Structural Approach

10 Key excerpts on "Structural Approach"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  New Approaches to Scientific Realism

  • Wenceslao J. Gonzalez(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  Adrian Miroiu A Structural Realist Approach to International Relations Theory Abstract: For decades, under the influence of neo-positivism, the mainstream view on the theories in the field of International Relations (IR) was instrumental-ist, as useful tools for understanding state systems. More recently, a number of theorists advanced a scientific realist view and argued that it may contribute, al-though in an indirect way, to our growing knowledge of the world politics. The paper focuses on the IR theories that try to explain the processes characterizing state systems by appealing to the concept of “ structure. ” Structure describes ab-stract patterns of behavior and consists mainly in rules and norms governing the interactions among individual and collective actors. I propose a structural realist understanding of these theories. In developing this position, I discuss three fea-tures of political structures like states: they are second-order institutions (they select and govern other social structures), self-constituting (provide mechanisms of selecting even among political structures), and all-inclusive (concern the soci-ety as a whole). Given these features of political structures, I argue for a particu-lar type of scientific structural realism in IR: reflexive political realism. A main implication of this position is that it explains state agency in a parsimonious and simple way. Keywords: International relations theories, state, state structure, agency, politi-cal structure, structural realism, reflexivity 1 Introduction The discipline of international relations (IR) was often confronted with skepti-cism about the legitimacy of meta-theoretical reflections concerning its attempts to understand the structure and dynamics of the international systems. But in the past three decades things have sensibly changed.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Global Political System

  • Fulvio Attina(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  For those realists who believe that the expla-nations must be derived from the structural framework that links the Politics as Conflict in an Asymmetric World 23 actors in the system, the international system is characterized by inequal-ity in the power of actors. This inequality not only produces incidental constraints on the initiative of the leaders of the major states, it also gives rise to a constant positioning of the states in the anarchic but ordered structure of the international system. Morton Kaplan (1956) analysed in depth the structural implications of the systemic approach describing three historical systems and formulated hypotheses of the implications of a series of possible systems. He there-fore laid the foundation for systems analysis in international relations. Later, the usefulness of the Structural Approach was posited by Waltz (1979) who defined the structure of the international system in terms of the distribution of power and of economic–rational calculations. In any social system all existing power can, to a large extent, be concentrated in the hands of one or a few subjects – this can be termed the ‘centralized distri-bution’ of power – or be dispersed among many subjects – the ‘defused distribution’ of power. In the former, the system is governed by an author-ity which imposes a hierarchical order which can assume the form of government institutions, as is the case in the internal system of states. In such systems the difference of power of the actors translates immediately into difference in their roles in the political organization of the system. In the latter case, however, roles of authority are not assigned to any subjects and consequently the system is anarchical. In other words, in anarchic systems the units are functionally alike and they each perform the same tasks using the power at their disposal.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Constrained Balancing: The EU's Security Policy

  • D. Peters(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  This application of the framework will demonstrate the added value of a structural perspective in analyzing security policies. And it will help to further refine our understanding of the link between structure and security policy. The remainder of this book will develop this argument in detail and this introduction will set the stage. It will first reflect on the situation in FPA and International Relations (IR) theory and argue that the link between international structure and foreign policy is not being treated adequately there. FPA has a heavy bias toward domestic variables; and IR theory focus- ing on structural-level variables has often paid little attention to the link between structures and state action. Where the issue was addressed this was mostly done in a way which is not fully satisfactory in terms of theory. I will illustrate this below by reflecting on the debate about balancing that began in IR theory soon after 1990. An analysis of this debate will demonstrate the shortfalls of structural theory-building in concrete terms: the relation between structural changes (in the international distribution of power) and security policy (‘balancing’) is commonly oversimplified and needs to be reconceptualized. I will then briefly outline my suggestions for such a reconceptualization and introduce the main building blocks of my analytical framework. The first one stems from structural realist theory: changes in the international distribution of power induce (yet do not compel) disadvantaged states to engage in ‘balancing’. The second building block is provided by histori- cal institutionalism. Institutions, in which security policies have become embedded over time, will induce states to maintain past policies. Institutions therefore lead to a structurally induced disposition toward policy continu- ity, which is often underappreciated when other circumstances lead analysts to expect policy change.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Thinking Politically/h

  • Jean Blondel(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Nor is this all: even the institutions which are created by laws and constitutions seem to evolve as a result of various social forces. The constitution may state what Parliament will do: the practice may (and probably will) turn out to be very different. Although the legal origin of these institutions is important – and although those who are concerned with structural analysis have to look carefully at their legal powers – they have also to be concerned with the study of the developments which have taken place since the institution was created. To take an example: everywhere in Western Europe, the role of the executive has increased and the legislature tends to adopt the proposals made by the government. The study of constitutions would not explain this phenomenon; nor can a purely historical approach truly account for this characteristic which is common to all modern industrial countries. We have to turn to an examination of the types of social forces that exist nowadays in industrial countries. This is why a sociological approach is as necessary to the study of structures as a legal and an historical approach. A comprehensive analysis of structures thus entails a combination of legal, historical and sociological analysis.

