Levels of Analysis

Chapter 3
PS130 World Politics
Michael R. Baysdell

Where Do We Focus Our

Study of International
Politics?
Three levels of analysis:
Individual-level: People make policy
State-level: States make policy
System-level: International Arena
encourages/discourages certain
types of behavior
2

Man, the State, and WarKenneth Waltz

(1959)
Classified theories of international relations into three
categories, or levels of analysis.
The first level explained international politics as being
driven primarily by actions of individuals, or outcomes
of psychological forces.
The second level explained international politics as
being driven by the domestic regimes of states.
The third level focused on the role of systemic factors,
or the effect that international anarchy was exerting on
state behavior. "Anarchy" in this context is meant not
as a condition of chaos or disorder, but one in which
there is no sovereign body that governs nation-states.

Waltzs First Level: Man (Human

Behavior)

Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity.
If these are the primary causes, the elimination of war must come through uplifting
and enlightening men (p.16).
For pessimists, peace is at once a goal and a utopian dream, while optimists take
seriously the proposition to reform the individual. Pessimists (Niebuhr, Morgenthau)
have countered the theory of politics built on an optimistic definition of man but also
expose the important error of exaggerating the causal importance of human nature.
Since this nature is very complex, it can justify any hypothesis we may entertain. If
men can be made good, then one must discover how to alter human nature. This
expectation is often buried under the conviction that individual behavior is
determined more by religious and spiritual inspiration rather than material
circumstance. If man's evil qualities lead to wars, then one must worry about ways
to repress them or compensate for them. Control rather than exhortation is needed,
tends to assume a fixed human nature, which shifts the focus away from it, toward
social and political institutions that can be changed (p.41).
Not every contribution the behavioral scientist can make has been made before and
found wanting, but rather, the proffered contributions of many of them have been
rendered ineffective by a failure to comprehend the significance of the political
framework of international action. Social and psychological realism has produced
political utopianism (p.77).

Waltzs Second Level: Internal Structure of States

The internal organization of states is the key to understanding war and peace.
Removing the defects of states would establish the basis for peace. Definition
of a ``good'' state: (a) Marx - according to the means of production, (b) Kant according to abstract principles of right, (c) Wilson - according to national selfdetermination and democracy. Hobbes, Mill, Adam Smith.
The use of internal defects to explain external acts of a state can take many
forms: (i) type of government generally bad - deprivations imposed by despots
upon their subjects produce tensions that find their expression in foreign
adventure; (ii) defects in governments not inherently bad - restrictions placed
on the state in order to protect the rights of its citizens interfere with
executing foreign policy; and (iii) geographic or economic deprivations - state
has not attained its ``natural'' frontiers, or ``deprived'' countries undertake
war to urge the satisfied ones to make the necessary compensatory
adjustments (p.83).
Liberal thought has moved from reliance upon improvement within separate
states to acceptance of the need for organization among them. Rigorous
application of this logic leads to asking to what extent organized force must
be applied in order to secure the desired peaceful world. Arguing for a world
government and settling for balance of power as an unhappy alternative
reveals the limits of the second image analysis. Even though bad states may
lead to war, the obverse that good states mean peace is doubtful. Just like
societies they live in make men, the international environment makes states
(p.122).
War results from states seeking to further their own national interest

Waltzs Third Level: International

Anarchy

With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable

among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions
according to the dictates of its own reason or desire - conflict,
sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur. To achieve a
favorable outcome from such a conflict, a state has to rely on its
own devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its constant
concern (p.159). Machiavelli, Rousseau, Thucydides, Clausewitz.
In anarchy, there is no automatic harmony. Because some
countries may be willing to use force to achieve their ends, and
because there is no authority to prevent them from doing so, even
peacefully inclined states must arms themselves. Goodness and
evil, agreement and disagreement, may or may not lead to war.
War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it: there is no
automatic adjustment of interests among states and there is a
constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force (p.188).
A balance of power may exist because some countries consciously
make it the end of their policies, or it may exist because of the
quasi-autonomous reactions of some states to the drive for
ascendancy of others. It is not so much imposed by statesmen on
events as it is imposed by events on statesmen (p.209).

