Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Information,
Communication &
Society
Publication details, including
instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/
rics20
INFORMATION
INTERDEPENDENCE:
Keohane and
Nye's complex
interdependence in
the information age
Kenneth S. Rogerson
Published online: 02 Dec 2010.
INFORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
Keohane and Nye s complex interdependence
in the information age
Kenneth S. Rogerson
Duke University, Durham, USA
Abstract
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
Keywords
important to know who controls it and what implications might that knowledge
have? Each entity certainly had, at minimum, an in uence on the ow of infor-
mation in an increasingly interdependent world.
Interdependence is a term used more and more to describe global inter-
actions. It means, in a very general sense, that events and situations in one area
depend on, or are influenced by, those in another and, most importantly,
this relationship can be reciprocal. In addition, there is the understanding that
groups increasingly need each other, for various reasons, in order to function and
exist. Interdependence is a characteristic of information and communication
flows and processes. But, these concepts have not been fully analysed in the
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
WHAT IS INTERDEPENDENCE?
goods and services which cannot easily be produced, the more interdependent a
group is considered. As an example, economic theory is replete with discussions
of trade balances and imbalances which contribute to an interdependent world.
Bilateral trade relations between the USA and Japan are often studied because
the economic performance of the United States and Japan and harmonious
economic relations [what the authors refer to as interdependence] between them
are of global signi cance (Noguchi and Yamamura 1996: 4).
In both an economic and political sense, interdependence has advantages and
disadvantages. One of the principal advantages is that groups find they have
something to gain (often monetarily) through an interdependent relationship.
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
There are numerous concepts that have been used in conjunction with
explanations of the information age. What do we gain from focusing on inter-
dependence as opposed to these? These alternative ideas have elements of both
interdependence and information ows, and provide some understanding of how
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
However, those who have written about regimes have grappled with many of
these issues. Krasner (1983:2) posits explicit and implicit regimes; that is, regimes
that are openly understood through formal, often institutionalized, processes
as opposed to regimes that may be underlying broader contexts (a theme that
will be addressed hereafter). In addition, there may be regimes in subcategories
of information, such as telecommunications trade or satellite usage. For example,
there may be a regime in discussions surrounding the allocation of satellite
space, but these rules do not apply in negotiations on internet access or biased
media coverage. Events and situations that take place because of interdependent
relations may be subject to regimes, but interdependence is not a synonym
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
for regimes.
Interdependence is also a characteristic of integration, the idea that increasing
interactions lead toward uni cation of goals, institutions and possibly even states.
It is seen in the international standardization of technical capabilities, such as
the VCR. But interdependence is a necessary but hardly a suf cient condition
for efforts and increased economic and political uni cation. . . . [I]ntegration of
societies entails a degree of common governance which goes far beyond that
which is implied by interdependence (Jones and Willets 1984: 20). Much of the
discussion of economic interdependence is found in the literature on integration,
specically European integration. Information integration is happening slowly. For
example, the European Union (EU) has pursued Television Without Frontiers
which encourages transborder broadcasts throughout the Union. But integration
does not address the dominance of one television market (American) over another
(European).
Finally, globalization has become a general term signifying an overwhelming,
unifying force which tends to decrease the importance of political and cultural
boundaries. This concept comes the closest to interdependence, but its broad
nature has only begun to be concretized. One explanation for its popularity is the
increasing significance of the external context for issues that were formerly
deemed to be national in character or amenable to local resolution (Jones 1995:
11). As one example, the effects of information ows on globalization have been
touted in statements about The Global Village, a place in which more commu-
nication provides increased numbers of global interactions as well as increasingly
homogenized world citizens. This idea that the international arena will increase
in importance at all levels from the global to the individual takes into account the
linkages between different actors, but it does not explain the nature of these
relationships. Interdependence, once again, can be a necessary condition for
globalization, but not a suf cient one. Yet, it does provide the important concepts
for understanding the nature of global interactions.
420
IN FORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
In brief, complex interdependence states that power does not lie only in the
traditional areas of study in international relations the state and military strength
but in other conceptual frameworks and issue areas. The de ning characteristics
of complex interdependence are: (1) a multiple number of actors, placing an
emphasis on non-state actors (a discussion of the relationships in the system [the
uneven characteristic] will be elaborated on below); (2) multiple channels through
which these actors interact in the system (a context in which the relationships take
place); (3) a changing hierarchy of issues (an explanation of the goals of the actors);
and (4) a decrease in the use of military force in interactions (a broadening of the
environment in which decisions are made) (Keohane and Nye 1989: 245).
