IR Test 1

Interests

— Rank order preferences of possible outcomes from interaction

— Values vary (Something is more important to one state than another)

— The goals that actors have, which they hope to achieve through political action (interaction)

— Interests can have more than 1 value (among actors)

— Actors have at least some influence over which value it obtains. They decide what is most important to them individually

— At least two actors have different preferences over the range of values. Don’t agree on the overall value of one political goal/item

— Actors are aware of these things (communication and information). Actors can know what others are seeking, and what they know about each other will dictate the nature of interactions

Interactions

Actors work toward a political goal, namely to achieve individual interests.

“The ways in which 2 or more actors’ choices combine to produce political outcomes.” Wars, trade and financial exchanges, or cooperation to protect human rights or the environment.

Evaluating interactions takes understanding the interests of the actors and what each actor thinks the others will do to achieve their own interests. When interests conflict, bargaining often ensues.

Bargaining: two or more actors must choose outcomes that make one better off at the expense of the other

Cooperation: sets of rules (known and shared by the community) that structure interactions in specific ways

Institutions

Sets of rules/norms that are known and shared by the community and which structure interactions. Explain what is acceptable in interaction.

Formal (UN, NATO) or Informal (Rules of the classroom). Norms of behavior.

Roles of Institutions

1. Set standards of behavior — This is what you should/should not do as established by the makers of this organization

2. Lower the cost of joint decision making (you don’t have to write a new set of policies/establish expectations for every interaction)

3. Resolve disputes — some have judicial mechanisms. Most formal orgs have voting methods at least.

4. Provide information —

Weaknesses of Institutions:

Formal orgs cannot enforce punishments for violating standards of behavior! The member states of the institution are expected to do so, making self-enforcement necessary. They don’t have police or military forces of their own, but they do have member states that can enforce.

However, this fact does not nullify the importance of institutions because they often legitimatize the sanctions and punishments that are self-enforced by member states.

Liberalism

KANT’s Democratic Peace. Democracies are the actors, trade (interdependencies through globalization lead to peace), Institutions (established rules keep peace by resolving disputes, providing information on compliance, setting standards of behavior, and reducing costs of joint decision making)

World Trade Organization and interdependence tie economies. If you fight each other, economy is screwed

Seeks to reduce war, spread democracy, strengthen global institutions, and foster economic interdependence for linkage of one country’s welfare to all others.

Constructivism

Emphasizes ideas and culture. Nonmaterialistic
Many types of actors are important. Emphasizes role of non-state actors

Human rights can motivate states to

No one type of actor is emphasized. Non-state actors (MNC, NGOs, Terrorist orgs, IGOs)

Actors’ interests are influenced by culture, identity, and prevailing ideas.

Actors’ choices often reflect norms of behavior rather than interests.

Interactions socialize actors to hold particular interests, and changes in patterns of interaction can occur when actors update their interests over time

THERE’s FEEDBACK BETWEEN INTERACTIONS AND BELIEFS. THEY CHANGE ONE ANOTHER.

Intl institutions define identities and shape action through the norms of just and appropriate behavior that they prescribe.

Actors believe what they perceive as morally correct or ideologically imperative. They want to act in a way that will reflect who they are and how they want others to perceive them (reputation)

If an institution says that an action is illegal, a state that cares about how others perceive them will refrain from said action.

Not a theory but a more philosophical set of ideas

Stresses social meaning of concepts

— Emphasizes issues of identity and belief

•(some) May accept rational and self-interest, but argue concepts are more than simplistic survival instinct or pursuit of power. Harder to be internally consistent because you have multiple beliefs that are updated every time you have an interaction.

•Military power, trade relations, domestic preferences are important because of social meaning

•History, culture, and society critical of country shapes IR

Realism

Assumes actors’ rationality (internal consistency), self-interest, and anarchy

Structural or Neorealists - Assume that the international system is defined by anarchy and institutions exert little independent effect (can’t enforce punishment)

Recognizes Sovereignty of the state. States are bound to one another by methods of force, coercion, and consent

Sole Interests: State power/security

Dominant Actors: States

Cooperation mostly unattainable because states all want to be the most powerful, but only one can be most powerful. Actors’ interest for state power and security always in conflict.

