Brexit: Levels of Analysis and Explanations

The level of analysis and explanations in Brexit literature

• This article examines the Brexit phenomenon through the lens of the levels of analysis in International Relations Theory (IRT), arguing for a multi-level, interdisciplinary approach that blends international/systemic variables with domestic factors. It highlights both international/European-political explanations and domestic-level explanations (leaders’ decisions, decision-making processes, populist/ Eurosceptic discourse) and advocates for integrating these perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of Brexit.
• Key aim: assess the most important contributions on Brexit and show how combining levels of analysis improves explanations and fosters collaboration between IR Theory and Comparative Politics.
• Brexit timeline (contextual anchors):
  • The UK faced a tortuous parliamentary process before Brexit, culminating in January 31, 2020. $31 \text{ January } 2020$
  • A transitional period was set through December 31, 2020 during which the UK and the EU negotiated future relations (trade, movement of people). Transitioned by COVID-19 delays.
  • A trade and cooperation agreement was reached on December 24, 2020; approved by all 27 EU members on December 29, 2020. Provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021. $24 \text{ December } 2020\,$; $29 \text{ December } 2020$; $1 \text{ January } 2021$.
• Central claim: Brexit can be explained by both systemic/international variables and domestic/national variables; integrating them yields richer explanations and supports interdisciplinary collaboration (IR Theory and Comparative Politics).
• The article situates Brexit within classic debates about the level of analysis: it is not solely a systemic or domestic story, but a multi-factorial, multi-level event.
• It emphasizes the role of actors, perceptions, and contestation at multiple levels (individual leaders, internal political groups, public opinion, parties, media, and civil society).
• It also points to cognitive processes shaping decisions, aligning with the broader IR literature on decision-making and misperceptions (e.g., Jervis, 1976).

The level of analysis problem in international relations theory

• Classic debate on levels of analysis includes three images in Waltz’s framework:
  • First image (individual level): causes of war in human nature and leaders’ psychology; cognitive processes influenced by leaders’ experiences and knowledge.
  • Key references: Jervis (1976); Larson (1985).
  • Second image (state level): domestic characteristics of states, regime type, and domestic decision-making processes.
  • Third image (system level): anarchic international system and its structure; states as unitary, rational actors pursuing security through self-help; distribution of material capabilities drives differences in state behavior.
• Historical trajectory:
  • During the Cold War, third-image (systemic) approaches dominated (system architecture as the driver of state behavior).
  • The second-image (domestic) approaches included Kantian ideas about peace, Democratic Peace Theory, and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), which focus on domestic actors and interests.
  • FPA emphasizes how national interests develop at the national level and which domestic actors influence their definition and implementation (Hill, 2003).
  • Constructivism emerged to incorporate ideational factors (identity, culture) and later contributed to re-emphasizing national actors and decision-making processes in foreign policy.
• Limitations of purely rational/unitary (third-image) theories:
  • Underplay the internal characteristics of states and societies due to the assumption of fixed interests and rational calculation.
  • Inadequate to explain how domestic politics shapes foreign policy choices and how interests are formed in real time.
• Post–Cold War shift:
  • IR Theory moved toward multi-level explanations, stressing determinants of state behavior that are not fixed and can be influenced by domestic competition, public opinion, and political ideologies.
  • Recognition of the need to integrate systemic and domestic factors (multi-factorial, multi-level explanations), with FPA and Constructivism contributing to this integration.
• Key theoretical development:
  • The “pluralist” political system concept (Graham Allison): foreign policy is often a result of competition among actors within government and society, not a single national interest. This expands the set of variables to include leader perceptions, social/economic actors, constitutional structures, regime type, diplomacy, public opinion, history, and ideology.
• Takeaway: Brexit literature benefits from combining systemic and domestic variables, enabling a more complete understanding of the phenomenon and fostering collaboration across disciplines (IR Theory and Comparative Politics).