In addition, complex interdependence provides other fertile concepts:
sensitivity, the degree of responsiveness within a policy framework how quickly
do changes in one country bring costly changes in another and vulnerability ,
the relative availability and costliness of the alternatives that various actors
421
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
Sensitive Insensitive
422
IN FORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
hegemony.
Thus, Keohane and Nye provide the basis for examining interdependence as
an ideal type, a true theoretical example of how international relations function.
In other words, pure dependence, pure mutual dependence, or pure imperialism
or hegemony are, less and less, complete explanations of the reality of relation-
ships in the international system. Interdependence could be filling that void.
Other concepts from complex interdependence support this assertion.
Sometimes, interdependent relationships are assumed to benefit every
participant interdependence is something good and positive. This is known
as symmetrical interdependence. This positive relationship does not reflect
reality. Jones notes that most signi cant instances of manifest interdependence
are asymmetrical and imbalanced (Jones and Willetts 1984: 14). Indeed, it is
possible for [a] . . . relationship to involve a relatively trivial sensitivity depen-
dence in one direction, but a critical dependence, of high vulnerability, in the
other (Jones 1995: 8).
Another important concept, then, is asymmetry. For Keohane and Nye (1989:
1618) and others, the international system would not function in complete
symmetry, that is, each group giving and receiving equally:
423
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
computer operating system, the user feels forced to return to the same company
for an upgrade, complementary software or hardware or to the learn and utilize
the English language.
The next step, then, is the question of relevance. Why would being in
a situation of asymmetric interdependence be important to a particular actor?
What is gained from having an upper hand in international interactions? The
asymmetry and imbalance characterising . . . pattern[s] of interdependence may
have very serious implications for the relationship. Asymmetry and imbalance
could be particularly pertinent to the potential for relative power and inuence
between the participants (Jones 1995: 8). In other words, it provides an
advantage in encouraging and persuading others to act according to a countrys
desires. This is a generally accepted de nition of power. Philosophers and scholars
have struggled to de ne power, often resorting to what can be seen and measured
such as military strength as with the number of tanks or troops, or economic
strength as with the size of a GNP. But, by de nition, groups in an interdependent
world may become relevant in many different issues areas, though these areas
may be prioritized according to situation and environment. Power, then, must also
be de nable as more than just tanks and dollars.
The answer lies in the encouraging and persuading elements of the de nition
of power: Proof of power lies not in resources but in the ability to change the
behavior of states. Thus, the critical questions for the United States [for example]
is not whether it will start the next century as the superpower with the largest
supply of resources, but to what extent it will be able to control the political
environment and get other countries to do what it wants (Nye 1990a: 155). Nye
describes the use of what he terms soft power, or intangible forms of power,
such as the control of and access to information and communications, organizing
and institutional skills (especially the use of international institutions) and the
ability to manipulate interdependent relationships. It is because of the potential
of this soft power that issues other than military strength are becoming more
424
IN FORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
most importantly, the reverse is also true. When information of any type ows
beyond political or geographic borders, there is an impact. The same is true
of the technologies associated with information flows. Vernon believes that
all types of interdependence are intimately linked to improvements in . . .
communication (1987: 28). Interdependent actions based in information and
communications ows and technology are re ective of the concepts of sensitivity
and vulnerability that Keohane and Nye discussed. Information flows affect
sensitivity, or how responsive an actor can be within a policy framework, as well
as vulnerability, the availability and costliness of policy alternatives.
One reason for this connection between information and interdependence is
the interdependent nature of information itself. Communications scholar Joseph
Klapper (1990: 12) summarized this interconnecting nature of information.
He proposed that: (1) mass communication does not usually serve as a necessary
and suf cient cause of something, but rather functions with other factors and
in uences; (2) these other factors and in uences use mass communication in the
process of change; (3) on the occasions that mass communication is used in the
service of change, one of two conditions are likely to occur: (a) the other factors
and in uences are likely to be inoperative and the media effect will be direct or
(b) the other factors and inuences, which normally reinforce the status quo, will
be found to favour change; (4) there are always situations in which mass commu-
nication will produce direct effects or serve psycho-physical functions. That is,
there are some things which mass communication can do that other factors cannot
do, such as the continued presence of printed material in an individuals home;
and (5) the effects of mass communication on change are affected by the nature
of the media and communications themselves (i.e. aspects of textual organization,
the source and medium, public opinion).
The important idea running through these generalizations is that commu-
nications systems rarely serve as a single force in politics, economics and society.