INTL Politics is mostly about bargaining, which can sometimes include coercion.

Bargaining

Two or more actors must choose outcomes that make one better off at the expense of the other

Zero sum

Dividing something that all of the actors all want (Territory, especially). Finance ministers over how high or low to set the exchange rate between currencies. Rich countries bargain w poor over how much aid the rich country will give and what the recipients will do in return.

Govs may bargain over how much each will pay to alleviate environmental harm. What will their businesses do to decrease emissions? How much will they put into a program to remove garbage from the ocean?

Cooperation

Two or more actors adopt policies that make at least one actor better off relative to the status quo without making the others worse off.

Actors have COMMON INTERESTS that they can achieve when they coordinate.

Example: Govs that want to stop 1 country from invading another may try to act collectively to impose military or econ sanctions on the aggressor (US and Western Europe vs Russia who invaded Ukraine)

Collaboration

A type of bargaining: Interaction where there can be added value from cooperating, but there is some incentive to defect,

Benefit to cooperate but also an incentive to defect.

PRISONER’s DILEMMA.

A type of bargaining interaction in which actors gain from working together but nonetheless have incentives not to comply with any agreement.

However, in coordination, actors have no reason or incentive to defect.

Anarchy

No central authority in the international realm — only states and institutions. How actors influence/interact with institutions is up to each sovereign state. Gives states opportunities to ignore institutions because all rules are self-enforced. States can impose sanctions on one another and refuse future cooperation if others defect from the standards of behavior set by institutions.

No protections. Don’t assume you’re going to get stabbed but no protections if you do.

A primary assumption of institutionalism and realism.

Sovereignty

A state has indivisible power over a population and territory.

One state can leave food at the border for a state’s starving population to eat, but if the sovereign state of that territory refuses, that is their decision!

Sovereignty can be challenged through coercion.

Established by Peace of Westphalia in 1648

The expectation that states have legal and political supremacy—or ultimate authority—within their territorial boundaries

Theory

“A logically consistent set of statements that explains a phenomenon of interest.”

— Has explanatory power

— Predict: can anticipate outcomes based on a set of circumstances

— Describe: This happened because _____ (Proving causation). Breaking down the circumstances at hand

— Prescribe: Because we see this causal pattern, we can change our policies/standards of behavior to maximize our chance of a more desired outcome

•probabilistic, explanatory, and falsifiable.

THEORY SHOULD FEATURE NON-NORMATIVE RESEARCH! Not setting out to prove what you’d like to hear. Avoiding this sort of bias to test what we observe through empiricism. ALSO refrains from making statements like “genocide is bad.” Instead, we want to know what factors increase the likelihood of genocide. Does not make a moral statement.

Theory Evaluation Methods

— Parsimony. The fewer variables involved, the stronger the theory is. Better to prove 96% of situations with a theory that uses 4 variables than one that proves 96.6% with 15 variables.

— Falsifiable. Could find contravening evidence, and if this is the case, a researcher must modify the theory or confirm it’s nullification

— Probabilistic. Not deterministic or inevitable

— Coherence. Internally consistent.

Empiricism

Observing a phenomenon of interest through statistics.

Importance of observation

Statements can be believed and accepted to the extent they are derived from empirical or observational evidence.

Major Historic Periods. Put all 8 in order from earliest-latest

1. Conflict and Cooperation — isolation for some time.

2. Emergence of IR: The Mercantilist Era 1492-1815. Imperialism

3. The Hundred Years’s Peace 1815-1914. British Hegemon. Pax Brittanica

4. The Thirty Years’ Crisis 1914-1945. WWI, Great Depression, WWII

5. The Cold War 1945-1990. US and USSR have it out. Democracy or Auth?

6. Globalization and Its Discontents. Trading among states and then isolationism.

7. Challenges to the New Order. How is Democracy fairing? Communist China seeing rise in power.

8. What will shape our world in the future? We don’t know, but use IR studies to try to find out.

Scientific Method

Empiricism essential.