Brexit: international and European system

• European Integration Theory provides a framework to explain processes by which states cede sovereignty to create closer integration
• Major macro-frameworks discussed:
  • Federalism: integration as a response to war threat and practical post-WWII experience; the transfer of sovereignty to a union to protect interests and regain status (Burgess, 2005).
  • Neo-functionalism (Haas, 1976): integration as spillover and unintended consequences; technical cooperation (e.g., coal and steel) creates interdependence and pushes expansion of integration on other issues (Schmitter, 2005).
  • Liberal intergovernmentalism (Moravcsik): EU results from rational, domestic-interest-driven decisions; preferences are not fixed but change with issue and over time; integration is shaped by domestic actors and domestic preferences; a revised Putnam two-level game where leaders balance domestic and international interests (Schimmelfennig, 2005).
• Liberal intergovernmentalism’s strength and limits:
  • It integrates structural and domestic factors and explains negotiation dynamics across levels, including how UK leaders (Theresa May, Boris Johnson) sought to balance domestic politics with EU considerations.
  • It remains a rationalist approach that treats national preferences as partly predetermined and can underplay how domestic conflicts and identities shape those preferences; it may not fully explain how interests are formed or why they change over time (Keck & Sikkink, 1998).
• Other perspectives cited in relation to Brexit:
  • Kalypso Nicolaidis (2017): the referendum as a clash between supranational governance and national sovereignty; Brexit as a response to balancing integration and sovereignty.
  • English School (Peter Wilson & Tim Oliver, 2019): Brexit arises from tension between state-centric and cosmopolitan solidarism, especially in migration and monetary/economic union; systemic explanations remain significant.
  • Christian Lequesne (2018): systemic approaches help explain negotiations but are less capable of explaining the domestic will to leave; domestic-level explanations are needed.
  • The need for domestic integration of FPA with Comparative Politics: to open the “black box” of states, study how national interests are formed, which actors contribute, and what political conflicts shape position in the international system.
• The article’s synthesis:
  • Theories of European integration (Federalism, Neo-functionalism, Liberal Intergovernmentalism) are useful but incomplete on their own for Brexit.
  • A combined approach that includes domestic-level variables and the influence of ideational factors (identity, discourse) provides a more complete explanation.
  • An interdisciplinary lens (IR Theory + Comparative Politics) can account for how leaders’ perceptions and domestic political competition shape positions at the EU level, and how EU dynamics feed back into national politics (e.g., UK–EU negotiations and parliamentary ratifications).
• Central methodological recommendation:
  • Brexit should be analyzed as a “multi-factorial” and “multi-level” phenomenon, where systemic and domestic variables interact and influence one another (Mintz & Derouen, 2010).
  • Putnam’s two-level game revisited: leaders must align international negotiations with domestic political resonances and parliamentary acceptability. This helps explain why UK prime ministers sought withdrawals that could gain parliamentary support, while balancing EU positions.

