C HAP T JE -R 42

BIG QUES'TIONS IN THE STUDY O'F

--_. - --

WORLDI P'OLITIC,S

ROBERT 0 .. KEOHANE

WE do .HoI study international relations for aesthetic reasons, since world politics is not beautiful If we so ugh ~ scien tific rigor, we would have pms ned careers in e-xperimental disciplines, Instead W~ tI!:il: mntivated by normative questions, often asked urgently in the wake of disasters. from the Sicilian Expedition (410 IKE) chronicled by Thucydidesto the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq (2003 cs). Recurring r",i1ures lead us to tI-y to understand the ccnditlons under which states and other a tors can achieve their collective purposes rather than engage in destructive, and often self-destructive, behavior,' Our normative purposes infuse our poS;itiv€' analy is. Political economy came alive as a. field in the wake of the economic (rises of tilt: 19i'Os., whichr,eca]led the Great Depression of the 1930S. Security studies became a site of creativity after the Second WorJdWar and during the heigh l n r the cold war; \'Yark on the sources of inrernal W:3JI expanded in the wake of post-cold war internal mnftiru .. And it is predictable that there will be a new wave of work on the problem of terrorism. in the wake of the attacks of 11 September 2001.

Stude:nts 'Of world politics have an obligation Ito democratic publics to help them understand the must pressing problems of the curren t day. 'et this moral obligation

1 J use the phT;~se "world jJQ.~tiGD eather than ~im~rm(i(jJt~l relations," ~ilQ: the 1;jll'lgQ.!~gf' of "intern Btioml relations" leads us' to lIiliLl;. IYruy a]xrul' St.~tC5, which are nor o~nIrnl wall i:llteresLinll quesnoas of worlJi pcluics.

BH-: QUESnONS IN THE STUDY OF WO:RlD POLn'ICS 709

dues not impfy that we should fGals on topical issues cr be "pclicy-relevant" in it narrow :«'11:'1:': by speaking to govemments in terms that are acceptable to them. Our ta5k is to probe the deeper 30UfGe5 of action in world politics, and to speak truth to pm\"Cf-insofar as we can di s cern what the truth is.

The study of world politics beginswith the study of war, Why is war a perermifii imtiruriou of irllematj,(mai 5lJCje!), Ilnd what vari.able /acJors fJ)fef;r its inciJeru:e? '! n understanding thisproblem, as; well as other issues in world politics, realist them ] which ]cil:'n ti fies power and interests as the central f'lfc'e5 in the beha vier of rational states. has played ill. central. role (Mor~mthau 1967). although it remained unclear fo r yeaT;5 why, if states behaved rationally, they CoU ld engage in m ut ually destructive warfare. Scholars have recently made substantial progr,es;:;; on tills problem, notabJy by followingthe lead of Thomas Schelling (1900) in focusing on the roleplayed by ~nformation and credibility (Fearon 1995). and hy linking the stud}' of institutions to that of war (Portna zooq).

The analysis of warfare relates directly to broader Issues IOf discord and cooperation, \\fork on these issue.'; over toe I.ast quarter-century has emphasized that cooperation arises more from discord than from ha.rmQflfY, andthat, \N hen co mplementary interests exist] multilsteral institutions can facilitate cooperation (Keohane 19S-j). A productive line of work has stressed the role of reciprocity ]]1 creating incentives for cocperative behavior {Axelrod 1984). These theoretical comributians are beginning [,0 be linked tothe literature on the democratic peace, which I do not have space to discuss here.

An important contemporar-y as .... ~I] as historicalpuzzle is how to think aboutthe role ofscvereignry Under what ccnditicns doesit promote canperation by limiting intervention and clarifying the actors in world. politics and under what conditions does it generate civil conflict b}' prcrt1iding a shield bell ind which sta tes carl abuse groups within their societies] Recent w,ork on sovereignty (Krasner 1999) has clarified various meanings of ~his concept, whkhbas regained analytical significance with the inal:.-a.sed attention tnlssues of civil. war and intervention,

Behind all these issueslurks the concept of power. Material resources are significant not just for war and threar, but also for the politics of economic relationships, The study of political economy Gill be: viewed as "the reciprocal and dynamic. interaction in international relations of the pursuit of wealth and the pu [suit of power" (Gilpin 1975. 43). But we need to question the equation of power resources with materialreseurces. Joseph Nye (2.004) hasemphasized the role of "soft pt)wer"artractiveness that inspir,es emulation and facilitates persuasion-in world politics, Soft power depends on the beliefs thaI human beings have and how they process informaricn; hence il5 systematic :study will require engagement with cognitive and social psychology, whererecel]· progress has heen rapid. Efforts 10 understand the SOUJI'IT'$ of beliefs are likdy to become more mgeFl~ for students of worid politics as social mobilization and the ahilit t of people- toccmmunicate directly with one another, unmed iated by large institutions, con tinue to grow.