1. Development of an idea to investigate or a problem to solve. What do you wanna know about IR?

2. Hypothesis Formation. What do you think should be the outcome of certain circumstances? Does the presence of a unified government tend to impact voter turnout in state elections in a negative way?

3. “Data” collection

4. Interpretation and Decision. How did your Hypothesis hold up?

5. Modification and Extension. How can your hypothesis be changed to reflect the data results? Can it be changed, or will you be stretching the concept? Should you abandon your hypothesis? Or can you tentatively accept it?

Social Science Research

1. Prior Knowledge (Start with what you know to think of a question)

2. Theoretical Expectation (If this, then this based on what I know now)

3. Formal Hypothesis - Proposed explanation with causal/independent variable(s) and effected variable (dependent)

4. Conceptualization (differentiation and distinguishability. DONT stretch the theory) and Operationalization (Make sure it’s testable)

5. Empirical Test and Evaluation of Hypothesis (how’d it hold up?)

6. Evaluation of Causal Theory

7. MAYBE scientific knowledge

Conceptualization for theory building

Coherence — Internally consistent. Does not contradict itself. Makes sense and is applicable in other contexts.

Parsimony — Fewest variables to explain something well is better than many

Differentiation — distinguishable from other things.

30 Years’ Crisis

Aftermath of WWI with Germany’s econ falling apart after Treaty of Versailles 1918 (Deutschmark rendered virtually worthless) , Great Depression (1/3 of Germany’s labor force unemployed and global trade stalls), WWII (rise of fascism and nationalism due to countries turning inward during Depression)

1914-1945

US doesn’t join the League of Nations because the Senate won’t pass the treaty!

Outcome of WWII: US and Russia emerge as superpowers, leading to Cold War

SPECIFIC - Peace of Westphalia

Ended the 30 Years War and established the state system as we think of it today. Put sovereignty into motion. Negotiated in 1648 between the French, Dutch, and Spanish.

Stabilized borders (clarified territorial belongings), helped resolve religious conflicts (Catholics vs Protestants), and started modern system of states and pledge of noninterference, which established sovereignty.

Mercantilism

EMERGENCE OF IR

Gold → Military → Markets

Extractionary. A feature of Imperialism.

An economic doctrine based on a belief that military power and economic influence complemented each other; applied especially to colonial empires in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Mercantilist policies favored the mother country over its colonies and over its competitors.

Use of military power to enrich imperial governments. Economic doctrine.

Military and econ power complementary (guns and butter). Build military, get gold, use gold to build military, get more gold. Circular loop.

Pitted western Europe against each other with each country seeking more territory and power. Spanish and Portuguese butt heads. Then Spanish and Brits.

Pax Britannica

100 Years Peace due to the British Hegemon’s control of reserve currency and the seas. Gold standard allowed for open trading and easy conversion of foreign currencies to British pound. Opened trade. Britain’s strong Navy allowed for contracts to be enforced.

1815-1914

Britain also kept states from gaining too much power by allying with states that could stop them nearby. Rough power balance by building balanced alliances.

Britain’s hegemony brings links among econs and govs.

Convergence of interests, especially trade. Allowed for more cooperation with common interest.

WWI and Interwar Instability

Treaty of Versailles (Paris 1919) saw division of German territory to decrease its power, which caused discontent and the rise of fascism. German Deutschmark rendered worthless from hyper inflation.

Depression: World downturn in economic prosperity.

Nationalism: Inward turn during Great Depression led to nationalism, which ultimately gave rise to fascism to fuel WWII. Mustered national pride that turned radical.

WWII and Effect

Germany wants to take Poland as territory and starts war. War in both European and Pacific fronts (Japan).

— Europe and Japan left in ruins

Gold Standard and Trade

Gold standard 1870-1914. Exchange rate at pre-established rate between foreign currencies and gold reserves.

With a global reserve, it’s easier to immigrate and invest in foreign opportunities.
A common reserve brought stability and predictability.

Opened up the world for trade!

Promotes finance and integration.

Definition of Hegemon and Examples

The predominance of one nation-state over others.