SYSTEM-LEVEL ANALYSIS
A top-down approach to studying
politics:

Structural Characteristics
The Actors
Scope and Level of Interaction
The Role of Power

Lets examine each, one by one

7

Structural Characteristics of
International System
State-centric system with no overarching
authority to make rules, settle disputes,
and provide protection. Anarchic.
Horizontal organization of authority (as
opposed to most organizations, which are
vertical)
Sovereignty on the decline with rise of UN,
WTO, EU
U.S. steel tariffs provide good example of
loss of sovereignty (European case in WTO)
8

 The Actors
National actors:
States--dominate the system and are not
responsible to any higher authority

International government actors

Transnational actors:
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
Multinational corporations (MNCs)

Terrorist groups
The SCOPE, LEVEL, and INTENSITY of
interactions is increasing between all
these actors.

Power Configurations and

Relationships
System poles=powerful actors
Can be single country/empire, an alliance, a
global IGO (The UN), or a regional IGO (the
EU)
Unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and
multipolarity all have models that more or
less explain how they function
All states are power seeking, seek to
dominate
Other states will attempt to block hegemony
Classic example: The Concert of Europe
Debate over whether preponderence of force
10
or force equality causes conflict

 Economic Patterns
Interdependence: Leading to peace
or creating tension?: U.S.-China
relations
Where natural resources are
produced and consumed: Persian
Gulf
Maldistribution of development:
North-South rivalry
11

Norms of Behavior
Understanding changes
Transnational forces: Travel, trade,
education, communication, and Internet
Greater emphasis on human rights
Weakening support for war
Recognition of dangers of global climate
changes
Nuclear war norm
Minimizing civilian casualties norm
12

STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS
Assumes relative freedom of states
in policy making
Closer look at the making of
national foreign policy
Policy type and actor analysis
Political culture

13

Making Foreign Policy:

Types of Government, Situations, and
How They Impact Policy
Democracy versus Authoritarian Governments:
Democracy and foreign policy choices are different

Situations:
Crisis--decisions taken by high-level, small groups.
Must feel surprised, threatened, and believe they
only have a short time to react
Crisis can spark rally effect (9/11, Iraq War)
Status quo--incremental policy changes
Nonstatus quo--changes in policy direction

Types of policy:
Many policies are intermestic and cannot be dealt
with only by 1 state

14

Making Foreign Policy: Political

Culture
Political Culture: A patterned set of ways
of thinking about how politics and
governing ought to be carried out
Not the same as political IDEOLOGY
consistent sets of views as to the
policies government ought to pursue
Allows leaders to take a certain
general policy direction
Changing nature
Not monolithic or all-inclusive
15

American Political Culture

We take it for grantedex. Peaceful transfer of power

American culture Exceptionalism with missionary impulse
Clashes with Chinese sinocentrism (Middle Kingdom)
5 important elements: Liberty, Equality, Democracy, Civic
Duty, Individual responsibility
Americans are more willing to tolerate economic inequality
than political inequality
Regions can have subculturesAmerican South differs
from NEsouth more conservative
Political culture can be consensual or conflictual.
Consensual cultures come to compromisesconflictual
ones come to blows
U.S., France are conflictual
Consensual: Japan, Sweden

Making Foreign Policy:Actors

Understanding the many actors
involved in the foreign policymaking
process
Political executives
Bureaucracies
Legislatures
Political opposition
Interest groups
Allied nations
And, of course, the people

17

Heads of Government/
Political Executives
Generally strongest subnational actors
Capabilities include administrative,
legislative skills, public persuasion ability
Real power of U.S. President is not in the
Constitution, but rather politics and public
opinion
May often use two-level game strategy-
1) negotiating at the international level
with representatives of other countries;

