Theory of International Politics

Rating:
Summary: Has anybody read Man, The State and War???
Review: Going through the reviews for this book, I can't help but wonder why no one has noticed that much of the criticism in these reviews stems from a lack of understanding of a very simple methodological fact: Waltz is not writing about human nature, nor is he writing about how the state is shaped or organized in any way, because he is writing about the structure of the international system. Why is he doing so? Maybe some of those reviewers should read the other classic by Waltz, "Man, the State and War", in which he discusses the now famous levels of analysis. In it, they would learn that human nature being constant, but human behavior being not, human nature proves everything and its opposite. The advantage of a "third image", the structural level, is that it is of a sufficient abstract level to get rid of that kind of phenomenon. Of course, there is the "second image", the intermediate level. Some think it is now more promising than the structural level, but only the latter allows us to generalize enough to dispense of the idea that a political system can change the world and still observe change (as Alexander Wendt convincingly show in his -constructivist and positivist (sic)- book). Waltz may have got it wrong with his structure, but he was right with the level of analysis. Allow me to make a second point. Some say that Waltz's book is abstract, even dry. I suppose they never read Kant or Hegel. I strongly advise them not to read these writers, for if they find Waltz difficult they have seen nothing yet, as many of you know. Waltz is abstract, but not anymore than any other theorist would, placed in front of the same problem. Furthermore, since when being abstract is wrong? I thought that being abstract was simply a way to explain things that could then be better generalized. Maybe from now on we should all start being concrete, to see what happens. Maybe that would increase our understanding of international relations? Sorry to say that, but if someone finds Waltz too dry or abstract, they should not study international relations. I don't mean to be rude, but so many comments seemed out of this world, I couldn't help but put the record straight. Your comments, and reviews, are welcome.

Rating:
Summary: The poverty of American IR and social science
Review: The previous comments are quite revealing: the continental reviewers found Waltz's ahistorical, positivistic, psudo-scientific approach unsatisfactory while the Americans sputtered facile comments. The latter reaction is equal to Waltz's work, which is nothing more than a superficial attempt to deal with the comlexities of political inquiry and international life.

This book tries to construct a theory while ignoring normative questions, human nature, and, of course, common sense. It claims to be value-neutral and tries to "objectively" study comlex human behavior as it constructs a parsimonious, rational theory that predicts human behavior and outcomes based on systems. It is quite popular in America because of our obsession with empiricism and, of course, the insecurity of their social scientists, who still haven't learnt that they are not scientists in any real sense of the word. Moreover, it suits them quite well, as it saves them the trouble of having to use discernment, judgement, and common sense like most humanistic scholars who actually believe the world began before 1914. (Waltz and his companions show a shallow understanding of history, often invoking a few episodes, such as the Pelopponesian War to verify their laws. Beyond maybe two or three cases, the only thing that matters is WWI, WWII, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq, and ocassionally Bosnia, Haiti, and Serbia.)

Waltz's book tries to compress human experience and behavior into a few "laws" about international systems and balance of power. Ironically, he tries to do so using normative (though undisclosed) concepts. There are quite a few excellent introductions to the field of international relations. This is not one of them. If you want to see the failed attempts of an insecure social scientist to construct a theory that explains human relations without considering humans, then this is a good place to start. (Buy this only if your professor insists that you have to - actually, borrow it from the library.) If you want to learn about international relations look elsewhere (Geoffrey Stern's Structure of International Society, Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen's Introduction to International Relations, J. Baylis and Steve Smith's Globalization of World Politics, Michael W. Doyle's Way of War and Peace.) If you want a sopoforic book with gassy, turgid prose, then, by all means, buy Waltz's horrid volume. This book is an example of the poor work of social scientists with historical naivety who misunderstand international relations.

Substituting inadequate models - that claim to be the only valid "scientific" analysis of international relations - for critical, careful, thoughtful observation and thinking is of no help to anyone seeking to better understand our complex world.

SHUN Waltz's "perfect" answer to an imperfect world and save your money.