  B. Detailed and global approaches to the study of structures

  . The notion of political system. Of the three starting points of structural analysis, history is the one which stresses especially the need to look at structures, not in isolation, but in the context of all the structures of the country. But it would be wrong to suppose that lawyers or sociologists are concerned only with individual structures. Strictly, the determination of the powers of a legislature, for instance, entails relating legislatures to other bodies, such as the executive, or the judiciary. Powers are by definition relative; they specify that a particular institution will be concerned with some matters – which means that another will not, or that two will share these powers. Consequently, if it is felt that an institution needs to be improved, and if it is suggested that this be done by a change in the law, it is necessary to look at the overall implications of the change for all the other (or at least many other) institutions in the country. This is indeed why the classical theorists who were particularly concerned with changes in political institutions, such as Locke or Montesquieu, looked for and genuinely invented theories of the relationship between powers of government, such as the theory of the ‘separation of powers’ (which assigns specific functions to the legislature, the executive and the judiciary and thereby organizes a particular relationship between these bodies). And the same could be said of sociologists who have been concerned with, for instance, the relative role of political parties and other groups, or the relative role of parties and the bureaucracy. Whether they approach the study of institutions and procedures from an historical, a legal, or a sociological angle, structural theorists have been concerned with inter-relationships: they have been concerned with the determination of the balance between various parts of a political system.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  International Politics

  Power and Purpose in Global Affairs

  • D'Anieri, Paul D'Anieri(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 91 CHAPTER FOUR: Theories of International Relations: Economic Structuralism, Constructivism, and Feminism Economic structuralism has its roots in the critique of capitalism leveled by Karl Marx, but the label “economic structuralism” is used both because it more clearly describes the theory itself and because there are other Marxist theories that will not be covered here. 1 Economic structuralism is a theoretical approach that focuses above all on economics , both as a motivation in politics and as a source of power. Wealth plays as important a role in economic structuralism as military power does in realist theory. Whereas real-ism examines the distribution of military power, economic structuralism explores the distribution of wealth (which it sees as essentially identical to power). Economic structuralism has a strong normative component, finding that economic inequality is a double evil. In addition to creating poverty, it leads to political inequality because political power is built largely on economic power. Advocates of the economic structuralist approach seek not only to expose the sources and effects of economic inequal-ity but also to provide some guidelines as to how such inequality might be overcome. As with realism and liberalism, it is easier to see the contribution that economic structuralism makes to understanding international politics than it is to use it as a guideline for policy. ASSUMPTIONS At the core of economic structuralism is the belief that economics drives politics. This economic determinism is very compatible with the standard economics taught in every university economics department.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Perspectives on Political Economy

  Alternatives to the Economics of Depression

  • R. J. Barry Jones(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  But, perhaps more important, we do not yet have sufficient appropriate knowledge for even an adequate analytical description of the IPE. In this age of information overload our understanding is still confined by the concepts and models upon which we base our categories and questions. And these categories and questions in the main continue to refer to a world which is often incongruent with the complex and dynamic global structures we are seeking to describe and explain. The predominant image of political-economic relations within the international relations literature is still (with notable exceptions) one of interaction between territorially bounded national economies. Even when concepts that go beyond a national actor perspective are introduced, such as Waltz's 'structure', 7 they are ultimately reductionist, in that inter-national relations is essentially seen as international politics and the 'state-as-actor' model is implicit. 8 This national actor perspective is ideologically based and is too narrow for IPE. 'Actor' based models, in conjunction with empirical social-science methodologies, have no room for broader 'structural' analyses, particularly of power. A focus upon actors and institu-tions cannot encompass the totality of relationships that frames the parameters for action, that gives direction and meaning to ideology and that rationalizes and justifies the exercise and distribution of power and wealth. Moreover, an actor focus ignores structural power, i.e. the structural determination of an entity's requirements/wants by the system within which that entity functions. And these requirements are not universal givens, but are determined over time by a 'Sectoral Analysis' and the International Political Economy 233 sequence of decisions, values and relationships which are incorporated into the structure itself, and which can change as well as change the structure.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  International Relations Then and Now

  Origins and Trends in Interpretation

  • A.J.R. Groom, Andre Barrinha, William C. Olson(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  3 In Theory of International Politics, he focuses on only one of them, the third. A theory of international politics should explain how that area functions, in the same way as microeconomics explains the functioning of markets. We only understand price fluctuation and consumer behaviour by looking at the structure – in this case at the market – as a whole. For Waltz, structures are defined by their ordering principle, the functions of their units and by the distribution of capabilities. According to his theory, the anarchical system is the key explanatory factor in international politics, the eternal structure that explains the units’ behaviour, in this case, that of states. Unlike domestic politics, characterised by hierarchical structures in which units are formally differentiated according to their authority and func- tion, international politics is characterised by horizontal relationships in which all states are functionally equal due to the principle of sovereignty. The system is defined by the arrange- ment of its constitutive units, by “how they stand in relation to one another” 4 and not by how they relate to each other. The specific attributes of each unit are not particularly relevant, as 152 Towards ‘now’ they are functionally equivalent. That means, “leaving aside questions about kinds of politi- cal leaders, social and economic institutions and ideological commitments states may have.” 5 In international politics, the system is anarchical as there is no overarching sovereign entity. This also means the units cannot rely on anything other than themselves – it is a self- help world. Whereas the functional differentiation of the units determines the structure of the system, it does not explain the power dynamics within it. For that, it is necessary to look into the distribution of capabilities (mostly military) that determine the polarity of the system.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Migration Policies and Political Participation

  Inclusion or Intrusion in Western Europe?