The connective nature of communications processes has an essential characteristic
which is applicable to this analysis: the flow of information and the existence
425
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
Yet, there is a paradox in the expansion of information and communications processes. The
integrating versions of information ows also have a fragmenting effect. One the one hand,
current technological innovations are creating a global infrastructure much more sophisticated
in scope and technical quality than previously imagined . . . On the other hand, however,
technological innovation has also functioned to fracture or fragment the mass audience. The
advent of diverse, individualized telecommunications and media systems . . . threaten to render
the concept of mass national or international systems obsolete.
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
Both the fragmentive and integrative forces may be at work at the same time and
quite possibly from the same sources. Rosenau (1997) has called this a fragmegra-
tive approach to understanding global governance, a label referring to the
simultaneous fragmentation and integration of a panoply of global developments
(Comor 1998: 217). Interdependence itself can also manifest fragmegrative
characteristics as increasing international relationships bring nations and peoples
together. But, the same interactions can also increase con ict. The management
of this characteristic may be the key to maintaining leadership in an information
interdependent world.
The connective nature of information and communication may be adapting to
a more interdependent world as the importance of these issues increases both
nationally and internationally. Klapper noticed this when he said, it is:
Very clear that the mass media [as a form of information ows] do have important consequences
for individuals, for institutions and for society and culture. That we cannot trace very precise
causal connection or make reliable predictions about the future does not nullify this conclusion
. . . All that remains is to discover not whether the media have power and how it works, but who
has access to the use of this power.
(Klapper 1989: 33, original emphasis)
and regional organizations, ethnic groups, states, the media, and age and gender
groups. More than at any other time in history, groups are utilizing information
channels to be heard. Revolutionary groups, like the indigenous peoples rebellion
in the Mexican state of Chiapas, as well as the Irish Republican Army and Hamas
have taken their struggles to the Internet . . . as a cheap and effective way to
promote their cause and disseminate information, usually without the interfer-
ence of state censorship (Vincent 1996: 9). With the appropriate technology,
individuals may spread their ideas via personal web pages and local cable television
stations. Radio and television talk shows have proliferated. According to Heath
(1998), during the early 1980s, only fty-three US radio stations had news/talk
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
formats, compared with more than 1,000 in the late 1990s, while the total
number of stations remained constant at 10,000. The number of television talk
shows ballooned from a few in 1986, to fteen in the 198990 season, to nineteen
during the 199697 season, in addition to the proliferation of talk shows on cable.
When asked what is fuelling the popularity of talk media, Michael Harrison,
editor of Talkers Magazine, which covers the talk-media industry, said: It all serves
the simple need for connections with other people . . . People dont know their
neighbors anymore, and they wouldnt have time to talk over the backyard fence
even if they did. But theres still a human need for community, so its a virtual,
electronic, global media community (Heath 1998: 48). The growth of talk radio
is not only an American phenomenon: Talk radio is an international growth
industry. A . . . listener who spins her dial along the medium-wave frequencies
might get a crash course in European languages, as stations from Germany and
Spain, in particular, seep into [Irish] airspace (Is Talk Radio Something You Have
to Grow Into? 1998: 8).
The number of actors ties in strongly to a second characteristic of complex
interdependence: the multiple channels through which these actors interact in the
system. The sheer number methods for communication have grown almost
exponentially over the past decade. From cable and satellite communications to
electronic information ows of a number of varieties, increased information ow
has created a world in which traditional geo-political borders no longer describe
the communities and societies that exist. For example, organizations such as
CNN International have created a number of venues for voices not before
heard via the electronic airways, encouraging local, indigenous coverage of issues.
CNN Internationals coverage reaches homes in more than 210 countries
and territories worldwide, including the United States. In fact, today CNNI has
100 million subscribers even more subscribers than CNN has in the United
States (CNN International 2000). In addition, the advent of the internet has
provided an explosion in the avenues available for communication.4 E-mail and
427
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
the posting of web pages are the two most visible examples of methods for inter-
actions between groups. In the future, complex interdependence could provide
a solid theoretical grounding for the study of international interactions over the
internet.
Third, there is a changing hierarchy of issues. In some situations, economic
questions might prevail, while in others military or environmental needs might
be more pressing. As stated above, information ows play a role in probably most,
if not all, of these issues. Complex interdependence could help in analysing this
relationship. One way to do it would be to identify various issues that arise in
international interactions and juxtapose them with some general characteristics
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
429
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
bene cial than harmful for the dissemination of US ideas and culture. This has
placed the USA at least in a position of leadership and, some would argue, in a
position of dominance on the spectrum of interdependence (see gure 1).
