IA Theories Final Study Set

Parsimony

Does it simplify reality in an elegant intuitive way?

Internal Validity

Is its causal mechanism logical? Does it conform to reality?

Falsifiability

Can it be empirically tested, and do we know when/how it can/could be wrong?

External validity

Is it generalizable beyond the specific case or circumstance to which it was first applied?

Relative Validity

Is it convincing relative to the presented or available alternative explanations

Realism

Views world politics as a power-driven struggle among self-interested states operating in an anarchic international system, where national interest, security, and survival take priority over morality or cooperation

Liberalism

Emphasizes cooperation, interdependence, democracy, open markets, and international institutions as key drivers of peaceful and stable global order

Constructivism

Argues that international politics are shaped primarily by ideas, identities, and shared norms rather than material forces like military or economic power

Rationalism

The belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response

First image

Image focused on the individual level

Second image

Image focused on the national level

Third image

Image focused on the international system

Fourth image

Image focused on interaction

Elite Theory

First image theory focused on leader beliefs and personalities.

Political psychology

First image theory focused on

Classical realism

First image theory describing the inherent state of human nature being bad.

Gender Constructivism

First image theory focused on the idea of species wide socially constructed gender norms.

Classical Liberalism

Second image theory focusing on: regime type, ideology, public opinion, economic interest, interest groups, bureaucracies and national demographics.

Domestic Constructivism

Second image theory focused on domestic norms, culture, and national gender norms.

International Marxism

Third image theory focused on the world capitalist system and hegemonic exploitation.

Neorealism

Third image theory focused on anarchy and the distribution of power

International Liberalism

Third image theory focused on globalization

Neoliberalism

Third image theory focused on international institutions

International constructivism

Third image theory focused on international and regional norms and culture

Waite, "Leadership Pathologies: The Kaiser and the Führer and the Decisions for War..."

Leader psychology/mental health/personality; psychologically abnormal/unwell leaders do things that either directly or indirectly make war more likely

Saunders, "Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of Intervention Strategy"

Leader's general beliefs about where threats come from; The value leaders place on the transformation of other states in the first place, how leaders allocate scarce resources that influence how prepared they are for different intervention types; types of intervention strategy attempted

Jervis, "Political Implications of Loss Aversion"

Human nature and approach to risk; when in losses frame, irrational impulses; when in gains frame, risk averse

Fukuyama, "Women and the Evolution of World Politics"

Human nature: biology affects how leaders behave in the world of IA

Carpenter, "'Women and Children First': Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans, 1991-95"

Gendered norms = assumption that women and children are the most vulnerable/innocent in times of war; True internalizing of the veracity of these norms, constrained behavior to comport with norms because others have internationalized these norms; Men who are actually the most at risk in war zones; evacuated last or not at all

Doyle, "Liberalism and World Politics"

Regime types of 2 states influence peace opportunity; both democracy leads to special peace, neither or only one leads to no peace

Haas, "Ideology and Alliances: British and French External Balancing Decisions in the 1930s"

IV: Degree of ideological difference/distance between 2 states' elites/regimes

CM: 1. demonstration effects: greater fear of contrary ideologies having success abroad leading to their success at home 2. social identity: greater fear of the intentions/character of states/elites with contrary ideologies

DV: likelihood of allying/aligning or competing

Stein, "War and Revenge: Explaining Conflict Initiation by Democracies"

public opinion and how vengeful the country's public is influences if a state is more/less likely to initiate conflict

Frieden, "Sectoral Conflict and U.S. Foreign Economic Policy, 1914-1940"

Interest groups "sectoral" interests and the domestic balance of influence between these groups lead to foreign policy, isolationist foreign policy, internationalist foreign policy, or contradictory foreign policy

Jost, "The Institutional Origins of Miscalculation in China's International Crises"

Structure/organization of national security institutions --> horizontal/vertical flow of information reaching leaders --> likelihood of miscalculation in international crisis (due to poor/inaccurate information); Integrated (Good), Siloed (Medium; Bad horizontal, good vertical), and Fragmented (Bad)

Hudson/Den Boer, "A Surplus of Men, a Deficit of Peace"

IV: Relative value society places on females compared to males

CM: extremely anti-female

DV: More violence at home and abroad

CM 2: more balanced level of gender inequality

DV 2: absence of "bare branches" violence

Johnston, "Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China"

National "strategic culture" --> indoctrination, upbringing, school, life, etc. --> foreign policy tendencies (behavior in crises, willingness to use force, offensive vs defensive postures, willingness to negotiate, etc.)