710 ROIl l'.;RT O. K so FI ANE

Questions about war and cooperation, and concepls such as power and interest, remain central to world politics_ The field has recently become more aware, however, of the infereruial biases ~c which students ofinternational relations are subject, Wan and crises are rare events, Quate naturally, scholars seeking to undersland them. focus, much more onthese events than on the situations of pe<li;C, especially situations lacking cFiSe"sa'l all, Insofar SiS am purposes, are d~'t:ripLivc, thisemphasis is unproblemaric, However, when we seekto put foo ..... ard explanarory propositions, we are ill danger of selecting our cases, on [he dependent varishie, which will bias Our inferences (Achen and Snidal 1989; King, Keohane', and Verba. I 9+). 'lIlt! need continually to be aware of the uncertainty of our inferences=-since our data are not generated by experiments, and often the class of relevant events is small and not independent of one another-s-and to try to account for sources of bias.

Students of world politics have rnade theoretical progress in recent decades On issues ofwar, cooperation, andthe role of multilateral institutions; and conceptual progress, on issues of sovereignty. Impressive ern piri cal work, guided by improved technical and methodological so_phi$llcation, has been carried out on a variety of problems, including warfare, However. most of this progress has focused on see..kirlg to establish static conditional generalizations .. Although we are u\'mg in a period of unprecedented change, OUT understanding Df change is yerr in erior tu our understanding of fundamental long-term regularities.

1 SIX BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT CHAN'GE OVE.R TIME

Compared w the history of civilization, much less of the human race, the known history of world politics is very short Indeed, and the period for which rl'".<!Sonab~y reliable data exist is ~'E"SS, than 200 yea1'5, Human nature has nn [ changed during that time> nor has, the fad that DO world govern men t ItXisls.vVhen students of world poli tics seek to make genet<l!Mii':a.l.lons based on state behavior duri I'l,g the last 0'1'0 cerrturies, they implicitly assume that the actors and pr()!:rfi'S(.~ of the early nineteenth century are essentially the same 11.!> those operating now. Much. however, has occurred in those 200 'ears [0 change some basic factors at work. including the nature o'f force and the structure of econonuc life. Furtherrnnre, change seems to be accelerating, generating several new or newly urgent-questions.

L How IUH politics been affrcted by the e:x-ptm5hm .oj' force, through w:dmologicai dumge, emil its .di~per~i{m?

Scholars have ex pic red in depth the effects. of changes ill the Lee bnology of farce on international relations in the \\'est over periods of centuries. Recent changes

B]G QUESTIONS IN THE STl.'UY 01' WORLD ·POI.ITICS 7U

in warfare, relying on global positioning syst~ and electronic technology of all kinds, have created huge gaps between the military power of the United States and. that of ether countries. Some of those who celebrated American military POWl!T. however; may have forgo Hen that ingenious; adversa ries can create effective ""weap ons of m e weak," sum as terrorism, and that possessing. a superi or resource m<1~' lead statesto overuseit, or to attemp t 10 use it for purposes m r which i l i~ net well suited.

1.. Hr.nll has worldpolirics been 'lJfeaed iJr chtfrjge~ iu capitalism?

Karl Marx. and Jost.-ph Schurnpeter are the two most famous theorists who saw world politics as fundamentally affected bv the nature of capitalist development. 1\I;)['x. \'}adimir Lenin, and their followers viewed war as the result of capitalism, with itslimit1es..o;; demand fur markets <100 investment opportunities, Schumpeter, bycontrast, thought that capitalism had peace-inducing effects" limitingimperialism by emphasizing profit over glory andconquest, But he also viewed capitalism as, a rei L!'ntlil?SS P r'n cess 'of "crea tive destruction; .i1.npl.ying socially d isr up live change, Both Man: and Schumpetcr thought that chang,e W<lS the essence of capitalism. which implies [hat how economic structures affect global conflict arid cooperation must change over time. Neither would have accepted the static formulations ofhow world politics operate implicit in much of the statistical work now appearing in the fie:IJ_

3- Is there a'lY plausible. sense i1~ which pmgre:~ has taken pln.e€' in 1~1itenwticmaJ rt'talio rls.. and if .m, is: I.hi$ pro:t,n:$.~ d!le' .ttl inrdl'ecma.l or morul. ndvances in Ii uman thiJtkiug?

