Comparative Politics, Levels of Analysis, and the Study of International Relations

1
Comparative Politics, Levels of Analysis, and the
Study of International Relations

• PO 201 Introduction to International Studies and
  Political Science

2
A Recap

• Many of the theories we have addressed in this
  course deal with the following question What is
  the impetus for political action?
• The nature, goals, and relations of humans are
  largely the product of divinity (Christian
  thought)
• Human goals and actions result from the state of
  nature (Modern thought a la Hobbes)
• Humans can remake the state of nature by
  understanding and acting to respect the rights of
  themselves and all humans (Modern thought a al
  Locke)
• Humans derive their own goals and act on the
  basis of their own material desires (Rational
  explanations)
• Human goals and actions are derived from the
  immediate collectivity of which they are a part
  (Cultural and Structural explanations)

3
and an Extension

• These perspectives have thus far been applied to
  the study of the polities and institutions that
  develop within states, both in the particular
  American experience and in comparing how
  sovereign governments have been instituted in
  other countries
• The final section of this course further applies
  and develops this knowledge to the context of the
  political relations between and amongst the
  polities of all states, or international
  relations (IR)

4
The Study of International Relations

• IR addresses many questions. Perhaps the most
  important of these are
• How is international politics conducted?
• Why is there no world government? What are the
  prospects for such a government, and how is
  politics conducted in its absence?
• Why (and when) do states go to war?
• How is war related to politics?
• Is war the constant state of international
  affairs? If so, why do we see peace most of the
  time?
• When we do see peace, can it be treated as just
  the absence of war, or is peace a qualitatively
  different state of affairs than war, with
  different causes?

5
Comparative Politics and IR

• The study of IR seeks to explain the relations
  amongst states by considering both the impetuses
  for political action underlying the comparative
  perspective all of which originate with forces
  inside the state and the impetuses that exist
  before and beyond the development of polities

6
Comparative Politics and IR

• In other words, IR looks both to antecedent
  factors that shape the human political endeavor
  (e.g., human nature, the state of nature,
  rationality) AND to the ways that polities
  aggregate individual goals and produce outcomes
  (culture, state structure, comparative politics
  more generally) to explain outcomes at another
  level of interaction the relations between
  those governments
• Therefore, IR is both an extension of and
  substantive addition to comparative politics and
  classical political theory

7
Levels of Analysis in IR

• However, nearly all IR scholars believe that
  there are causal impetuses deriving from the
  state system itself that also work to determine
  action
• Perhaps best envisioned as a further extension of
  the comparative structural approach the
  structure of the international system (and not
  just the structures of the polities comprising
  it) also works to shape state interests and the
  relations amongst states
• Which levels of analysis are the most useful ones
  for developing explanations and predictions about
  international relations? What are the differences
  amongst explanations derived from different
  levels of analysis?
• Just as in comparative politics, satisfactory
  answers to these questions are crucial to
  ordering our inquiry and conducting sound
  research in IR

8
An Example Why Do States Fight Wars?

• There are several different answers to this
  question from three different levels of analysis
• The individual level of analysis (Waltzs First
  Image) Wars are fought because fighting is part
  of human nature leaders are prone to the same
  predispositions as other humans, and bring their
  countries into wars for personal gain (Plato
  Nature makes bad men, who make war)
• The national level of analysis (Waltzs Second
  Image) Wars are fought because states
  interests come into contact with others, with the
  result that states fight to achieve their goals
  (Rousseau Bad polities make bad men, who make
  war)
• The systemic level of analysis (Waltzs Third
  Image) Wars are fought because the system is one
  of anarchy, and war is the only way to survive
  it is the systemic state of affairs, not the
  individual or the polity, that leads to the
  necessity of war (Hobbes Bad has nothing to do
  with it)

9
An Example Why Do States Fight Wars?

• Which of these answers is correct? In Man, the
  State, and War, Waltz says that, to a degree, all
  of them are.
• BUT, his most important contribution is the claim
  that where one begins his/her explanation defines
  that explanation (i.e., relying on a particular
  level of analysis will result in different
  explanations than if one relies on other levels)
• As such, most theories of international relations
  place majority emphasis on one level, but must be
  careful to recognize that their explanations
  likely ignore important impetuses at other levels

10
The General Utility of Different Levels of
Analysis

• Singer makes specific claims about how useful the
  systemic and national levels of analysis are in
  terms of description, explanation, and prediction
• Likens selection of systemic/ national levels to
  micro and macro views of economics

11
The General Utility of Different Levels of
Analysis

• The systemic approach provides a comprehensive
  descriptive picture of IR, while the national
  approach provides greater detail, depth, and
  identification
• The national approach is more likely a better
  explanatory tool, as it provides a thorough
  accounting of the foreign policy process
• An important caveat The ascendancy of the
  national level in explanation is apparent only if
  researchers take a phenomenological view of
  action (i.e., if outputs are deemed to be the
  result of calculated human action)
• The systemic approach provides the greatest
  prospect of generalizability, but a dearth of
  nation-specific information on which to base
  prediction (vice versa for national level)
• As does Waltz, Singer believes that the choice of
  level boils down to the researchers beliefs
  concerning where the impetus and stimulus for
  political action lies
• Thus, the choice of approach must be made before
  the conduct of inquiry, and should not change at
  any point during that inquiry

12
Reflections on IR Theory and Levels of Analysis

• How does the level of analysis discussion bear
  upon our capacity to construct complete
  explanations of international action?
• Put differently, what do the concepts we
  addressed today mean for the prospects of a
  unified theory of international relations?
• What sort of continuity/differences do we see
  between the study of IR (esp. concerning levels
  of analysis) and inquiry in the other subfields?
• What level of analysis do you believe to be most
  useful to studying IR, from both a theoretical
  and intuitive perspective?