Yet, the USA is not perfectly hegemonic or imperialistic in this area. It is not
so completely integrated into an interdependent world that it must react to every
action by another actor. It can be sensitive, even if slightly, to events and situations
going on in other parts of the world. Witness, for example, the uctuation of US
stock markets in reaction to markets throughout the world as seen in the Asian
nancial crisis which began in the fall of 1997. It is not as vulnerable as other
countries since, in many cases, it seems to have a choice among policy options and
can choose according to the situation, sometimes with near impunity.
There are many situations that emphasize the importance of information
interdependence to the USA today. In both information content and its accom-
panying technologies, the USA is interdependent. In many ways, it is forced to
be interdependent because of the nature of information to disregard traditional,
political boundaries. In order to function, it relies on information ows from
around the world, be they nancial, military or the news. Yet, the asymmetrical
nature of this interdependence is also clear, because the USA is dominant in the
production of both information content and the technology. One could add
an additional descriptive term: interdependence in this case is highly skewed in
favour of the USA because of the noticeably large differences in both the
production of information technology and the distribution of information of US
origin between the USA and other compatriots or competitors.
For example, the USA has the highest volume of data communication, the
most network access and service providers, the most Internet hosts, and the
highest total number of Internet connections in the world (Electronic Commerce
1997: 71). In addition, for now, the world seems to be more interested in what
the USA (or US business) does than what any other country (or company) does.
The USA has had great control over international information and communi-
cations; both the physical capabilities (hardware) and the content and its structures
430
IN FORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
prosperity and may be the key to our continuing strength (Fascell 1985: 3).
This asymmetric information interdependence has placed the USA in a unique
position. It is dominant both in the production of information and communi-
cations content and its accompanying technologies. This condition can be
understood as a type of hegemony: information hegemony.5 Since this condition
of hegemony is imperfect, the USA cannot always dictate its desires in every
situation, because of the nature of information itself as well as the nature of the
interdependent world in which the USA participates. Yet, it has been able to
dictate its desires quite often over its history of participation in information and
communications issues.
CONCLUSION
ows of different types of information vary vastly (1998: 84). This observation
dovetails well with the research from the eld of communications: information
ows should be understood as underlying mechanisms and processes that facilitate
contextual understanding of issues. It maintains the integrity of the multiple-
actor and multiple-channel assumptions, while adding an understanding of the
nature of information and information ows.
Finally, one important caveat must be mentioned. Keohane and Nye (1998)
rightly point out that globalization is far from universal and that a large portion
of the worlds population will not participate in many aspects of the information
revolution. Yet, the impact of information interdependence will still be felt. Many
who do not participate in the information revolution are still subject to the effects
of decisions made by those who do.
Complex interdependence has informed much of the authors work. It began
as a collaborative effort in 1968 with a special issue of the journal International
Organization, devoted to the relevance of international organizations in world
politics, which was later reprinted as Transnational Relations and World Politics
(1972). The authors continued to develop their ideas because they felt that though
they had pointed out signi cant problems with realist theory, . . . [they] had not
provided an alternative theory (Keohane and Nye 1989: v). The result was Power
and Interdependence and it elicited much attention (Keohane and Nye 1977). The
responses to complex interdependence, both positive and negative, led to a second
printing with some additional material (Keohane and Nye 1989). At the same
time each separately worked on different ideas related to complex interdepen-
dence (see, for example, Keohane 1984; Nye 1990a, b). Finally, in recognition
of the value their ideas could have for the information age, they collaborated again
(Keohane and Nye 1998), providing a valuable overview of interdependence and
its relationship to information content and technologies.
The richness of complex interdependence is apparent in the fact that it is still
being discussed, both by the authors and others. The true value of the ideas and
432
IN FORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
concepts associated with it will become clear as it is used as the basis for more
research, especially in the growing area of information and communications.
Kenneth S. Rogerson
DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism
Duke University
Box 90241
Durham, NC 27708
USA
rogerson@pps.duke.edu
NOTES
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
1 These assumptions are generally understood to include the primacy of the state as an actor, as
well as the dominance of military and security issues in the study of international relations.
2 It is important to note that, even by the second edition of their book, Keohane and Nye
stated: we did not pursue complex interdependence as a theory, but as a thought
experiment (Keohane and Nye 1989: 254). Despite the modesty, it has taken on the status
of theory in many international relations discussions.