Legro, "What China Will Want: The Future Intentions of a Rising Power"

Shock to old ideas --> desireable/undersirable --> continuity of old thinking/change to new thinking

Waltz/Resende-Santos, Theory of International Politics and "Anarchy and the Emulation of Military Systems"

IV: Anarchy

CM: Darwinian survival of the fittest: states that best understand the effects of anarchy survive and thrive; others fall by the wayside

CM 2: Emulation: over time, states copy the actions of those who have done well

DV: Self-help behavior among units

Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Multipolar is less stable = more likelihood of conflict; bipolar more stable

Wohlforth, "The Stability of a Unipolar World"

unipolar = less likelihood of great power war

Copeland, The Origins of Major War

Decline steep and inevitable + Bipolar = more likelihood of conflict; Decline less steep and less inevitable + Multipolar = less likely conflict

Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations

IV: State with Preponderance of power + Liberal ideology + common liberal interests

CM: Hegemon uses its power to enforce liberal economic norms

DV: Liberal, open world economy

Gunitsky, "From Shocks to Waves: Hegemonic Transitions and Democratization in the Twentieth Century"

IV: Hegemonic transition due to abrupt shift in power

CM: Opportunity for external regime imposition; Expand networks of trade and patronage

DV: regime change wave

Wallerstein, "The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System"

IV: World capitalist system that sorts states into international "classes"

CM 1: core 1. Power of the core, 2. ruling ideas, 3. the semi-periphery --> DV: rich, developed countries

CM 2: periphery --> DV: poor, underdeveloped countries

Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State

System Level (industrialization, international economic structures/forces, IOs, experts, multinational corporations, technology changes [costs of trade decrease, costs of war increase]) --> trading path to success --> more peace/cooperation

Unit Level (welfare state, learning from others + recent events) --> military/territorial path to success --> more conflict

Keohane/Martin, "International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?" and "Institutions and Cooperation: Sanctions During the Falkland Islands Conflict"

IV: International Institutions

CM: Increase interactions (and both the chances and importance of meeting again), increase actors' information about one another, decrease transaction costs (for doing business), allowing monitoring of behavior and enforcement against cheaters, create issue linkages

DV: More cooperation/Less "suboptimal" conflict

Wendt, "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics"

Socialization, prior history, prior interactions that produce norms --> self-help behavior

social structure --> behavior

Tannenwald, "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use" and

"Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo"

IV: Global taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons

CM: 1. regulative effects; pressure, 2. constitutive effects; classification, 3. civilized states don't use them

DV: Force is still used but not nuclear force

Huntington: Clash of Civilizations

IV: Civilizational identities exist

CM: Civilizational identities become salient, 1. globalization = more frequent contact across civilizations, 2. globalization = state identities breaking down, room for other identities to fill gap, 3. end of Cold War = rise/dominance of West, 4. end of Cold War = no more ideological conflict, regime type matters less, civilization more salient

DV: Increased conflict between different civilizational identities

Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation

IV: 1. Do actors expect to meet again in the future? Do actors value future interactions?

CM 1: No

DV 1: No cooperation; suboptimal outcome

CM 2: Yes

DV 2: Mutually beneficial cooperation

Fearon, "Rationalist Explanations for War"

IV: The rational actors engaged in crisis bargaining over an issue or object

CM: 1. Private information and incentives to misrepresent about one's own power and resolve; 2. Commitment problems (about sticking to an agreement made in the present in the future; 3. Issue indivisibility (difficulty splitting up the object in dispute

DV: Costly conflict between these national actors

Sikkink, "Human Rights, Principle-Issue Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America"

IV: Principled issue network focused/no focus on national human rights abuses

CM: Collect data with local NGOs to issue reports through international NGOs; bring their message to and through big IOs; exert pressure on and through other powerful states

DV: Change/no change in state human rights practices

Post, "Words Matter: The Effect of Moral Language on International Bargaining"