Since the EnHghte[lmenl> rnnny thinkers in the \Vest have observed fundamenta] changes in human practices and have concleded, or at least dared to hope. that moral as well as scientific and technical progress WaS occurring. These hopes peaked in the :ears h1!fore the First V'/odd War, when both puhlicists and practical men of affairs expected economic interdependence to dampen or even prevent WaFS and sought arbitration and arms Iimhatlon treaties to filcilitate and institutionalize beni n changes .. Wndd wars and the Holocaust generated great disillusicnrnent, but III t[l!n98os and 19905 hopes for progress, through l'~'1Tnimg onhange.s in principled ideas. were revived, The effects of changes. in the ideas ]~l which people believe fire by no m cans necessar] ~y benign. as illustrated t:ry uud ear wear 0 ns an d the recent militancy or Islamic fu ndarrten tal ism. \eVe should expect no simple answer to questions about progress, but they are nevertheless important questions. to ask,

.~_ \\'liar is the impa,t on world poOlitics of.the inCft"45ing diversity and ,c{}lnpit:x!r:;' of social structu res itl the mas 1 po wetfi jJ societies of die wcrr/d?

II is a platitude that contemporary democratic-capitalist societies are increasingly complex. a complexity that is magnified by the increasing blurdng of lines between societies as Inn snational fda ti on.} becom e more dense. Governments thcmsel ... es are becoming diversified, along ~~'hh ciw sHdety. which has experienced a vast increase at the transnational level of nongovernmental organizations and social

712 ROB RRT O. KEOHA N'E

movements (Keele and Sikkink 1998). '!hditional gender role s have been c.banging in. Wesl:em societies, with potentia] impacts Oil decision-making and leadership behavior, Anne-Marie Slaughter has recently pm farwaxd the vision of a Udisaggre~ gated world order," ill which. as a' result largely 0 socid1l.complexity, hierarchic have wea kened and networks have become the dominant form of connection among individuals and groups in society (Slaughter 20(4). There is considerable evidence for Slaughter's argument-s-from peaceful activities such as accounting and securities regulation and violent ones such as tetrorism=-but it is largely anecdotal. We need to understand these changes more systematically,

j. Whal an:' du~: .j mpJicatWm of .eJectronic u?£lmlJiog.ies. especia.lly of the .liller-net, for WOTld politics?

To ex-ercise influence, sets of individuals with common value s ori nterests need to be able to communicate with each other. to form groups, and 1:0 act coll&ti'l.'eiy. Historically. such cnmmunication has heen very difficult except through formal organizations, including the state: and all but impossible across state boundaries except with the aid of states, This. formerly constant reality hJS been ch'<lnging withincredible speed during the last two decades. and we have hardly begun to understand the implications of this momentous fact. One implication mar be that collective action OJ] <I transnarion al or even gl.obal scale, for good or ill, is easier thar, it has ever been before.

6. \i!V1Ulf medes a/action cmJ r:ffer;(i'vdy cape Witti .file ul1preccae.rHe.d stres» that human lJdngs are iml}{}~irlg on the global environmenti

The reality of human-induced climate change bas become undeniable, allhot},gh man~' uncertainties surround the pace and severitr of change and the prospects for relevant technological in n ova tion, The political uncertainties may be e \'-en greater. bam with respect to thewillingness of publics and govern ments around the Welda. to pay stgnifi.c,mf casts to mitigate climate cha.nge <lind adapt to it, and with re511'OCt to the capadty of existing or feasib~.e institutions to implement measures Involving global taxes or tradeable permit scheme-s. (AIdy and Stavins 2.0(7).

