Waltz- CH 5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Waltz- CH 5...

Description

Waltz, Kenneth (1979): Theory of International Politics, Boston: Mc-Graw-Hill, Chapters 5 & 6. Chapter 5 Political Structures  



  





A system is composed of a structure and of interacting units-p.79. o A structure is the system-wide component that makes it whole-p.79. “Relation is used to mean both interaction of units and the positions they occupyp.80. o A structure ignores their interaction, focusing on their standing with each other-p.80 o Interactions take place at unit level-p.80 o The arrangement of the units is the overall property of the system-p.80. Structure vs varibles: o Structures ignore the behaviour, personality, motives and interests of the actors-p.80. o Structure endures, theories may cross realms because of structure-p.80. o A structure is defined by the arrangement of its parts-p.80. o It is there to show how state actors behaviour is molded by the structure of the offices they hold-p.81. The concept of a structure is based on the fact that units when acting differently produce different outcomes-p.81. State constitutions define the overall structure of domestic politics, but this may change as states devlop-p.81. Most important what is the principle behind the parts arrangement? o Domestically states are hierarchically ordered, actors are differentiated by their authority and role-p.81. o The specification of role and differentiation of functions adds the content to the structure-p.82.  When offices perform different roles the resulting behaviour and outcomes are different-p.82. o Units within the structure stand in different relation to each other through changes in relative capability-p.82. o ^^ this is only what is needed to show how the system is arranged it omits any cultural norms or traditions etc. Political structure impacts political process, this can be seen by comparing different systems of government-p.82. o In the UK, PM is constrained by his party and the fact that he must please them before acting as leader of the country “PM is a weak national leader but an expert party manager.”-p.85. o President can act ashe wishes, but must go through congress who may only offer half of what the Presi may have wished for constraining his power to actp.86 Political structure produces a similarity in process and performance so long as a structure endures-p.87.



Within a country the effects of the structure have a major impact on the behaviour of the individual actors- similar structures produce similar effects-p.88. o Post War Japan under parliamentary system PM’s power exactly fits that of UK PM-p.88.

Ordering Principles 









Structural questions are about the arrangement of the parts of the system-p.88. o Domestic = hierarchy  Command and obey  Government and offices o International = coordination  None can command and not are required to obey  Decentralised and anarchic  Absence of government  Though some evidence of supranational bodies- that act in the capacity of a state Though structure is a concept of order the international system lacks any type of order-p.89. o You can’t of system in an anarchic environment is what Waltz is aying-p.89. Micro-Economists and the idea of the decentralised market acting along-p.89. o Market is from the activities of separate units- acting to further individual aims and objectives-p.90. o Once formed the units cannot control the whole- the market- creators became the creatures-p.90. o The market creates self-directed but interacting units creating different outcomes-p.90. International systems are like markets- formed by coaction of self-regarding unitsp.91. o The system is defined by the units- states, cities, empires, territories, suprnanational institutions etc-p.91. o They are individualist in nature, and maintained on a system of self-help and the realm where anything goes- anarchic-p.91. In a micro-theory the motivation of the actors is assumed- assume that states seek their survivial-p.91. o Though a state’s ambition may be anything from world domination to isolationist- however survival is the prerequisite to achieving any goals that states may have-p.91.  Survival is taken because state security is not assured- in pursuit of security no state will act with perfect knowledge-p.92. o Though even in the international context, patterns of behaviour do emerge from the constraints of the system-p.92. o States may alter their behaviour to suit the context that they find themselves in-p.93.

The Character of the Units

 











This is regarding the functions of the different units-p.93. In the international realm states aren’t differentiated by the role that they performp.93. o States remain like units because as long as there is anarchy in the system then states will perform almost the same-p.93. States have not and are not the only actor in the int’l system- though the system is defined by the major actors-p.93. o Though the argument that the rise of international companies and other nonstate actors that might rival for influence does not undermine the influence of states as actors-p.94. “So long as states are the major actors, the int’l system is defined in their terms”p.94. o States can make, change and enforce the rules by which non-state actors operate-p.94. o Transnational movements are something that go on within the state-centric system-p.95. State sovereignty has never entailed their insulation from the effects of other states actions- that is to say they won’t stop feeling the impact of neighbour states-p.96. o Sovereignty means that a state decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems- developing own strategies, course, decisionp.96. o Every state is sovereign, but there is differences across all states-p.96 The difference between states is of capability not of function-p.96. o States perform or try to perform tasks, most are common to all, the ends they aspire too are also similar- however these are difference lines of development between each state-p.97. International Politics consist of like units duplicating one another activites-p.97.

Distribution of Capabilities 



In an anarchic system the units are functionally undifferentiated, therefore the units are distinguished by their capabilities-p.97. o Structure of the system will change as the distribution of capabilities changes across the system’s units results in changes of behaviour and outcomes.p.97.  I think what he is getting here is that after WW2 UK falls from world power status and the US becomes one therefore the states capabilities change and therefore the international system changes too? Problems o Capability tells us something about units however defining units by capabilities violets Waltz instruction to keep unit attributes out of structural definitions-p.97.  Though Waltz argues that this is allowed because he is measured the distribution across units that links to the wider system concept-p.98. o Though inter-state interactions are excluded, relations defined as groupings do tell us something about how states are place in the system-p.98.





So states that may group together creating multi-polar or bi-polar system, means that the overall system has changed-p.98. What results is a picture of the general order arrangement of a society written in terms of the placement of units rather than their qualities-p.99.

Summary/ Conclusions 

As figure 5.2 expresses Waltz idea that states retain their autonomy, but each interaction which other means that states stands in specifiable relation to each other-p.100. --Finished--...