Power and Interdependence

Chapter 2

The author believes that realist theory is inadequate basis for analyzing the politics of interdependence
(20)
The authors then start to explain realism and its assumptions (didn’t state because we went over them
last week in class). They then explain that they will challenge these assumptions by explaining the
characteristics of Complex Interdependence (their own theory).

They identify three main characteristics of complex interdependence

• Multiple Channels: “Multiple channels connect societies”. This includes “informal ties between
governmental elites (as well as foreign), informal ties among nongovernmental elites, and
transnational (multibank or corporations)” (21).
• The author breaks these connections down further
• Interstate – normal channels assumed by realists
• Transgovernmental – states act coherently (a ‘relaxed’ realist)
• Transnational – we relax the concept that states are the only units
To also support this characteristic, he uses an example that “multinational firms and banks
affect both domestic and interstate relations. Also the participation among of large dynamic
organizations, not controlled entirely by governments, has become a normal part of foreign as
well as domestic relations” (22). The author states that foreign economic politics are becoming
more involved with domestic economic activity, which tends to confuse the lines of domestic or
foreign policy.

• Absence of Hierarchy among Issues: “The agenda of interstate relationships consist of multiple
issues that are not arranged in a clear or consistent hierarchy.” The author states that this means
military security is not the main issue or dominates “the agenda”. There are other issues that
need to be considered at several levels – which involved policy coordination and even
generating coalitions between governments. The authors also support this characteristic by
stating Kissinger and his claim that issues are no longer subordinated to military security.
Issues have to do with: energy, resources, environment, population, and the uses of space and
sea.

• Minor Role of Military Force: “Military force is not used by government toward other
governments within the region, or on the issues, when complex interdependence prevails”(21).
The author uses the example of economic issues among alliances as something that would not
revert to military force. The author supports this claim by saying that force is no longer an
“appropriate way of achieving other goals that are becoming more important (economic)” (24).
They claim that the effects of military force can be costly and risky. They do state, however,
that the THREAT of military force can be effective and serve as a “protective role” or a
“bargaining” chip when discussing issues amongst allies. (Overall I understand that they don’t
dismiss military force, but rather use it as a deterrence tool)
• The author explains that states could use force positively – to gain political influence,
but they must have two qualifications
• “Drastic social and political change could cause force against to become an
 important direct instrument of policy; and”
• “Even when elites’ interests are complementary, a country that uses military
force to protect another may have significant political influences over the other
country” (24)
• They use nuclear weapons as an example for a deterrent
Another support for this characteristic is that national interests raises serious problems for the top
political leaders because offices will go communicate directly instead of gong through the state
department – hence a centralize control becomes difficult (30).
They explain that their purpose for this theory is to describe an alternative to the realist description of
world politics and encourage a different approach, not to replace or over simplify (25).

Political process of the complex Interdependence:

-Goals vary by issue under this concept, but so will the distribution of power and political process (26).
The authors state that as military force is devalued, the states that use this force will have less control –
because their issues are not central. Dominate states my try to secure control by using overall
economic power to effect results, but economic objectives have political implications – which could be
limited by domestic, transnational, and transgovernmental actors who resist having their interests
traded. Weaker states would have to count on international organizations – since this is available and
inexpensive (27).
Important note: Most economic and ecological interdependence involves joint gain and joint losses.

The authors believe that since there is an absence of clear hierarchy among multiple issues (the second
characteristic) political agenda and control will become important. The authors bring up a term called:
Politicization, which is the agitation and controversy over an issue that tends to raise it to the top of the
agenda (so a government whose strengthen may be increasing, link issues to others to bring them
attention.

Role of International organization in complex interdependence:

-Helps to activate potential coalitions in world politics. It brings together representatives of less
developed countries and builds solidarity. It allows agencies of government to turn potential or tacit
coalitions into explicit transgovernmental coalitions characterized by direct communication. Finally, it
allows small and weak states to pursue linkage strategies (31).

Lastly, Complex interdependence yields different political patterns than doe the realist concept of the
world.