Systems theory
In an attempt to create a broad and comprehensive theoretical approach that transcends any of the complications involved in the level of analysis problem of international relations studies, systems theory describes an international dynamic that captures both subsystem and system-level influences. Systems theory presents a self-contained analytic model of inputs, outputs, and a feedback loop that outlines "constituents" of stability and instability, and it discusses how international systems (successfully or unsuccessfully) manage the problem of change.
Systems theorists are concerned with studying and explaining equilibrium and disequilibrium in international systems. What factors contribute to stability or instability? What system-level controls maintain the status quo? What is the impact of the subsystem on the system and vise versa? How great is the capacity of an international system to cope with disturbances and threats to its status quo?
Richard Rosecrance develops a five-component model for international systems and change in his book Action and Reaction in World Politics. He uses three domestic (subsystemic) variables that lead to a status quo or revisionist stance on the part of states, and defines two system-level capacities for dealing with the disturbances that revisionist-minded states create. The dependent variable in Rosecrance's model is the "pattern of international outcomes," namely the polarity of the system and the nature of competition between states in the system.
Rosecrance's three subsystemic variables are the direction, resources, and control held by state leaders or state elites. Depending on the attitude of these leaders, their fungible resources, and their ability to use them while retaining domestic support or legitimacy, a state will support the current international system or attempt to change it. For its part, an international system itself has regulators such as alliance blocs, regimes, or international institutions as well as an environment characterized as scarcity or abundance that can absorb or deflect state attempts to disrupt the system's equilibrium.
Systems theory has the distinct advantage of being a broad and holistic theory. However, unlike structural neorealism, it is not an extreme abstraction but rather incorporates domestic details and thus completely transcends level of analysis complications.
In spite of this advantage, systems theory has one very important weakness: it remains useful only for retrospective analyses, for there is no way to predict when a particular international system (like the current one) will reach its tipping point and be transformed by change. In addition, Rosecrance's work has itself been criticized for the eccentric history that he uses in the empirical cases depicted in Action and Reaction in World Politics.
Systems theory makes important advances in showing the interaction between domestic environments and the international system, even if its models remain for the most part unidirectional and unable to make predictions about state behavior and system change. By "opening up the state,” Rosecrance creates a diversity and heterogeneity that now must be dealt with in theory construction but adds great insight for articulating and explaining the dynamics of international political systems.
Systems theorists are concerned with studying and explaining equilibrium and disequilibrium in international systems. What factors contribute to stability or instability? What system-level controls maintain the status quo? What is the impact of the subsystem on the system and vise versa? How great is the capacity of an international system to cope with disturbances and threats to its status quo?
Richard Rosecrance develops a five-component model for international systems and change in his book Action and Reaction in World Politics. He uses three domestic (subsystemic) variables that lead to a status quo or revisionist stance on the part of states, and defines two system-level capacities for dealing with the disturbances that revisionist-minded states create. The dependent variable in Rosecrance's model is the "pattern of international outcomes," namely the polarity of the system and the nature of competition between states in the system.
Rosecrance's three subsystemic variables are the direction, resources, and control held by state leaders or state elites. Depending on the attitude of these leaders, their fungible resources, and their ability to use them while retaining domestic support or legitimacy, a state will support the current international system or attempt to change it. For its part, an international system itself has regulators such as alliance blocs, regimes, or international institutions as well as an environment characterized as scarcity or abundance that can absorb or deflect state attempts to disrupt the system's equilibrium.
Systems theory has the distinct advantage of being a broad and holistic theory. However, unlike structural neorealism, it is not an extreme abstraction but rather incorporates domestic details and thus completely transcends level of analysis complications.
In spite of this advantage, systems theory has one very important weakness: it remains useful only for retrospective analyses, for there is no way to predict when a particular international system (like the current one) will reach its tipping point and be transformed by change. In addition, Rosecrance's work has itself been criticized for the eccentric history that he uses in the empirical cases depicted in Action and Reaction in World Politics.
Systems theory makes important advances in showing the interaction between domestic environments and the international system, even if its models remain for the most part unidirectional and unable to make predictions about state behavior and system change. By "opening up the state,” Rosecrance creates a diversity and heterogeneity that now must be dealt with in theory construction but adds great insight for articulating and explaining the dynamics of international political systems.
posted by machiavelli at 3:45 PM
<< Home