Rating:
Summary: A Narrow View of Politics
Review: Theory of International Politics is truly a five-star book when it comes to academic impact; I give it four stars only because the writing can be obtuse. Nonetheless, and despite criticism from other Amazon reviewers, Waltz's book lays the foundation of the theoretical paradigm that is dominant among international relations scholars. Anyone wishing to understand the current academic debates among international relations scholars should read at least excerpts of Theory of International Politics.

The reason Waltz's book carries such weight, despite flaws, is that Waltz lays out a simple, theoretically "testable" version of a much broader and older theory (Political Realism). Political Realism, as perhaps best laid out by (the German-turned-American) scholar Hans Morganthau, views nations as the unitary actors in international affairs (in much the same way as Marx viewed economic classes as unitary actors in the political sphere): states have "interests" that they will act on, regardless of the interests, ideologies, cultures, religions, etc. of individual state leaders or even of the individuals who make up a state. This interest is "power," understood as control over one's own destiny and (perhaps incidentally) the destiny of others. It is a very broad idea has a certain gut appeal. After all, the Athenians of Thucydides were Realists when they replied to the Melians' "international law" arguments by saying, "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must."

Despite this appeal, Morganthau's argument has serious theoretical and historical problems. First, power is so broadly defined that the theory is "untestable." Was Hitler power-hungry? Yes, but that's not Morganthau's argument: Germany would have sought to aggrandize its "power" even if it had been led by Gandhi. Second, the idea, while perhaps empirically appealing, is largely assumed: why power? why not wealth? Perhaps countries do not seek power, but the wealth that power brings?

Waltz's "Neorealism" inserts "national security" where Morganthau had "power," and, while this may sound equally broad and vague, it actually is a more theoretically robust (if factually more problematic) concept. Whereas Morganthau had "black-box" (i.e., functionally identical) states pursuing power for reasons of "human nature," Waltz has black-box states pursuing national security for essentially Darwinian reasons. Leaders of states will invariably pursue policies that enhance their nations' security, or else they will be forced out of office (through votes, assassination, etc.) If the state-as-the-collective fails to do this, it risks annihilation (at worst) or subjugation (in one form or another). (Against the criticism by some like Paul Krugman that countries "do not go out of business," I would ask him to first check the opinions of the leaders of the Republic of South Vietnam or pre-WWII France).

Of course, pursuing national security can take many forms--it may mean forming alliances with erstwhile enemies (the U.S. with the Soviet Union in 1941, or China with the U.S. in the 1970s), or it may even mean sucking up (in one form or another) to the biggest potential threat (Finland to Russia during the Cold War, or perhaps Canada to the U.S. today). Consequently, alliances will be fragile and can be disgarded on a moment's notice, regardless of culture, ideology, etc. International trade can also be problematic, because even a "win-win" situation may be a loser if your trading partner/potential adversary wins more than you do and can convert the economic benefits into political or military power.

Neorealism may sound simplistic, but the theory, understood in broad terms, has proven remarkably powerful and, I would argue, is the closest thing political science has to an international relations theory that can actually be predictive. A Realist/Neorealist such as Henry Kissinger could predict that China, despite Communism, would part ways with the USSR and ally with the United States. A Neorealist such as Jim Baker might predict that an Arab-U.S.-Israeli coalition would hold together against Iraq, despite an eternal dream of pan-Arab unity. Looking forward, it predicts that the political differences between the United States and China will grow, and that Europe will continue to use trade as a weapon to undermine America's influence in the rest of the world and, regardless of whoever comes to power, Russia will not return to an adversarial relationship with the United States, but may, in fact, seek it as an ally against China and the EU.

Of course, there have been uncounted objections to Waltz and Neorealism. Yet Waltz's Theory of International Politics stands as an important work because the other powerful theories--Neoliberalism, Institutional Theory, et al.--all begin as an attempt to plug the theoretical gaps allegedly found in Waltz. A book and an idea that all feel compelled to address should not be dismissed so readily.