2 ISSUES OF INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN

1 began. this. chapter with the 3i.igurn,e n t that the swill' of wO rld politics is driven heavii.yby normative concerns, although in our positive research We have an obligation to follow the canon of scientific inference. If we are serious about these normative concerns, l\f·e cannot merely pontificate "\,Vc need instead to think deeply about these issues so thatwecan articulate coherent normative points 01 view, and then to connect these norm ali ve issues with practical problems, For me, as

.8 [G QlJ:ll:STI ONS iN TH E STUDY Orp WORLD .POLITICS 71lJ

iI student of institurions, themost pressing practical problems involee institutional d.esign_

The fnndementalnermarive question can 'be posed as foUm"i;'S:\V'1mt is the ex:f:em and depth of human obligatillns to other h~muUi be-iugs. extending aavSF poHrica I Cind mlhu-aJ bo [.1natH'ies? Do people in Bump e and Nm-!:h America have ohHgatl.o ns to people in Africa, simply as a result of om cnmmua humanity? To what extent are lllOraJ_«)bligattions limiled by sharedbonds cfhismrieal experience and. community? MC:DlI philosopbers h lI\te',e'flech${1 proFound]}' nn theseissues .. Om ans~'rI~t ... to I:hi~ qlU::1:UO~~ will. condition cur answers to <I. related but deriva rive question: How shou til ~~ r-lrink (l,bout tradr.-o_ffi ""umg values). such as democraq, liberty. eqLLahi)' (iw;lucUng .gender e_qr:l,ati~ty), lmd erou8!11~rr welfa r:e? It isnet obvious that the trade-offs made 1111 wealthy dem oeracies apply ful!ly to devdop.ing coumries, or [0 soc ieties with different cultural practices; yet, for liberal cosmopolitans, there is a:JJ irreducible core of human rights that ml;L<;l be respected (Okin 1999)- \I\r'h:at ~houM thes .. e rights be considered to be?

The '!AIay we think about practicalissues such as institutional design '\,\'ill necessariJr be shaped by Out answers to tbe5€' fundamental normative question s, I' am i!i. eosmapolitan liberal demo rrat: a cosmopolitan, since I think thalt basic human rights are universal and [lot dependent on membership ina particular '!)im.munity. <I liberal ,. he<cilus.~ T give pIli nrity 1O Ii be'rt1' as a crncialvalue for a. goodsociety, a democrat, because I believe that elites should not only serve the public good but should be accountable to delib era tive public: views throughinstitntions that give pu blics pow,t:r over le:aih:n._ Th ~ t wn basic issues of i nsti ru tio nal design that lreise reflect these values.

My first issu e of insnmrional design involves effectiveness, H !J~'" ~m~i m;~it~ltions in ~m.rld poNt res be designsd, at mfJ{cHfied,. hI ways rrW( wmlld n.,akt~ th em mate e/ff!cf!ive in a~/ainil~g (:(JUec"i~'e purpose'S, from reslOICFl1g pfilce in war-W.m 5'Ociflics to faciliw ring rwndiscrimrM'flWfY trCl{k, pl·Gt«a~lg humau rights, and pre:venting da mage to the global {mY; ~i'm.me'Ut? Tbeoreticaland empirical work o n inst i tu tio n al design ever the last two decades haspointed to the importance ofiucentives for reaching. and complying with mtem<ltiona] agreemerus [Korernenos, lipoon.!l!l!1d Snidal :lOQ 1 J. Since I nstirutions vary in the iucentives they help to geIH:'mte, <I worthwhile normativeproject .... rould be to figure out sys,tematica11y how w'get the incentives right ill constmcting institutions, and what scope global institu tions should have in light of the incernives IOf potential m.embeT states and lh~calPlldt>! of domestic and multilateralinstimtlons in a variety of issue areas.

TOo b ewerthwhile fcr a dem ocrat.jnstitu ticns naVl;' to be acco untabi e as well as efti~Cliv:e. So the second question can be posed as follows. J/my am multilmeral il1stiUlt.i.rm5 be d.esigned, widw u t global govermUl'1l t. so that qualified and dedicated leaders are more Ukdy w ~e chosen, cmd th05e leaders who are selected m:e fleM ~'mwiMbf~ to the people wlmS'e actions thq affect? Acc:otlfHability isa basic princlple or democracy, Muitilareralinstitutions cannot be fully democratic, since they

714 ROI!ERT 0, I(!H)HANE

remain dependent on states • Many ta tes Me not democratic, and [be connectinus between multilateral instltutl(lDS and publics even in democratic states an! weak. Y~t mechanisms ha ve been devised to make multilateral institutions <lGcounwbk, and Ihey could be strengthened ..

