International Relations: Hierarchical Approaches to IR

hierarchical approach

from realism

coincidence between balance of power vs hierarchical approach: cyclical idea, balance of power OR hegemonic order tend to come back

• stability: balance of power, comes from balanced distribution to power → upset, trouble happens

• hierarchical approach: stability = hegemony (most unbalanced distribution of power)

  • rising power reduces gap between hegemon vs others

  • hegemonic stability theory, power transition theory

realists: focus on hierarchy of power, difference within great powers

existence of a hegemony: unstable balances of power → war is most likely (no clear top dog who calls the shots)

hierarchical scholars: equilibrium in system comes from hegemony

• focus on matters of change

gilpin’s theory of systemic change

stability of the IS is from:

• distribution of material power

• distribution of prestige

• rights and rules that set parameters of behaviour

cyclical model:

• → system in the state of equilibrium: greatest stability, consolidated hegemony → (differential growth of power) →

  • redistribution of power in the system (declining hegemony) → (rise of challenger) →

    • disequilibrium of the system → (bipolarization(some states support old hegemon, others see challenger as new hegemon)) →

      • resolution of systemic crisis (hegemonic war) → (peace settlement) →

• hegemon: greatest influence on what is appropriate behaviour, in line with your interests

theory of hegemonic war

status quo states: satisfied with current international order

• mainly great powers/dominant states

• ex. usa, germany

revisionist states: dissatisfied, not following their interests

• middle power/smaller states

  • not able to challenge status quo states: dissatisfaction doesn’t cause trouble

• ex. north jorea, iran, russia

declining hegemon: still powerful, but another state is growing faster than the hegemon

• continue to parity

• new hegemon: wants to change rules of the game to reflect their goals

  • set parameters of behaviour

growth of power (theory of hegemonic war)

power gap between dissatisfied states and hegemon closes (declining in power relative to others)

• exogenous factors: not explained by model itself

  • technical innovations: rising challenger has new technology, ex. to produce certain weapon/nuclear weapons

  • political organizations: within the state, find a way that is more efficient and extracts more resources from civil society and allowing productive forces to prosper

  • good (regional) leadership: skills, new leader in power

    • be able to extract more resources given legitimacy they have

    • successful in making alliances with other states → more powerful

      • ex. greater trade relations

• endogenous factors (internal causes)

  • uneven environmental pressures: lazy hegemon

    • because of privileged position, start to feel very safe (so much power) → put less effort in matters of security and instead on secondary goals

      • ex. poverty, climate change

    • less of a realist under anarchy: never trust anyone but you’re power (hegemon is confident)

    • other states live with super-powerful state above them (incentive to not put work into secondary goals)

      • want to innovate militarily

  • sooner or later → revisionist state will become better than the hegemon

compared to balance of power (theory of hegemonic war)

cannot explain why the balance is lost

• exogenous factors: nothing to do with the model of the balance of power

• focuses on explaining stability

• endogenous: from the model (lazy hegemon, environmental pressures of hegemon)

• hiearchical approach shows the entirety of the cycle, balance of power = only stability

hierarchy

hierarchy of power: why a hegemon might enter a crisis

hierarchy of prestige: prestige = reputation for power

• perceived distribution of power in the system

• objective reality vs perceived reality of power (hard power)

• hegemon: hierarchy of power and prestige are the same

rising challenger

hierarchy of power changes

• hierarchy of prestige: stays the same

  • still seen as serious, leader state (but not the most powerful)

• challenger: has enough power to be taken seriously, but still see as a second tier state

  • reputation for power is going to change

• state b launches war against state a: necessary to change its prestige → others see state b as a powerful state/new hegemon

  • current hegemon: try to prevent this, war over dominance in the IS

    • could be initiated by rising challenger, but most commonly its from the hegemon

      • don’t wait for balance of power to change: hegemon launches preventive war (goal to stop rising challenger from continuing to rise)

      • result: new hegemonic order (either rising challenger, old hegemon, or third state)

• ex. china vs usa GDP: 2020 forecast, economists anticipated the us economy advantage over china would be reversed, china would become the biggest economy in the world

