Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keohane (1941-)
Stanford University
1. Economic processes;
Issue structure
o Has a similar form of argument about regime
change: the strong states (in an issue area) will
make the rules. A basic assumption of the issue
structure model, however, may be tempted to
draw linkages among issues, such linkages will be
generally unsuccessful. Main premise: Power
resources in one issue area lose some or all of
their effectiveness when applied to others.
An International Organization Model
Distributionof capabilities (overall or within
issue areas) among the major actors of world
politics.
Refer to multilevel linkages, norms, and
institutions between governments. In this sense,
international organization is another type of
world political structure.
This model assumes that a set of networks,
norms, and institutions, once established, will be
difficult either to eradicate or drastically to
rearrange.
In this chapter, the authors provide historical
overview of the oceans and money issue
areas. They claimed that the Pax Britannica
of the 19th century (1815-1915) is sometimes
seen as the golden age of international
order. International economic
interdependence was governed by regimes
that were largely established and enforce by
the Great Britain.
This chapter provides an investigation on the
extent to which political processes in each issue
area correspond to the ideal type of complex
interdependence, and whether such an
approximation has changed over time. In the
first half of the chapter, the theorists discussed
how well oceans and monetary politics have
conformed to the three conditions of complex
interdependence. In the second half, they asked
how well their expectations about the politics of
complex interdependence fit patterns of
behaviour in oceans and monetary politics.
In this chapter, Keohane and Nye provided an
analysis on how the politics of rule-making in
issue areas (money and oceans) affected by
regime change by using the four explanatory
models presented in Chapter 3.
In this chapter, the authors depart from
using global economic issues to prove the
reality of interdependence. Instead, they
used a different direction by comparing the
relationships between countries. In this case,
they chose Canadian-American relations and
Australian-American relations. Both countries
have been the America’s staunchest allies
since the end of second world war.
The theorists’ analysis pointed out two major
policy problems: international leadership and
organization.
Their analysis implies that more attention should
be paid to the effect of government policies on
international regimes.
Concern with maintenance and development of
international regimes leads us to pay more
attention to problems of leadership in world
politics.
Focus on contemporary world leadership
stimulates increased attention to problems of
international organization.
TRENDS TOWARD COMPLEX
INTERDEPENDENCE
So long as complex interdependence does not
encompass all issue areas and relationships
among all major states, the remaining role of
military force will require sovereign states to
maintain military capabilities.
So long as the world is characterized by
enormous inequality of incomes among states
– a condition that cannot be change quickly
even on the optimistic assumptions about
economic growth – citizens are likely to resist
dismantling of national sovereignty.
LEADERSHIP IN COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE
In common parlance, leadership can mean:
(1) to direct or command; (2) to go first and
(3) to induce.
Three types of international leadership:
Hegemonic leadership – powerful enough to
maintain the essential rules governing interstate
relation, and is willing to do so.
Unilateral initiative – going first and setting an
example.
Multiple leadership - is based on action to
induce other states to help stabilize an
international regime.
CONCLUSION
An appropriate foreign policy for the most
powerful state must rest on a clear analysis
of changing world politics.
The theorists made it clear that their
argument is not that the traditional view of
world politics is wrong.
Careful analysis is essential for coping
appropriately with the turbulent world of our
time.