder's "compatibility and consensus" model also does an excellent job of rationalizing the apparent dilemma between these two levels-of-analysis. Hanrieder describes a state's foreign policy/behavior as the union of what is feasible based on the make-up of international system and what is acceptable to the domestic polity. As such, compatibility and consensus are two types of constraints, one international and one domestic, that policy-makers must accommodate in crafting their policy. This perspective posits an "interpenetrated state" that is unlike the unitary actor (a.k.a. "billiard ball) approach to states that tradition IR theory utilizes.
While Hanrieder and system theory (which will be described in the next posting) make some progress towards resolving the level-of-analysis problem, this choice remains an important methodological one that IR scholars must remain sensitive to.
posted by machiavelli at 3:30 PM
<< Home