INTERDEPENDENCE IN WORLD POLITICS

INTERDEPENDENCE IN WORLD POLITICS

1. “global village” -> a world without borders.

   • “the state is about through as an economic unit.” Traditionalists call these assertions unfounded “globaloney.” They point to the continuity in world politics. Military interdependence has always existed, and military power is still important in world politics
     • Traditionally, classical theories of world politics have portrayed a potential “state of war” in which states’ behavior was dominated by the constant danger of military conflict. During the Cold War, especially the first decade after World War II, this conception, labeled “political realism”
   • Modernists point correctly to the fundamental changes now taking place, but they often assume without sufficient analysis that advances in technology and increases in social and economic transactions will lead to a new world in which states, and their control of force, will no longer be important.

2. our era is marked by continuity and change.

   • The secret of understanding lies in knowing which approach or combination of approaches to use in analyzing a situation.

3. Interdependence affects world politics and the behavior of states; but governmental actions also influence patterns of interdependence. By creating or accepting procedures, rules, or institutions for certain kinds of activity, governments regulate and control transnational and interstate relations. We refer to these governing arrangements as international regimes.

4. THE NEW RHETORIC OF INTERDEPENDENCE

   • During the Cold War, “national security” was a slogan American political leaders used to generate support for their policies. The rhetoric of national security justified strategies designed, at considerable cost, to bolster the economic, military, and political structure of the “free world.” It also provided a rationale for international cooperation and support for the United Nations, as well as justifications for alliances, foreign aid, and extensive military involvements. National security became the favorite symbol of the internationalists.
     • Expansion Act. Presidents invoked national security to control certain sectoral economic interests in Congress, particularly those favoring protectionist trade policies.
       • National security symbolism was largely a product of the Cold War and the severe threat Americans then felt.
         • it, not only epitomized a certain way of reacting to events, but helped to codify a perspective in which some changes, particularly those toward radical regimes in Third World countries, seemed inimical to national security, while fundamental changes in the economic relations among advanced industrialized countries seemed insignificant.
   • National security had to share its position as the prime symbol in the internationalists’ lexicon with interdependence. Political leaders often use interdependence rhetoric to portray interdependence as a natural necessityitself. They usually argue that conflicts of interest are reduced by interdependence, and that cooperation alone holds the answer to world problems..
   • . Neither interdependence rhetoric nor national security symbolism provides reliable guidelines for problems of extensive interdependence.
     • Conflict will take new forms, and may even increase. But the traditional approaches to understanding conflict in world politics will not explain interdependence conflict particularly well. Applying the wrong image and the wrong rhetoric to problems will lead to erroneous analysis and bad policy.

5. INTERDEPENDENCE AS AN ANALYTIC CONCEPT

   • Dependence means a state of being determined or significantly affected by external forces. Interdependence, most simply defined, means mutual dependence. Interdependence in world politics refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries.
     • interdependent relationships will always involve costs, since interdependence restricts autonomy; but it is impossible to specify a priori whether the benefits of a relationship will exceed the costs. This will depend on the values of the actors as well as on the nature of the relationship. Nothing guarantees that relationships that we designate as “interdependent” will be characterized by mutual benefit.
       • Less dependent actors can often use the interdependent relationship as a source of power in bargaining over an issue and perhaps to affect other issues. At the other extreme from pure symmetry is pure dependence (sometimes disguised by calling the situation interdependence); but it too is rare. Most cases lie between these two extremes. And that is where the heart of the political bargaining process of interdependence lies.
   • Where there are reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) costly effects of transactions, there is interdependence. Where interactions do not have significant costly effects, there is simply interconnectedness. The distinction is vital if we are to understand the politics of interdependence

6. POWER AND INTERDEPENDENCE

   • Power can be thought of as the ability of an actor to get others to do something they otherwise would not do (and at an acceptable cost to the actor). Power can be conceived in terms of control over outcomes.
     • To understand the role of power in interdependence, we must distinguish between two dimensions, sensitivity and vulnerability. Sensitivity involves degrees of responsiveness within a policy framework—how quickly do changes in one country bring costly changes in another, and how great are the costly effects? sensitivity means liability to costly effects imposed from outside before policies are altered to try to change the situation. Vulnerability can be defined as an actor’s liability to suffer costs imposed by external events even after policies have been altered.

7. INTERNATIONAL REGIME CHANGE

   • We refer to the sets of governing arrangements that affect relationships of interdependence as international regimes.
     • When there are no agreed norms and procedures or when the exceptions to the rules are more important than the instances of adherence, there is a nonregime situation.*
     • International regimes are intermediate factors between the power structure of an international system and the political and economic bargaining that takes place with it. The structure of the system (the distribution of power resources among states) profoundly affects the nature of the regime (the more or less loose set of formal and informal norms, rules, and procedures relevant to the system).
   • The structure of a system refers to the distribution of capabilities among similar units. In international political systems the most important units are states, and the relevant capabilities have been regarded as their power resources.
     • Structure is therefore distinguished from process, which refers to allocative or bargaining behavior within a power structure.

8. Natalia Andrea Martinez Enriquez