  • P. Odmalm(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Similarly, Easton (1990) comments on the issue of the importance of institutions when stating that politics takes place within structural conditions that usually take the appearance of social con- ditions such as class, culture, economic and even psychological conditions. Easton's position is that political conditions represent the immediate envi- ronment of any political act or structure itself, taken in the broadest mean- ing of the term, on any action in or on any part of the political system. Although there has been a rediscovery that political action takes place within an institutional framework, Easton argues that the more relevant question should not be that the structure of the state is the central phenom- enon to investigate, but rather why different states assume such different structural forms. He does, however, recognise the importance of bringing the state back into social analysis since there has been a previous conviction that placed an emphasis on the extent to which the state as a major political actor consists merely of aggregations of individual actions, or simply a direct response to external societal forces (Lowndes, 2001). Other scholars point to the importance of institutions when refocusing on the state. Here, the central character is the state's authority as the determining Role arzd Importance of! rzstitutiorzs 85 factor for the political life of the nation. Important characteristics are the nature and the composition of the state, its actors, functions and abilities to withstand challenges from within as well as from outside. In order to do this, one must consider the prevailing institutional structures of the political sys- tem and in particular those from which power and influence flow (Kamrava, 1996). However, what most authors seem to agree on is the way in which constraints and consequences are influenced and shaped by institutions (see e.g. Calvert, 1995; Riker, 1980).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Greece, European Political Cooperation and the Macedonian Question

  • Aristotle Tziampiris(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Finally, it must be stressed that the functional approach to international regimes neglects the importance of domestic politics. This is some­ what surprising, given their significance in the account of events provided by modified-structural theorists.81 Helen Milner suggests that this neglect is ex­ plained by 10 GREECE, EUROPEAN POLITICAL COOPERATION AND THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION Two reasons...the centrality of anarchy as the condition for differentiating be­ tween domestic and international politics... [and] the use of game theory with its assumption of unitary, rational actors .82 The empirical testing that will be undertaken in this book will provide an evalu­ ation of the effects that the neglect of domestic politics has on of institutional­ ist theory. C. Institutionalist Theory The central argument of the theory of institutionalism is that ‘variations in the institutionalisation of world politics exert significant impacts on the behavior of governments.’83 In making this claim, the theory comes close to identifying institutions as an independent variable that helps explain the dependent vari­ able of state action. In order to substantiate this claim, institutionalism accepts and incorporates into its analysis the previously presented modified-structural arguments concerning the importance and functions of international regimes. They are applied to institutions in general, which in addition to regimes may also include ‘formal intergovernmental or cross-national nongovernmental or­ ganizations [and]...conventions.’84 These distinctions are ‘not as clear in ac­ tuality as this stylization might seem to imply.’85 This observation ought to be kept in mind, since the subsequent chapter will view EPC as an international regime, albeit one with important intergovernmental aspects. Institutionalist theory is often called neoliberal because of its connection with classical liberal theories.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Marxism and the State

  An Analytical Approach

  • P. Wetherly(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  In this sense, despite Hay’s con- tention that the strategic-relational approach is structure-centred, it is arguable that both approaches offer sophisticated intentionalism. Third, Jessop seems to suggest that whether actors can transform social structures just depends on the appropriate strategy. But some structures are going to be more intractable than others and this awareness needs to be built into the strategic-relational approach. There is no incon- sistency between recognising that structural constraints are always rel- ative to specific actors and strategies, and recognising that some constraints are stronger, and others weaker, relative to all conceivable actors and strategies. We need to know what contributes to structural strength and, similarly, to structural continuity. The structural constraint thesis A structural, or structuralist, explanation of the state sees the economic structure as a principle of explanation or explanans. It claims, roughly, that the nature of the economic structure explains something about the character of the state. This rough claim can be refined. Accordingly ‘structural explanation’ is used here to refer to all explanations in which structure exercises a causal effect or power, in which sense ‘instrumentalist’ explanations are structural. The term ‘structuralist explanation’ is used in the more precise sense of explanation in terms of the structural interconnection between (or coupling of) the economy and the state. Typically this involves a notion of ‘structural constraint’ or its equivalent. 24 More specifically, the explanation need make no reference to the question of who rules, and that is because the structural constraint will still exercise its constraining effect regardless of who is in charge of the state. 25 Structuralist explanation is distin- guished by the causal mechanism it invokes, not by the effect(s) Structure and Agency in State Theory 83

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book