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 (Waltz’s “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 (Waltz’s “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 (Waltz’s “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 researcher’s 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?