3 Keohane and Nye even mention Deutsch in the following: Our respect for the liberal
tradition of political analysis re ects our debt to studies of regional integration carried out
during the 1950s and 1960s. Karl Deutsch focused on the development of pluralistic security
communities, groups of states which developed reliable expectations of peaceful relations
and thereby overcame the security dilemma that realists see as characterizing international
politics (1989: 247). This reference was to Deutschs Political Community and the North
Atlantic Area, written in 1957. There is no reference to his Nationalism and Social Communication
written in 1953 which also emphasized community building.
4 Even conservative estimates say this number is, at minimum, growing rapidly. There are
numerous web sources providing estimates at the numbers of internet users and their
demographics (all accessed September and October 1999);
www.anamorph.com/docs/stats/stats.html;
www.isc.org/ds/;
www.headcount.com;
new-website.openmarket.com/intirdex/99-05.htm;
www.computereconomics.com/new4/pr/pr990610.html; Headcount.com;
www.wcom.com/about_the_company/speakers_bureau/statistics.html;
www.infoplease.com;
www.euromktg.com/globstats;
www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html; and
MIDS (Matrix Information and Directory Service) www.mids.org
5 The term hegemony is accompanied by some intellectual baggage. There are theories of
hegemonic stability, referring principally to the propensity for states to be in war; economic
hegemony as in Immanuel Wallersteins work on world systems theory; as well as combinations
of both in Paul Kennedys works on great powers. But this view of the hegemonic status of
the USA in information and culture is not my idea alone. It comes from the perceptions that
the rest of the world, both Western and non-Western, has of the USA. For example, in 1993,
French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur talked about the Commercial and cultural
433
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
domination and hegemonic tendencies of the USA (Federic Bobin. Laccord sur le commerce
international, La declaration de politique generale du premier ministre, La France na jamais
ete aussi grande que lorsquelle souvre sur le monde Le Monde, 17 December 1993, p. 3).
Robert Keohane said in a panel discussion called IPE Distinguished Senior Scholar Panel in
Honor of Immanuel Wallerstein, (ISA Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, March
1998), that the USA is as hegemonic now as ever, both in a Gramscian sense and in the sense
of Nyes soft power. Hegemony means providing something extra that you can use to
perpetuate the issue above and beyond what may be considered legitimate.
6 This could happen in an instance where there is an intransigent dictator who is on the verge of
collapse, but refuses to admit defeat, i.e. Adolf Hitler, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, or
Saddam Hussein.
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
REFERENCES
434
IN FORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World
Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1972) Transnational Relations and World Politics,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1977) Power and Interdependence, Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1989) Power and Interdependence, 2nd edn,
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1998) Power and Interdependence in the
Information Age, Foreign Affairs, 77: 8194.
Klapper, J.T. (1990) The effectiveness of mass communication, in D.A. Graber
(ed.) Media Power in Politics, 2nd edn, Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press, pp. 718.
Krasner, S.D. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Levine, D.P. (1996) Global interdependence and national prosperity, in R.A.
Blecker (ed.) US Trade Policy and Global Growth, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
pp. 3757.
Lewinsky, G. (1997) Transcription of radio interview on Marketplace, 21 August.
Libicki, M.C. (1995) What is Information Warfare? Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Of ce.
Markoff, J. (1995) On-line service blocs access to topics called pornographic,
The New York Times, 29 December.
McPhail, T.L. (1989) Inquiry in international communication, in M.K. Asante
and W.B. Gudykunst (eds) International and Intercultural Communication,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 4766.
Mizukami, K. (1990) Economic interdependence and cooperation in the
european community, Masters thesis, Department of Economics,
University of South Carolina.
Noguchi, Y. and Yamamura, K. (1996) USJapan Macroeconomic Relations: Inter-
actions and Interdependence in the 1980s, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Nye, J.S., Jr (1990a) Soft power, Foreign Policy, 80: 15371.
Nye, J.S., Jr (1990b) Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power, New
York: Basic Books.
435
KENNETH S. ROGERSON
Puchala, D.J. and Hopkins, R.F. (1983) International regimes: lessons from
inductive analysis, in S.D. Krasner (ed.) International Regimes, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, pp. 6191.
Rosecrance, R. (1975) International interdependence, in G. Goodwin and
A. Linklater (eds) New Dimensions of World Politics, London: Croom-Helm,
pp. 3653.
Rosecrance, R., Alexandroff, A., Koehler, W., Kroll, J., Laquer, S. and
Stocker, J. (1977) Whither interdependence? International Organization, 31:
42571.
Rosenau, J. (1992) Citizenship in a changing global order, in J.N. Rosenau and
E.-O. Czempiel (eds) Governance without Government: Order and Change in
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 06:37 29 December 2014
436