Rating:
Summary: The worst book on IR theory, except for all the others
Review: Theory of International Politics is truly a five-star book when it comes to academic impact; I give it four stars only because the writing can be obtuse. Nonetheless, and despite criticism from other Amazon reviewers, Waltz's book lays the foundation of the theoretical paradigm that is dominant among international relations scholars. Anyone wishing to understand the current academic debates among international relations scholars should read at least excerpts of Theory of International Politics.

The reason Waltz's book carries such weight, despite flaws, is that Waltz lays out a simple, theoretically "testable" version of a much broader and older theory (Political Realism). Political Realism, as perhaps best laid out by (the German-turned-American) scholar Hans Morganthau, views nations as the unitary actors in international affairs (in much the same way as Marx viewed economic classes as unitary actors in the political sphere): states have "interests" that they will act on, regardless of the interests, ideologies, cultures, religions, etc. of individual state leaders or even of the individuals who make up a state. This interest is "power," understood as control over one's own destiny and (perhaps incidentally) the destiny of others. It is a very broad idea has a certain gut appeal. After all, the Athenians of Thucydides were Realists when they replied to the Melians' "international law" arguments by saying, "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must."

Despite this appeal, Morganthau's argument has serious theoretical and historical problems. First, power is so broadly defined that the theory is "untestable." Was Hitler power-hungry? Yes, but that's not Morganthau's argument: Germany would have sought to aggrandize its "power" even if it had been led by Gandhi. Second, the idea, while perhaps empirically appealing, is largely assumed: why power? why not wealth? Perhaps countries do not seek power, but the wealth that power brings?

Waltz's "Neorealism" inserts "national security" where Morganthau had "power," and, while this may sound equally broad and vague, it actually is a more theoretically robust (if factually more problematic) concept. Whereas Morganthau had "black-box" (i.e., functionally identical) states pursuing power for reasons of "human nature," Waltz has black-box states pursuing national security for essentially Darwinian reasons. Leaders of states will invariably pursue policies that enhance their nations' security, or else they will be forced out of office (through votes, assassination, etc.) If the state-as-the-collective fails to do this, it risks annihilation (at worst) or subjugation (in one form or another). (Against the criticism by some like Paul Krugman that countries "do not go out of business," I would ask him to first check the opinions of the leaders of the Republic of South Vietnam or pre-WWII France).

Of course, pursuing national security can take many forms--it may mean forming alliances with erstwhile enemies (the U.S. with the Soviet Union in 1941, or China with the U.S. in the 1970s), or it may even mean sucking up (in one form or another) to the biggest potential threat (Finland to Russia during the Cold War, or perhaps Canada to the U.S. today). Consequently, alliances will be fragile and can be disgarded on a moment's notice, regardless of culture, ideology, etc. International trade can also be problematic, because even a "win-win" situation may be a loser if your trading partner/potential adversary wins more than you do and can convert the economic benefits into political or military power.

Neorealism may sound simplistic, but the theory, understood in broad terms, has proven remarkably powerful and, I would argue, is the closest thing political science has to an international relations theory that can actually be predictive. A Realist/Neorealist such as Henry Kissinger could predict that China, despite Communism, would part ways with the USSR and ally with the United States. A Neorealist such as Jim Baker might predict that an Arab-U.S.-Israeli coalition would hold together against Iraq, despite an eternal dream of pan-Arab unity. Looking forward, it predicts that the political differences between the United States and China will grow, and that Europe will continue to use trade as a weapon to undermine America's influence in the rest of the world and, regardless of whoever comes to power, Russia will not return to an adversarial relationship with the United States, but may, in fact, seek it as an ally against China and the EU.

Of course, there have been uncounted objections to Waltz and Neorealism. Yet Waltz's Theory of International Politics stands as an important work because the other powerful theories--Neoliberalism, Institutional Theory, et al.--all begin as an attempt to plug the theoretical gaps allegedly found in Waltz. A book and an idea that all feel compelled to address should not be dismissed so readily.

