K. N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics
Uploaded by
Zila FawziK. N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics
Uploaded by
Zila FawziWaltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics.
1979
Disclaimer: Theory of International Politics is a deceptively complex and nuanced work demonstrated best by its
enduring legacy. That being said, no outline captures everything important contained in the book so please do not take
this as the end-all, be-all of Waltzs theories. Nothing substitutes for having read this book carefully, preferably more
than once.
Quick summary: Structural constraints, particularly the relative distribution of power in the system, determine international
politics (rather than the behavior of individual units); bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar ones; interdependence
is conducive to war, not peace. The enduring anarchic character of international politics accounts for the striking sameness in
the quality of international life through the millennia. (p. 66)
Reductionist vs. Systemic Theories
Waltz differentiates reductionist theories from systemic ones. The difference is not what they deal with but how they arrange
their materials and causes. Reductionist or inside-out theories concentrate causes at the national or subnational (including
individual and internal characteristics of actors/states) level; the whole is understood by knowing the attributes and interactions
of its parts. According to Waltz, such theories allow variables to proliferate wildly and fail to deliver a logically sound and
traceable process by which effects that derive from the system can be attributed to units. Although the actions and politics of
states are decided according to internal processes, those outcomes are shaped by the very presence of other states and
interactions with them. Reductionist theories, most importantly, fail to explain continuity over time; the variety of actors and
variations in their actions are not matched by a variety of outcomes. System theories, on the other hand, conceive of causes
operating at the international level. Structure does not directly affect behavior in the system but does so indirectly through
socialization of actor interaction and competition among them. (see p. 75-76 for more)
Political Structures
Structure is defined by the arrangement of parts, not the characteristics of behavior of units. Only changes of arrangement,
therefore, are structural changes. A system is composed of a structure and of interacting parts. Political structures are defined
by ordering principles (decentralized and anarchic in the international arena and therefore primarily concerned with survival),
the character of units (functionally undifferentiated), and the distribution of capabilities (relative distribution; system-wide
concept, not a unit attribute).
Anarchy and all that
Because states may at any time use force, all states must be prepared to do so. In international relations, the sate of nature is a
state of war. The structure of international politics limits cooperation in two ways: inequality in expected distributions (relative
instead of absolute gains) and dependency. Since states are uncertain about the future intentions of others, they will avoid
situations in which the expected distribution of cooperation benefits others relatively more (when it threatens to upset the status
quo distribution of capabilities). Anarchy has many virtues, however. Because the threat of force always looms in the
background states limit manipulations, moderate demands, and seek the settlement of disputes before escalation. The anarchic
structure of the system explains the Realpolitik observed by Machiavelli and others. Realpolitik refers to the methods by which
foreign policy is conducted and provides the rationale for them. Structural constraints explain why such methods are used
repeatedly despite differences in the persons and states that use them.
Balance-of-power theory exists when the order is anarchic and units primarily striving to survive populate the system. Unitary
(self-help) actors in such a system seek self-preservation at a minimum and expansion/domination at a maximum. The can
balance against others via internal efforts (increase in military capabilities, etc) and external efforts (alliances with others
and/or weakening alliances of adversaries). Power is a means and not an end; security/survival is the highest end. The first
concern of states is not to maximize power but to maintain their relative position in the system. States therefore prefer to join
the weaker of two coalitions and we do not expect to see the strong combining with the strong (balancing instead of
bandwagoning not in the free-rider sense).
Structural Causes and Effects (Economic and Military)
Three quick and somewhat unrelated points:
1. Economic, military, and other capabilities cannot be sectored and separately weighted. Power/capabilities derive from size
of population, territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, and political stability and
competence.
2. Imbalances of power feed the ambitions of some states to extend their control (and hence increase their relative position in
the system). The safety of all states depends therefore on maintenance of balance between them.
3. The myth of interdependence obscures the realities of international politics and asserts a false belief about the conditions
that promote peace (WWI is a perfect example). Interdependence is really mutual vulnerability. What matters is each
states relative dependence or independence. Interdependence tends to decrease as the number of great powers diminishes
Why bipolarity is best
Balancing is done differently in multi- and bipolar systems. With two powers, imbalances between them can only be righted by
internal efforts. With greater than two powers, shifts in alignment provide an additional means of adjustment, adding flexibility
to the system. Three powers is bad; it is too easy for two powers to gang up on the third, divide spoils, and pull the system to
bipolarity. Four is the lowest acceptable number for multipolarity. Five is the lowest that provides stability while providing a
role for a balancer.
There are advantages of two, and only two, great powers. Multipolar systems rely on external efforts to balance. Uncertainties
about who threatens whom, who will oppose whom, and who will gain or lose from the actions of other states accelerate as the
number of states increases. There are too many powers for any to draw clear and fixed lines between allies and adversaries, too
few to keep effects of defection low.
In a bipolar world, military and economic interdependence is low. Internal balancing is important, external balancing is not
(adding allies does not help any one power balance the other; NATO and the Warsaw Pact and China are marginal).
Realignment is fairly insignificant which allows the powers flexibility of strategy; they need not worry about the preferences of
allies. Internal balancing is more reliable and precise than a reliance on allies; states are less likely to misjudge the strength and
resolve of their adversary (uncertainty is low). There are no peripheries in a bipolar world. The relative position of two states
extends the geographic scope of both powers concerns and broadens the range of factors included in their competition. In
contrast, in a multipolar world dangers are diffused, responsibilities are unclear, and definitions of vital interests are easily
observed. Although tension is high in a bipolar world, there is heavy pressure to moderate and it is not possible to appeal to
their parties.
Note: A multipolar world with two blocs is not the same as a bipolar system! Military cooperation in such a system is vital and
military interdependence is high. Bipolarity is dynamically stable; a multipolar world with two blocs is not.
A final note on power
Again, power is a means, not an ends (important difference with Classical Realism). Power is also not simply control. If it is
defined as such there is no difference between the questions How is power distributed? and What are the effects of a given
distribution of power? Power does four things. It provides a means of maintaining ones autonomy in the face of others force.
It permits a wider range of action while leaving outcomes of actions uncertain. The more powerful enjoy wider margins of
safety and have more to say about which games will be played and how. Finally, great power means a state has a big stake in
the system and the ability to act for its sake.