Brexit: national and domestic politics

• The critique of purely rational or systemic approaches:
  • National interests and identities are not fixed; they are constructed and interpreted by domestic actors in relation to specific international events. The same actors can react differently depending on domestic context (Checkel, 1997).
  • Domestic actors shape the roles states should play internationally; arguments for or against Brexit reflect not only structural considerations but also perceptions of Britain’s place in the world.
• Domestic contestation and the “national role” in foreign policy:
  • Cantir & Kaarbo emphasize that states articulate and legitimize actions based on their perceived proper place in international relations; leadership, public opinion, and ideological debates influence foreign policy authorities.
  • Brexit can be read as a clash between sovereignty and integration, but also as a contest over British identity and interests. Political actors—legislators, executives, media, and civil society—contribute to defining positions.
  • Roles and interests are dynamic, contingent on political and ideological battles; winners of these debates pursue different national interests.
• The advantages of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) for Brexit:
  • FPA bridges material and ideational factors by focusing on the decision-maker and the domestic context that shapes foreign policy decisions (Hudson, 2005; Mintz & Derouen, 2010).
  • FPA supports cross-disciplinary collaboration, enabling integration with Comparative Politics, Public Policy, and History to study how national debates about EU membership evolve and influence policy choices.
  • FPA advocates comparison across multiple cases to identify similarities and differences in how domestic factors drive foreign policy outcomes.
• The role of misperceptions and cognitive processes (First Image) in Brexit decisions:
  • A growing literature on policy failure and misperception offers insights into miscalculations by political elites, such as Cameron’s referendum gamble in 2016 and domestic party dynamics (Gaskarth, 2016; Smith, 2018).
  • Populations’ misperceptions and cognitive biases can affect legislative outcomes (e.g., the Remain campaign’s messaging, public sentiment, and the “forgetting” narrative of voters).
• Domestic actors and the pluralist political system:
  • The “pluralist political system” notion implies that in policy-making, multiple actors (parliamentary factions, prime ministers, ministers, bureaucrats, interest groups) influence outcomes rather than a single monolithic national interest.
  • This pluralism broadens the range of variables to explain Brexit (leaders’ perceptions, social/economic actors, constitutional structures, public opinion, history, ideologies, diplomacy, and media).
• Social and economic dimensions of Brexit (3.2) with domestic drivers:
  • Geography of the vote revealed regional fragmentation: London (global city) largely voted against Brexit, while Central/Northern regions leaned toward Leave; however, regional patterns are nuanced, with many exceptions within cities.
  • The Brexit critique of globalization: some regions benefited from the single market, while others experienced wage stagnation, insecurity, and cultural disruption; immigration figures prominently as a perceived threat to national identity.
  • Immigration as a factor: concerns about free movement and its impact on wages, security, and social cohesion; migrants are framed as economic competitors and threats to the English identity; immigration is linked to a broader dissatisfaction with globalization.
  • The “two countries” narrative: a split between pro-globalization/scaled wealth benefits and people who feel left behind; Brexit is seen by some as a response to distributional consequences of globalization.
  • The “forgotten people” thesis is contested; recent analyses show a more complex pattern, including a share of the middle class (the “squeezed middle”) voting Leave, and significant regional variation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• The impact of populist discourse on Brexit (3.3): populism and Euroscepticism as drivers across left and right
  • Populism is analyzed as an anti-elitist, anti-pluralist political logic that challenges the internationalization of the state and the elites’ disconnect from ordinary citizens (Chryssogelos, 2018, 2010).
  • Brexit is read as shaped by populist and Eurosceptic discourses on sovereignty, national identity, and anti-globalization sentiment; these discourses cross traditional left-right boundaries in some cases.
  • The literature links Brexit to anti-market, anti-elite movements and to populist parties that emphasize national sovereignty, immigration, and critiques of the European project (Hopkin, 2017; Iakhnis et al., 2018).
  • Labour Euroscepticism is highlighted as an important but nuanced factor: Eurosceptic strands persisted within Labour, but the party’s official stance shifted toward Euro-pragmatism under different leadership, complicating simple left-vs-right explanations (Diamond, 2018; Hickson & Miles, 2018).
  • Some scholars argue that Euroscepticism has existed across both elites and voters, not uniquely within any single party. The Labour Party’s historical trajectory shows shifts between eurosceptic and pro-European positions depending on leadership and strategic electoral considerations (Gifford, 2016; Diamond, 2018).
• Practical takeaway: populist and Eurosceptic discourses are key elements of domestic political dynamics that interact with international considerations to shape Brexit outcomes.