Rating:
Summary: Structuralism pretending to be both scientific and systemic.
Review: This book is important, but it's not nearly all it's cracked up to be. First, it's very poorly written... At times, the sentence structure actually requires grammar diagramming to understand. Next, it pretends to be scientific, but doesn't actually follow through with it. Waltz criticizes Kaplan without telling us why, except to say Kaplan’s writings were undeveloped and lacking rigor. Huh? Comparing Kaplan to Waltz I'd have to give the Scientific Rigorousness Prize to Kaplan, hands down. Waltz also claims Rosecrances' theories are simply reductionism in the guise of systems theory. However, Waltz points out that neither cybernetic systems theory nor general systems theory will work for international politics. Then on the next page he says systems theory is still the only option. What Waltz actually claims is the savior of IP is sociology's Structuralism Theory, which he repeatedly and erroneously calls “systems theory”. Thus, Waltz is doing the same kind of thing he criticizes Rosecrances for. Why do people let him get away with knocking Kaplan, but pretending that structuralism is scientific systems theory? Because Waltz does something highly original for the field: he spends the first two chapters waxing intellectual about the virtues of the scientific method. This technique then fools the reader into thinking Waltz is actually applying this methodology, though all he does is use historical case studies and a few ex post facto statistics to support his views. Now I can't be too harsh, because this did inspire others, including Kaplan, to be even more rigorous and scientific, which is a good thing. Waltz also does have some very interesting points. For example, he thinks both dependency AND interdependency produce instability, and that only through self-sufficiency and some level of independence can a nation be free of instability's manipulating effects. He also correctly predicted the nostalgia that would be felt for good old bipolarism if the Cold War ever ended. Boy, was he right on that one.

Rating:
Summary: What part of "THEORY" did you not get?
Review: This is the book that sucked me into IR; it was a transformative addition to my toolkit for understanding the world. Theory is a tool, not an explanation.

I suspect the readers that reject Waltz's treatment of human nature were never in a schoolyard fight. Anything that can explain coalition behavior on a playing field AND be usefully applied to understanding the '91 Gulf War is a mighty fine tool (ooooh, theory of utility!!).

I have to laugh about the complaints of denseness and unreadability - you would have hated Waltz's lectures. Isn't that always the complaint of people that didn't finish the reading??

Rating:
Summary: The most influential book ever written on International Poli
Review: This is the groundbreaking book that defined the Neorealist concept of International Relations.Some of the propositions set forth by Waltz are indisuputable: The results of anarchy on state behavior and how it limits interstate competition; How the system forces states to behave in certain ways, making the unit-level factors much less important. Also included is why security considerations always outweigh economic ones, and the benefits of internal balancing versus external balancing. Some of his precepts are more subject to critisicm: The benefits of bipolarity of multipolarity. N Nonetheless, this is the book that made the field of IR a real social science rather than a history-like humanities study. Any real student of International Relations needs to start here to understand both the academic discipline, and the real world of interstate relation.

Eric Gartman

Rating:
Summary: Can Waltz Adequately Explain Alliance Formation?
Review: To illuminate the puzzle of why states form alliances with other states, if they (according to his theory) are necessarily "selfish", Waltz first makes the necessary distinction between domestic and international politics. This distinction is necessary so that Waltz can show us how alliance formation follows a fundamentally different logic in an anarchic system than it does in a system with some form of central authority (hierarchy) like the state, because the state monopolizes legitimate violence, so that a domestic system is not self-help - one can appeal to the state for defense. While it is debatable that all or even the majority of states have enjoyed a true monopoly on legitimate violence throughout history, we must grant Waltz this axiom if the remainder of his arguments are to hold.

Waltz then takes the domestic/international comparison into the realm of economics and interdependence, arguing that within the state, actors are "free to specialize because they have no reason to fear the increased interdependence that goes with specialization" (104). Because the state guarantees security, all can be most concerned with their own (absolute) gains. However, in a self-help system, worries about survival in anarchy make units more concerned with relative gains. States do not want to be dependent on other states, which hinders the benefits of specialization. Interdependence, instead of enriching all, becomes a threat to survival, because it creates vulnerability. This is a result of the structure of the anarchic system, despite the best intentions of those who want cooperation. "Structures cause actions to have consequences they were not intended to have" (107). Thus, the only thing that can change these effects is structural change.