World Superpower

19th Century - Great Britain

20th Century - US and Russia

States

Primary actors in International Relations.

Sovereign territories with governing bodies that make decisions on behalf of the structure (the state) as a whole.

NATO and Warsaw Pact

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) - US led. Collective security. If one member state is threatened, then rest hop in to eliminate conflict. Established after WWII to help prevent future wars of that scale. Replaced the null League of Nations.

Warsaw Pact - Soviet group. Established after NATO to build its own coalition. A “get back” at democracies pushing their ideological beliefs”

Bretton Woods System

Policy bias from US dominance of rules. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Came out of discussions that occurred in NH.

International Monetary Fund (IMF [Helps poor countries to not default on their loans]), World Trade Organization (Encourages open trade [WTO]), World Bank (Rebuild Europe after wars. Then started to invest in development in poor countries with policy standards that must be met. Quality of life)

Spread ideological values through international development

Decolonization

DEFINITION: The process of colonial possessions winning independence, especially during the rapid end of the European empires in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean between the 1940s and the 1960s.

— US wanted more places to trade, so it was willing to let colonies go, help them develop, and then have them in the market in the future. Also wanted to spread Democracy.

— West preoccupied with World Wars and Cold War. Didn’t spend much time facilitating efforts in colonies, so they started to develop themselves through export of ag products and raw materials and importing manufactured products. They could get away with more.

— Rise of nationalism in colonies led them to seek independence

Circumstances that lend to cooperation and examples

Linkage — Allows victims to retaliate by withholding on cooperation on other issues

Iteration — Punish cheaters because you can withhold from future cooperation

Reciprocal Punishment — If you defect, you’ll get it later

Information — Is it clear whether your partner has defected or not? Reducing arms may be harder to tell if you can’t do on-site inspections. Even then, your partner might move arms to a different location before checking. Could retaliate but nothing done wrong to you

Circumstances that lend to bargaining and examples

Zero-sum. Have an item that cannot be distributed without someone losing part of it.

Types of Bargaining (2)

Collaboration - Actors will benefit from cooperating, but there is some incentive to defect on the agreement. (Prisoner’s Dilemma)
Coordination - Actors have no incentive for defecting (Deciding what side of the road to drive on or what unit of measurements to use in a scientific project)

Bargaining and Pareto’s Frontier

Maximize benefits and one Actor takes all.

Bargaining
A, Possible Deal 2, Possible Deal 1, B

Start at Actor A or Actor B’s position on one end of the bar or the other. If you start from Actor B, the closer you move toward Actor A, the more money you gain. If Actor B stays where it started, it gets nothing.

Cooperation and Pareto’s Frontier

Maximize benefits and each Actor takes a portion.

Bargaining leverage

Power — The ability of Actor A to get Actor B to do something that B would otherwise not do; the ability to get the other side to make concessions and to avoid having to make concessions oneself.

Coercion — A strategy of imposing or threatening to impose costs on other actors in order to induce a change in their behavior.

Agenda Setting

Agenda Setting — “Actions taken before or during bargaining that make the reversion outcome more favorable for one party.” Act first to set agenda. Pres of US can set agenda by sponsoring leg proposals, calling public attention to issues of interest, and coaxing legislators. When states take unilateral actions that alter the options available to others. You take a piece of disputed territory first and fortify it before the other state can react.

Where one state makes the reversion outcome more favorable in a bargain

Reversion Outcome

The outcome that occurs when no bargain is achieved — sometimes the same as the status quo. But could be war or econ sanctions that leave one or even both actors worse off than when the dispute began.

— The actor that would be more satisfied with the reversion outcome generally has less incentive to make concessions in order to reach a successful bargain.

STAND GROUND. Can make reversion outcome more appealing for oneself through agenda setting.

The conditions that ensue if a bargain cannot be reached.

Outside Option

The state with a stronger outside option has more of an opportunity to win the bargain.

The alternatives to bargaining with a specific actor.

“If you don’t want to work with me, I know someone who will!” China going to Brazil for soybeans because it didn’t want to take the US’s change in trade policy.