2) negotiating at the domestic level with

legislators, bureaucrats, interest groups,
and the public for political support.
18

 Bureaucracies
Bureaucratic perspective: Organizations
favor a certain policy based on their
mission
Department of Defense more likely to
accept conflict than Department of State
Tools: Collecting, filtering, and evaluating
information, making recommendations,
implementing policies--e.g., multi-layered
roles of CIA and U.S. Department of
Defense in the run-up and execution of the
Iraq war
19

Legislatures
Less powerful than executive
Support executive during crisis
More active role in high-profile issues-e.g., Iraq war and human rights abuses
at Abu Ghraib.
Constraints: belief in a unified national
voice, most legislation is domestic
Exception: Boland Amendment, 1982
(led to Iran-Contra Affair)
20

Political Opposition

May be less overt and/or less peaceful

in nondemocratic systems
Influential actors in democratic systems
WTO protests in Seattle
Democrats' use of Congressional spending
and oversight powers to frame Iraq war
debate and push for withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Iraq
21

 Interest Groups
Cultural, economic, issue-oriented,
and transnational interest groups
Different goals from political parties
Political partiesgoal is electing
members
Interest groupsgoal is getting one
specific policy enacted
22

 The People
More involved in domestic issues
than in foreign issues
Most Americans cant locate Darfur
on a map
Leader-citizen opinion gap (similar to
interest group leader v. rank and file)
Direct democracy is growing
Indirect influence
23

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANALYSIS
Cognitive factors: try to choose rationally, try to make
good tactical and strategic choices
Limited by internal/external boundaries (Iraq WMD)
Limited by wishful thinking/heuristic devices like
stereotypes and analogies (Munich Analogy)
Limited by cognitive capabilities (Wilson after stroke
re: Treaty of Versailles)
Individuals seek cognitive consistency
Emotional factors: leaders subject to emotions
Truman letter, Jimmy Carter protest, Bush 43 examples
Psychological factors:
Frustration-aggression theory: frustration aggression
Biological factors:
Ethology (animal behaviorLBJ example); gender
Perceptions: We attribute worst possible motives to
adversary and the best to ourselves (Fundamental
Attribution Theory from Sociology)
24

Organizational Behavior
Appropriate role behavior influences
leaders
Complex relationship between role
and issue position
Group decision-making behavior:
causes and effects of groupthink

25

Idiosyncratic Behavior:
Personality Factors in Making
Decisions

Barber's active-passive, positive-negative typology

Physical and mental health of leader (Kennedy
during CMC, Yeltsin, Hitler)
Ego and ambition (Persian Gulf War II?)
Political history and personal experiences:

Munich and Vietnam analogies

Perceptions:

Operational reality--the link between

perception and policy
Operational code--how an individual acts
when faced with a situation
26

The Future System: Three

Directions

Traditional, state-centered
Alternative nonstate centered:
McWorld tendency
Alternative nonstate centered:
Jihad tendency
A scenario of the future world
system: politics of identity
2007 McGraw-Hill Higher Education

27

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES: CHECKLIST

After reading this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Define individual-level analysis in world politics.

2. Examine how fundamental human characteristics influence policy.
3. Show how organizational behavior, including role-playing and group
decision making, can influence policy decisions.
4. Analyze the idiosyncratic or personal characteristics of leaders that
influence their decision-making and policy outcomes.
5. Discuss the major emphases of state-level analysis.
6. Analyze the foreign policy process, based on the type of government,
situation, and policy.
7. Discuss the importance of political culture on foreign policy.
8. List the foreign-policy making actors and evaluate the role and
influence of subnational actors.
9. Describe the structural characteristics of the international system and
discuss the actors.
10. Analyze the power relationships in the international system.
11. Discuss economic realities in the political system.
12. Outline the norms of behavior in the international system.

28