Against those who would argue that the international system is not a pure anarchy because we see alliances, Waltz would argue that they confuse structure with process. He does admit that states sometimes cooperate, obviously, but "only in ways strongly conditioned by the anarchy of the larger system" (116). The primary way of doing this, captured by balance-of-power theory, is "moves to strengthen and enlarge one's own alliance or to weaken and shrink an opposing one" (118). Interestingly, Waltz claims that his theory does not require rationality on the part of the actors - they simply emulate more successful rivals, or else they perish. Thus, "balances of power tend to form whether some or all states consciously aim to establish and maintain a balance" (119).

Why should we expect to see alliances balancing one another, as opposed to bandwagoning onto a winning alliance? Again, the structural logic does the explanatory work. Because the international system is self-help, "balancing is sensible behavior where the victory of one coalition over another leaves weaker members of the winning coalition at the mercy of the stronger ones" (126). In other words, nobody wants anybody except themselves to "win", and so states gang up against a likely winner, meaning that the structure induces security (not power per se) as the primary concern. Waltz even characterizes this induction as a kind of sociological process, positing that the "socialization" of nonconformist states (he gives the Soviets as an example) is inevitable, given that isolationism is not an option: "one party may need the assistance of others. Refusal to play the political game may risk one's own destruction" (128).

For Waltz, then, the only important changes are structural ones. Since anarchy will not disappear, the only structural changes that can happen is changes in the distribution of state capabilities. Given that Waltz has solved the puzzle of alliances and balancing by showing how they are structurally necessary if states hope to survive, he then goes on to link changes in the distribution of state power with the question of the likely configuration(s) of alliances that will arise from these changes. In order to do so, he first establishes how to measure power and "polarity" (number of alliances/powers in the system). After rather sarcastically rebutting critics who think the world is not bipolar, and arguing that his theory boils down to "common sense", Waltz predictably defines power as the total and combined distribution of material capabilities across states, meaning that only the U.S. and the Soviet Union qualify. For Waltz, this bipolarity is a normatively good thing, because his argument touts its peace-enhancing characteristics. Since interdependence is dangerous, and since interdependence decreases as the number of powers decreases, security is enhanced, and uncertainty is reduced. Waltz even goes so far as to claim: "now governments are more involved in their national economies than they are internationally. This is fortunate" (159).

The key point to highlight here, for Waltz's theory of alliances, is that alliances are formed and balanced in response to structural conditions. Preferences, costs and benefits to individual states do not matter, because the structural properties of unitary states, anarchy, and the distribution of power determine the configuration that assures outcomes. If the distribution of power happens to be in a certain configuration, meaning that states only make gains or losses relative to that overall distribution, then the likely resulting alliance pattern is pre-ordained. Any "deviant" path taken by any state will result in certain defeat for that state, and thus states will avoid taking this path in the first place.

Of course, rationalist or strategic choice theorists would say that Waltz neglects the role of calculation and doesn't provide microfoundations, while constructivists would proclaim that Waltz ignores the role of identity. However, by ignoring these (probably important) factors, Waltz reaps a large payoff in terms of parsimony and explanatory leverage.

Rating:
Summary: Can Waltz Adequately Explain Alliance Formation?
Review: To illuminate the puzzle of why states form alliances with other states, if they (according to his theory) are necessarily "selfish", Waltz first makes the necessary distinction between domestic and international politics. This distinction is necessary so that Waltz can show us how alliance formation follows a fundamentally different logic in an anarchic system than it does in a system with some form of central authority (hierarchy) like the state, because the state monopolizes legitimate violence, so that a domestic system is not self-help - one can appeal to the state for defense. While it is debatable that all or even the majority of states have enjoyed a true monopoly on legitimate violence throughout history, we must grant Waltz this axiom if the remainder of his arguments are to hold.