Conclusion: implications and future scenarios

• Overall outlook in the literature tends toward pessimism about Brexit’s future consequences for the UK and its role in Europe and the world:
  • Risks of disintegration could manifest in Scotland and Northern Ireland considering departures from the UK; regional identities may destabilize the union (Blagden, 2017).
  • For the EU, Brexit reduces diplomatic leverage and may erode soft power; it complicates crisis mediation and global diplomacy, potentially leading to greater isolation for the UK and decreased EU influence in some geostrategic dimensions.
  • The EU’s internal balance could be affected; the Franco-German axis may become more dominant without the UK as a balancing force (Larsen, 2018).
  • There is concern that Brexit could encourage Eurosceptic sentiment elsewhere in Europe, potentially triggering integration challenges; however, evidence since 2016 has shown limited gains for Eurosceptic parties in most member states, with notable exceptions such as Italy’s Lega under certain conditions (Wind, Zielonka).
• UK external policy and “Global Britain” concept (3.4-ish scope of the conclusion):
  • Discussions of “Global Britain” emphasize diversified external relations, including potential closer ties with non-Western powers (e.g., China) and the United States; however, aligning these with European cooperation and values is politically and strategically challenging (Daddow, 2019).
  • A “polycentric diplomacy” approach is proposed as the UK seeks to manage multiple diplomatic tracks with Europe and other regions; risk of a disoriented foreign policy if goals and actors pull in different directions (Opperman, Beasley, & Kaarbo, 2020).
  • From the EU perspective, Brexit could be a prompt to rethink and reform EU governance, legal frameworks, and the balance of competences; some scholars suggest it could trigger treaty reform or constitutional adjustment (Fabbrini, 2017).
• The article’s core contribution:
  • It argues for an interactive, multi-level approach to Brexit that integrates systemic and domestic factors and emphasizes the interplay among actors, ideas, and institutions.
  • It calls for stronger collaboration between International Relations Theory and Comparative Politics to understand complex events like Brexit, where both international arrangements and domestic political dynamics shape outcomes.
  • It highlights how recent contributions in FPA reflect a trend toward a more integrated, cross-disciplinary approach that considers both internal dynamics and international context in foreign policy decision-making. This approach helps explain shifts in policy preferences, the formation of national interests, and how domestic debates eventually translate into international policy.
• Final takeaway: Understanding Brexit requires crossing traditional analytical boundaries and adopting an interdisciplinary, multi-level framework that accounts for the ongoing, context-sensitive evolution of national identities, interests, and foreign policy behavior.

Key terms and concepts (glossary)

• Level of analysis: the lens (individual, state, system) through which international events are studied.
• First image: individual-level explanations (leaders’ psychology and cognition).
• Second image: state-level explanations (domestic politics, regime type, decision processes).
• Third image: systemic-level explanations (anarchy, international structure, power distribution).
• Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA): study of how domestic factors affect foreign policy decisions and outcomes.
• Pluralist political system: foreign policy shaped by competition among multiple actors within government and society, not a single national interest.
• Two-level game: leaders must balance domestic political considerations with international bargaining dynamics (Putnam 1988).
• Neo-functionalism: integration occurs through spillover effects and unintended consequences.
• Federalism: integration as a response to security concerns and post-war reconciliation.
• Liberal intergovernmentalism: integration driven by rational inter-state bargains, with domestic interests shaping preferences.
• Populism: political discourse emphasizing anti-elitism, anti-pluralism, and sovereignty; transgresses traditional left-right divides in some Brexit-related contexts.
• Euro-pragmatism: a stance within a party (notably Labour) that is cautious about European integration while not fully Eurosceptic.
• Global Britain: a post-Brexit strategy envisioning diversified international engagement, including with non-European powers.
• Polycentric diplomacy: pursuing multiple, sometimes conflicting, diplomatic tracks with different actors and regions.

References and foundational works (selected cues)

• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.
• Waltz, K. N. (2001). Man, the State, and War. Columbia University Press.
• Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press.
• Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Game. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460.
• Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Cornell University Press.
• Moravcsik, A. (2005). Liberal Intergovernmentalism. (In Wiener & Diez, European Integration Theory.)
• Haas, E. B. (1976). Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration. International Organization, 30(2), 173-212.
• Keck & Sikkink (1998). Activists beyond Borders. Cornell University Press.
• Chryssogelos (2010, 2018) on populism and foreign policy.
• Moravcsik (2005); Schimmelfennig (2005); Bulmer & Joseph (2016); Daddow (2019); Lequesne (2018); Puetter (2017); Wind (2017); Zielonka (2018).
• Brexit-focused studies range across political science, economics, and international relations, encompassing analyses of misperceptions, geography of voting, populist rhetoric, and the potential future configurations of EU–UK relations.