Iteration/Reciprocity

Repeated interactions with the same partners.

You’ll deal with that state again, so don’t screw it over. Gives incentives to comply instead of defect.

If you go to lunch with someone and leave without paying your tab, you better not expect to see that person again for lunch.

Reciprocity: The behavior of the other actor toward you is what you will return. Tit for tat

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Results from Collaboration.

The best option is for both actors to cooperate, but because they fear that the other may defect, they will likely defect, too. The least favorable outcome results from Actor 1 cooperating and Actor 2 defecting because Actor 2 takes full benefits, and 1 gets screwed.

Dominant strategy of BOTH actors is to defect.

Linkage

Cooperation is not isolated from other opportunities. Can make deals where one actor 1 is better off in one situation but actor 2 does not lose. This interaction will satisfy an interest of actor 1 without putting actor 2 below status quo. Later, actor 2 will be better off in the interaction to satisfy its interest and actor 2 will be no worse off!

“Owe you one” interactions where no one is hurt.

The linking of cooperation on one issue to interactions on a second issue. Don’t screw me if you want help on something you’re more interested in later.

Institutions and Providing Information

Verify compliance and let others know

Institutions and their effects on cooperation

Resolving Disputes

Lowering Costs of Joint Decision Making

Verifying Compliance

Providing Information

Sovereignty

Established by the Treaty of Westphalia.

The idea that states have complete control over their respective populations and territories.

Sovereignty can be undermined by challenges of other states and institutions via globalized politics. Tactics to undermine sovereignty are common throughout bargaining.

Public Goods

Products that are nonexcludable and nonrival in consumption, such as national defense or clean air or water. Compare common-pool resources.

Not just one group can use it, and if I use it, my using the resource doesn’t stop you from using it, as well.

Free Rider Problem

The free rider problem occurs when a state fails to contribute to a public good while benefiting from the contributions of others.

States prevent this issue domestically by requiring that citizens pay taxes, or they get a fine or jail time! International institutions don’t have the power to do this. Makes collaboration difficult because there is an incentive to defect on paying your share because you can free ride.

Collective Action Problems

Obstacles to cooperation that occur when actors have incentives to collaborate but each acts with the expectation that others will pay the costs of cooperation.

Who will actually pay?

WWI Central Powers

Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria-Hungarian Empire

WWI Allies

Britain, France, Russia, US

WWII Allied Powers

US, Britain, Russia, China, France

WWII Axis Powers

Germany, Japan, Italy

Interests of Mercantilism

Gold, building military, conquering to expand markets

Struggle for supremacy.

Security through Power

Control of markets and resources

“Civilizing missions” — Spreading Christianity. Assimilation of Native Americans

Interactions of Mercantilism

Bargaining - zero-sum for territory and resources

Economic and technological superiority of Europe

Subjugation of colonies

Institutions in Mercantilism

Empires

Conflict and Cooperation

1500-1700s Imperial Conflict

1800s: relative peace and prosperity

Early/Mid 1900s: Wars, depression

Late 1900s: Econ Globalization

2000s: Integration and conflict

Order of history

Mercantilism

Treaty of Westphalia (1648)

Napoleonic Wars, Pax Britannia (Gold Standard & Trade)

WWI, Great Depression, WWII, Post WWII order (Bretton Woods, U.N, Cold War)

Cold War: Alliances, Nuclear Weapons, Non-aligned movement

Verification — Empiricism

Acceptance/rejection of a statement based on observation OR replication

Falsifiability — Empiricism

A statement can be rejected when contravening empirical evidence is found. Not deterministic

Non-normative — Empiricism

Concerned with factual or objective understanding. NOT prescribing.

Empiricism says what is.

Normative says what ought to be or what should be

Explanatory — Empiricism

Systematic and logically consistent.

Focuses on a class of phenomena. Explain why terrorism occurs as a whole instead of why a specific attack occurs (would be a case study)

Looks for generalizability

Arguments Against Empiricism

Human behavior cannot be explained scientifically and should be interpreted from the point of view of the actors! Qualitative. How does the person feel when they act that way?