Waltz then takes the domestic/international comparison into the realm of economics and interdependence, arguing that within the state, actors are "free to specialize because they have no reason to fear the increased interdependence that goes with specialization" (104). Because the state guarantees security, all can be most concerned with their own (absolute) gains. However, in a self-help system, worries about survival in anarchy make units more concerned with relative gains. States do not want to be dependent on other states, which hinders the benefits of specialization. Interdependence, instead of enriching all, becomes a threat to survival, because it creates vulnerability. This is a result of the structure of the anarchic system, despite the best intentions of those who want cooperation. "Structures cause actions to have consequences they were not intended to have" (107). Thus, the only thing that can change these effects is structural change.

Against those who would argue that the international system is not a pure anarchy because we see alliances, Waltz would argue that they confuse structure with process. He does admit that states sometimes cooperate, obviously, but "only in ways strongly conditioned by the anarchy of the larger system" (116). The primary way of doing this, captured by balance-of-power theory, is "moves to strengthen and enlarge one's own alliance or to weaken and shrink an opposing one" (118). Interestingly, Waltz claims that his theory does not require rationality on the part of the actors - they simply emulate more successful rivals, or else they perish. Thus, "balances of power tend to form whether some or all states consciously aim to establish and maintain a balance" (119).

Why should we expect to see alliances balancing one another, as opposed to bandwagoning onto a winning alliance? Again, the structural logic does the explanatory work. Because the international system is self-help, "balancing is sensible behavior where the victory of one coalition over another leaves weaker members of the winning coalition at the mercy of the stronger ones" (126). In other words, nobody wants anybody except themselves to "win", and so states gang up against a likely winner, meaning that the structure induces security (not power per se) as the primary concern. Waltz even characterizes this induction as a kind of sociological process, positing that the "socialization" of nonconformist states (he gives the Soviets as an example) is inevitable, given that isolationism is not an option: "one party may need the assistance of others. Refusal to play the political game may risk one's own destruction" (128).

For Waltz, then, the only important changes are structural ones. Since anarchy will not disappear, the only structural changes that can happen is changes in the distribution of state capabilities. Given that Waltz has solved the puzzle of alliances and balancing by showing how they are structurally necessary if states hope to survive, he then goes on to link changes in the distribution of state power with the question of the likely configuration(s) of alliances that will arise from these changes. In order to do so, he first establishes how to measure power and "polarity" (number of alliances/powers in the system). After rather sarcastically rebutting critics who think the world is not bipolar, and arguing that his theory boils down to "common sense", Waltz predictably defines power as the total and combined distribution of material capabilities across states, meaning that only the U.S. and the Soviet Union qualify. For Waltz, this bipolarity is a normatively good thing, because his argument touts its peace-enhancing characteristics. Since interdependence is dangerous, and since interdependence decreases as the number of powers decreases, security is enhanced, and uncertainty is reduced. Waltz even goes so far as to claim: "now governments are more involved in their national economies than they are internationally. This is fortunate" (159).

The key point to highlight here, for Waltz's theory of alliances, is that alliances are formed and balanced in response to structural conditions. Preferences, costs and benefits to individual states do not matter, because the structural properties of unitary states, anarchy, and the distribution of power determine the configuration that assures outcomes. If the distribution of power happens to be in a certain configuration, meaning that states only make gains or losses relative to that overall distribution, then the likely resulting alliance pattern is pre-ordained. Any "deviant" path taken by any state will result in certain defeat for that state, and thus states will avoid taking this path in the first place.

Of course, rationalist or strategic choice theorists would say that Waltz neglects the role of calculation and doesn't provide microfoundations, while constructivists would proclaim that Waltz ignores the role of identity. However, by ignoring these (probably important) factors, Waltz reaps a large payoff in terms of parsimony and explanatory leverage.

Rating:
Summary: waltz me to sleep
Review: Waltz's bourbon-esque treatise is an exploration in alchoholist-influenced social science dementia. Chapter One is a theoretical bow-tie, an analytical pseurosis of the liver. Chapter two stumbles forward like a hurling wino, assumptions swinging wildly like fists through the air. The remaining chapters are a blur. The next morning, you'll have a headache