The Anarchic Structure of World Politics

In this article, Kenneth Waltz begins to define how politics is ordered as a system, composed of a
structure and its interacting units (p.49). However, he goes on to state, structure is only useful in
definition if interactivity between the units is completely ignored, but their positions or relations to one
another are concentrated on. We must ignore the personality, behavior, and interactivity between the
actors, and only look at their relative positions within society. Domestic politics and international
politics are quite different from one another, and their structures are quite different as well.
The domestic political structure is defined by the principle of which it is ordered, the specifications of
its functions, and the distribution of capabilities (p.51). According to Waltz, domestic political
structure is heirarchic and centralized. By heirarchical, what he means is that there are certain "rulers"
(in the case of the United States, the President and Congress) that pass legislation onto the "ruled"
(citizens). Also, it holds that the U.S., for example, is centralized in that all the states can make their
own laws, but the government in Washington, D.C. has the final word. Society in the domestic sense is
ordered and functional. However, just the opposite is true in the international political structure. The
"government" here is anarchic and decentralized, which we agree with. There are no "world rulers"
who pass absolute laws onto the citizens of the world. Each state has its own laws and ideas on what it
wants to do. The world is separate, in a sense chaotic, and because of the lack of an overall
government, anarchic.
To explain how international political structures come about even in their anarchic state, a comparison
to the economy is brought up by Waltz, p. 53. He argues that units' own interests are spontaneous and
individual in origin. To increase their productivity, units converge with others like themselves. In the
real world, this corresponds to the fact that some states bond with others for reasons like safety and
security. They are looking out for their own good by depending on another state.
Because states are the most important actors in the world of politics, international political structures
are in terms of the states. That is not to say, however, that this will never change. If individuals, for
example, became the most important actors, international political structure would be in terms of
them. Think about this: our economy is defined by the businesses that make it up. And what are
businesses? The most important actors. Just like in international politics, states play the biggest roles
in trade, foreign policy, and foreign relations, so international politics is in terms of the states.
Specifically, international politics is like states/units following the same patterns of actions.
In international/anarchic forms, like units/states interact with one another, while in domestic/heirarchic
forms, unlike units/states interact. This is quite logical. Within the U.S., many of the states are
inherently different. Florida has the weather to grow citrus fruits, Michigan is a prime source of fresh
water, New York is an important trade area, etc. All of these different states interact with one another
to satisfy as many needs as possible, all within one nation. However, the U.S. interacts most with
states like itself in terms of the economy and stability, like Canada and Europe. We want to remain
stable by diversification within a state, and interact with other stable states such as ourselves.
But, not all states are alike in their forms of government or ideas on how international politics should
be run. So how is world fighting kept at bay? Through the use of power. The states with the most
power are those with the greatest capabilities. The entire structure of the political system can be
changed with changes in the capabilities of certain states. Take our own country, the U.S. We have
money, intelligence, military arms, and technology- all the capabilities to take over smaller nations,
solve problems, etc. Our ability to accomplish so much is what gives us power. Furthermore, the only
way big things can be accomplished is by states with grand capabilities. This is one of the major
reasons the U.S. gets involved in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, the Middle East, etc. These
insecure states tend to fight more because they are uncertain about other states. Because we are one of
the most secure and powerful states in the world, it is our duty to keep the world satisfied and stable.
We have the power, and we need to keep everything under control.
Now, there are many who think that the U.S. should just stay out of everyone else's business and just
concentrate on what is happening here, or our own state may deteriorate. Waltz explains that the
structure of the world is pretty much the same- the U.S. and Europe as major world powers- and as
long as there isn't a huge challenge to the structure of the system, neither of these powers will suffer.
The only way to make a great impact is to make a big change in the way things are being run in the
world. His exact quote, from p. 63 is, "so long as one leaves the structure unaffected it is not possible
for changes in the actions of actors...". Since things are working out nicely for the major world powers,
why would we want to change the way the world is working? The only way for a lesser country to
make an impact is to change the system to allow the "minor" powers some say in world politics. In
international politics, the force and government of a system are implemented for its own advantage- to
make the system work for your advantage, you need to "retool it."
Basically, the article was written to show that international politics is anarchic- there is disorder, and a
lack of a single controlling force. To try and combat this, allies are formed between nations, leading
the way, perhaps, to a more universally agreeable government. But, states still look out for their own
good, and until a single set of rules for the structure of international politics can be implemented, the
structure will remain a disordered anarchy.
Summary
In this article, Waltz argues that structure affects the balance of power, which determines
the interest and behaviour of states.
Definitions and concepts

 System: “consist of structure and of interacting units.”

 Structure: “system-wide component… think of the system as a whole.” & “organisational concept”
 Stripped of “characteristics of units, their behavior, and their interactions,” or, “attributes of
units…relations..”
 Interactions: (such as relation formation) takes place at the unit level
 Arrangement of units: property of the system (position of units)
 Domestic politics are hierarchically ordered
 Legitimacy of authority
 Function and relative capability
Political Structure

1. Ordering Principles
 Arrangement of parts of the system
 Super- vs subordination; command vs obedience
 International system: decentralised and anarchical; no authority = no command and obedience
 Structure as a force by itself (like free market where unit actions create market forces that
governs the units)
 Spontaneous & unintended
 units motivated by survival & the need for self-help
 Structure rewards those who conforms (to the need for self-help)
2. The Character of the Units
 “relations of coordination among a system’s unit… implies their sameness”
 In functions of the state (just as states can be seen as economic units)
 Regardless of inequality in each unit’s capabilities
 Sovereignty: each state decides of oneself
3. The Distribution of Capabilities
 Capabilities as ability to perform similar tasks
 Though capability is the attribute of a state, the distribution of capability is the
arrangement of the system (defines the structure).
 Power is relative; estimated by comparing the capabilities of each unit
 Alliances and grouping are formed within the system and does not affect the distribution
 Produces a, “positional picture,” of, “overall arrangement of society.”
Anarchic Structures and Balances of Power

1. Violence at home and Abroad

 “brooding shadow of violence” – unexpected
 States decide their course of action
 Both hierarchical and anarchical structures produce violence and chaos (no distinction there)
 Structure determines the form,purpose , and legitimate sources of violence
 Hierarchical: Government has monopoly, and public agencies have the right to use of
force on its subjects
 Anarchical: self-help
2. Interdependence and Integration
 “anarchic realms, like unit coact. In hierarchical realms, unlike units interact.”
 In Anarchical realm, units are functionally similar and tend to be so (unable to specialise
wholly due to uncertainty of dependence)
 “In a self-help system, considerations of security subordinate economic gain to political
interest.”
3. Structures and Strategies
 “tyranny of small decisions”
 Situations produce unwanted outcomes
 Rational behaviour in an anarchical structure produces undesirable outcome (non-cooperation)
 Only means to cooperation/genuine peace is a structural change
4. The Virtues of Anarchy
 Cost: Hierarchical structures have to do 2 things:
 Achieve interests
 Maintain itself (costly), and maintain control of its parts/ “means of control become an
object of struggle”
 Freedom: trade-off between authority/control by imposition by states and individual freedom
 Legitimacy defined by power: not right and jusitice
 Automatic adjustments: self-correcting system through mutual adaptation
5. Anarchy and Hierarchy
 Be aware of the distinction between structure and process
 Similarity in functions/duplication of efforts of states in anarchy