The questions that I have emphasized are necessarily selective, Some issues have been omitted. simply for lack of space . But I have deliberately omitted discussion of the alleged .incompatibility of broad approaches to the study of international relations such as realism, institutionalism, and constructivism, since I ttgalid these approaches as complementary rather than alternatives" The relevant question is to figure out how they om be combined tcaddress theoretically or practically relevant problems. Nor have I emphasized anal 'Lical or statistical tools that are pl.aying an increasing role In scholarship] eventhough these tools have been valuable both rhoore:tica.lly and empirically. "Io my taste, mere has been an overemphasis recently on tools a t the expense of re flection about which questions 'are IJ.10St imp ortant for the human race and for the. ccosystern. Focusing on major problems Call) help 1.15 to figur~ oUI which in sights ITomthe broad appro ache.') to the field ,air,!,,: valuable. and which analytical tools yield genWine insights or evidence. If wethen focus on developing testable theories, wt can u:westiga'be their implications empiricall~r. But llwe fail to ask the right questions, there is no hope ofgetting the answers we need.

R~ ERE.NCI!S

ACHF.N. C. H.. and SNmAL, D. 1939. Rational: deterrence theory and romparative ease studies, '1r'l)rhi po/i.tirs, 4,1: 143-69.

ALD'''', J .• and STAvms, R. (eds.) WOiL Af(hih:d:r.m:s!or Agreement.' .. Mdres:sjtlg Globf.1f C1irmrt~

CllIUigt! 111 the PMt- Kyoto World.. Cambridge: Cambridge UniverSity Press.

AXElRiO D, .R. 19S4. Th~ bl'O'/utilm of C~a'iOPL New Yor k: Basic Boo ks,

F:buOC'l.,1- D. 1995. Rationalist explanations fol' war. ill tf'marionaJ OrglllltmrilJtl, 9: 379"-414- FOIITN_A, V. p~ 2.DO'!. PW(..e ::rime: Ceruit- F;r.: _'ljgT!:"emel1 U andr he DUfi:l[Jdily of P,e:flce~ Princeto u,

NI: PrlncetonUniversiry Press,

GtLI'],N, R. 1975. US Power mrd the Mllltitmrj(m.~1 Corpom 601'1: The Poli tim! £Cdl':lOtn), of f.oreign Direct IIlV~tmelif. New VOl!' • liasi.c Books,

K.i: 0;;:, M .• and Sl KK INK, K. 199'8.. Arri~risf:S be}'Ond .Bomerg Aavo'Cl:lq Net1l~\v~ro rtJ. hI rt'n1~ l10mJ PolitJc,s. Ithaca, NY; Cornel] Unh'e[Silr Press.

KmuM'E, R. O. 1984. AlIff Ne.gemouy: Codpe:rati;on and Discord in the WorM PoM'CidEam"my. Princeton, NJ; Princeton Univrrsity Press,

Knl"G, G .• KE.oHA:-'E~ K 0., and V UElII.. ~994 .. D~,igl1iHg Svcir,jl.!nqui ry: Scientifo lIJ/ercr!lIcl!' m Qua1i.tadl1e Research, Princeton. NJ: Prm eton Ulli,\le.t"8ity Press.

KORE1>!lL"-los. R,. l]PSON, C, and SNLU."t.L, D_ 2.o0~. 'fh~' rational design of internatienal institutions, i1ltenJ,attonaf Orgat~jzli,ritm, special issue, 55:7C)t-H02.

KRASNER, S. D. 199'9. Sove:mgtrty.: Orgtlnize.d Hypomty. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University Press,

arc QUESTIONS IN TilE STUDY OF WURLD POUTlCS 71;5

l\'iOBGE:NTHAlJ, R J- 1967. Politics UI'nO'llg Nations; The S,t-ruggle for Power unci Reace, 4th din.

New YOI'k: Knopf.

Nu, J, 5" J R 20()4· SoIl Power; The Means W Succes. irJVIi!Jrld Politics. New York Public Affai rs Press,

OK[N, s., M, 199'9- 1$ Mullic~dtwaljsm BlldJor Wo'men? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

SCH ELl[ Nf" T C. 1,900, The Strategy..,f C'tmflict. Cambrldge. Mass.: Harvard University Pr-ess. SUUGHTIm, A.- M_wQ4. A New l,'~lQdd Orde-r. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U[ljl'€l'sity Press,