PoliSci lacks the exactitude and sophistication of sciences like biology/physics. Harder to quantify the topics

Constructivism in non-empirical political research

Humans don’t just discover knowledge through neutral processes. They create the reality that they analyze. The research you do impacts knowledge, as well.

Critical theory in non-empirical political research

The proper goal of social science is to critique and improve society and not simply say what is happening

Coercion Strategies

Exercising Power — The ability of Actor A to get Actor B to do something that B would otherwise not do; the ability to get the other side to make concessions and to avoid having to make concessions oneself.

Coercion — A strategy of imposing or threatening to impose costs on other actors in order to induce a change in their behavior. Makes the reversion outcome more costly.

Types: Use military force to show dominance. Harass other state with your units. Can impose economic costs, like tariffs (retaliatory tariffs happen, tho).

Military and econ sanctions based on what material options a state has. Number of military personnel or level of military spending can scare others into making a deal instead of facing military force. How strong is the state’s economy who imposes economic sanctions? Can it withstand retaliation?

Econ power important during war — Can the state keep up its military strength with the money it has?

When do states give into demands of bargaining?

States give into demands when they decide that the costs that will incur from the reversion outcome (what will happen if no agreement is reached) is greater than the value of whatever concessions are being demanded!

Vietnam faced French warfare as a result of the reversion outcome, but its independence was more valuable and worth fighting for.

Domestic Factions (6) and Their Demands

Socialists (Welfare, health, regulation of corporations economic equality, intl development, no free trade deals)

Intellectuals (Improvements to education and culture, increased scientific knowledge production, less nationalism)
3. Environmentalists Protection of the environment, no free trade deals, less industrial activity
4. Civil Libertarians Freedom from government control, global human rights, open borders, rehabilitation for criminals, no aggressive international acts, less nationalism)
5. Capitalists Increased gold, steel, & oil production, free trade deals, tax cuts, less
government regulation of economy, less environmental protection
6. Nationalists — More military spending and aggressive international actions, tough anti-crime and safety measures, tight border security, no sacrifice of sovereignty to IGOs, protection of domestic industries

Statecraft Points — Goals

Global Goals (everyone does them) — Everyone should achieve together. (Global peace [no military actions], Wiping out global terrorism [Destroy terrorist front], Environmental)

Competitive. Only the top country can get it — Strongest Military, Highest Safety rating, Most cultured, most scientifically advanced, wealthiest, political capital

Country Development Goals (Quality of Life) — Everyone can achieve. Build hospitals and structures. Domestic ratings. Health, welfare, safety, education, culture, environment

Quality of Life — Making it a good place to live

Side Payment

NOT an outside option. But offer something value that was not first considered in the interaction but acts as a payment. Involves the same countries that entered negotiation initially.

US says to Venezuela, “We’ll give you a trade deal, but you have to improve human rights.”
Well, what do human rights have to do with trade?

Gerring’s Conceptualization

Familiarity — Concept easily understood and related to things taht are already known

Resonance — Word connects with something you already know. Named clearly.

Parsimony — Simple and easy to use.

Coherence — Internally consistent and not contradictory

Differentiation — Clearly defined boundaries and distinct from other concepts

Depth — Based on multiple indicators. Rich and shows correlation. Shows causation.

Theoretical Utility — Useful for building/testing theories.

Field Utility — Applied to real life situations.

Verification: Replication of experiment with same outcomes
• Falsifiability: statement can be rejected by contravening empirical evidence. Can be proven wrong and should be probabilistic.
• Non-normative: concerned with factual or objective determinations. You’re saying what “ought to be.” Not a judgment statement or
• Empirical: Take data to decide whether your hypotheses are true or false.
• Explanatory: Broadly explains a set of circumstances seen across several interactions, not one interaction.

NOT a case study WHY Terrorism occurs in general. Not why one attack happened. Ability for generalization.
• Parsimony: when evaluating competing theories/hypothesis/ideas, keep them
simple (Ockham’s razor)

Under what circumstances should you consider the distribution of conflict? The distribution of benefits?

Bargaining