  • 2021 forecast: china is rising, but us is still ahead, china will reach parity in 2035

    • first two forecasts: us was a declining hegemon because it wasn’t growing as fast as china was

  • 2022 forecast: chinese economy isn’t as dynamic, us was able to catch up with economic growth → unsure whether parity will be achieved by china at any point

    • third prediction: us is not declining hegemon anymore, still risky situation, unclear if we entered zone of instability where parity is unclear → chance of preventative war

cold war, balance of power of hegemon

re-ordering of international politics after WW2

• US: Nato, Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods

  • gave us economic power over other states

• USSR: informal empires in Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact)

  • warsaw pact used to combat NATO

  • didn’t engage in order making of international system

Cold War: 1947-1991

• bipolar system: power distributed equally

• hierarchical approach → unipolar system

  • US hegemony: ended cold war with us as remaining superpower

• bipolar balance of power or us hegemony (that was unsuccessfully challenged)

  • CINC Index: USA vs USSR

    • indicators like demographics, economics, military capabilities

    • shows sytem was bipolar and balanced

      • began as unbalanced in favour to the USA

    • look at economy: USA hegemony

• conflicts: berlin crisis (1961), cuban missile crisis (1962)

  • brought two superpowers almost in a direct confrontation

  • berlin crisis: USSR had control over west berlin

    • ussr kicks out usa of west berlin

    • dynamic of conflict: challenger trying to challenge power presence

    • fails

  • cuban missile crisis: USSR put nuclear weapons in cuba as a response to the US nuclear weapons in turkey

    • security dilemma dynamic

    • fails: missiles sent back to ussr

      • closest to nuclear war in history

    • ussr backed down, usa secretly removed its missile to turkey (wanted to keep its prestige)

Rhamey, Hierarchical Approach

This passage outlines the concept of hierarchy in international relations, arguing that it significantly influences state behaviour.

Core Argument:

• Hierarchy: The international system is not simply anarchic; it has a hierarchical structure where states are ranked based on their power, influence, and status. This hierarchy shapes state behaviour, opportunities, and willingness to engage in certain actions.

Key Concepts:

• Hierarchy: The arrangement of actors in a ranked order based on their power, influence, and status.

• Power: The ability to influence the behaviour of other actors. This encompasses:

  • Material Capabilities: Military strength, economic resources, technological advancements.

  • Perceptions of Threats: How states perceive each other as threats.

  • Strategic Geographical Location: Control over key territories or resources.

• Opportunity: A state's ability to achieve its goals, is constrained by its position in the hierarchy and geographical factors.

• Willingness: A state's propensity to engage in certain actions, influenced by its hierarchical position. A powerful state may be more assertive, while a declining power may seek to maintain influence through diplomacy.

Critique of Existing Theories:

• Neorealism: Oversimplifies the international system by focusing solely on power and neglecting the nuances of hierarchy and the influence of factors like geography and domestic politics.

• Neoliberalism: Overemphasizes the potential for cooperation and underestimates the enduring impact of power and hierarchy.

• Constructivism: While acknowledging the importance of ideas and norms, it may not adequately account for the material constraints imposed by the distribution of power.

Hierarchical Approaches:

• Power Transition Theory: Suggests that conflict is most likely when a rising power challenges a dominant power.

• Hegemonic Stability Theory: Argues that a dominant power can provide stability and order to the international system.

• Long-Cycle Theory: Emphasizes the cyclical nature of power transitions and the impact of technological and economic innovations on the international order.

Relationship to Other Theories:

• Neorealism: Shares an emphasis on power but differs in its understanding of anarchy and the role of hierarchy.

• Neoliberalism: Acknowledges the importance of cooperation but emphasizes the role of hierarchy in shaping the conditions for cooperation.

• Constructivism: Can be integrated with hierarchical approaches to understand how hierarchy influences the development and spread of norms and values.

This chapter introduces the concept of hierarchy as a central organizing principle in international relations. It argues that the distribution of power among states creates a hierarchical order that significantly influences state behavior, opportunities, and willingness to engage in certain actions.