Presentation on theme: "The Second Level of Analysis Variations Amongst the States."— Presentation transcript:
The Second Level of Analysis Variations Amongst the States
An explanation of WWI Each great power thought the war would be short and victorious The rally round the flag effect would strengthen the state War would divert from other problems
Austria Had no national unity; secessionists abound Russia backs the Slav separatists Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by Croat and Serb nationals Domestic politics (maintaining unity) dictated foreign policy
Britain Relative decline vis-à-vis Germany, Russia and USA Naval race with Germany Constitutional conflict on liberal democracy Women's suffrage Trade unionism Ireland/Ulster Guns v. butter
France Electoral reform (unstable political system) 3 years compulsory military service Income tax imposed to pay for buildup Fragmented, polarized multi-party system with ever-changing coalitions Accusations of treason Alsace-Lorraine
Russia Lost war with Japan (1904) Revolution at home (1905 and on) Liberals vs. nationalists Expansionist policy Balkan Wars (1912-3) were unfinished. By 1915, 250,000 ethnic minorities expelled.
Germany Economic development (industrial revolution) has led to social dislocation Government afraid of the proletariat System is constructed amongst the Kaiser (monarch), Junkers (agrarian elite) and Bureaucrats. Where does the bourgeoisie and proletariat fit in? Did not reflect real distribution of power Weltpolitik (1897) –Colonial policy –Expansionism –Challenging the UK to a naval race A victorious leader must always seek the next victory
Germanys Demands in Africa
Anglo-German Antagonism Economic Rivalry BritainGermanyBritainGermany Share of world manufacturin g 23%9%14%15% Per Capita industrialn (Britain 1900 = 100)
Anglo-German Antagonism Trade Rivalry 1913Total (£m)% in Europe Britain7935 France35752 Germany23044 USA13920
Anglo-German Antagonism Colonial Rivalry Population of Empire (m) 1914 Britain400 Germany15 France60 Italy0.2
Anglo-German Antagonism Military Rivalry Ratio of British-German warship tonnage
Anglo-German Antagonism Military Rivalry (Navy 1914) Personnel (K) Large vessels Tonnage (m) Russia France Britain TOTAL Germany Austria- Hun TOTAL
Anglo-German Antagonism Military Rivalry (militarization) % population in military service Russia0.77 France2.29 Britain1.17 TOTAL1.07 Germany1.33 Austria- Hun 0.85 TOTAL1.12
Anglo-German Antagonism Military Rivalry (defence spending as % of GNP) 1939 – Germany = 20% 1984 – Britain = 5%; USSR = 15% BritainFranceRussiaGerman y A-HItaly
Variations Regime Type Ideology Economics Implementation Institutions Political Culture Extract-ability of Resources
Regime Types Democratic – rule by the citizenry Authoritarian - ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. The state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be a direct challenge to the state. Totalitarian - the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology, and do not tolerate activities by individuals or secondary associations such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals. They maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state- controlled mass media, regulation of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics. Post-Totalitarian – after the fall of Totalitarianism, government with absent or weak institutions and lacking secondary associations Sultanic - all individuals, groups and institutions are permanently subject to the unpredictable and despotic intervention of the sultan, and thus all pluralism is precarious
Dimensions of Regimes Pluralism – alternatives to government policies (political parties, interest groups, etc.) Mobilization – public participation (rallies, voting, etc.) Charismatic Leadership - Charisma is a special characteristic of some leaders. The followers trust the correctness of the leader's beliefs; The followers feel affection for the leader and obey the leader willingly; The followers feel an emotional involvement in the mission they are led to do. Pervasive Ideology – set of beliefs about how government and society should be
Ideology A comprehensive and logically ordered set of beliefs about the nature of people, institutions and the roles of government. Is the ideology transformative? Does it seek expansion? Will it be resisted? Can it coexist with non-believers?
Some ideologies Marxism Lenins variant Nazism Franquism Pan-Arabism Democracy as the end of history Anarchism
Economic Development GDP Capital markets Trade dependency Single-product dependency Sectoral employment (Ag, Industry, Service) Discretionary resources Technology
Economic Systems Laissez-faire capitalism (MoP owned by private actors, market distribution) Socialism (MoP owned by society) Market socialism (MoP owned by state or collectives but no central planning) Soziale Marktwirtschaft (private and public MoP, heavy state involvement, goal is full employment) State-led capitalism (state owns large and important sectors with substantial planning, private sector coexists, usually capital markets are weak) Mixed economy (market and private sector dominant with some state ownership and planning)
Bureaucracy A bureaucracy is the name given to a large organization that is structured hierarchically to carry out specific functions. Generally, most bureaucracies are characterized by an organization chart. The units of the organization are divided according to the specialization and expertise of the employees.
Weberian Model of Bureaucracy Bureaucracies as rational, hierarchical organizations in which power flows from the top downward Decisions are based on logical reasoning and data analysis. Division of labor Chain of command Formal rules Apolitical (neutral decision making) Advancement based upon merit Bureaucrats are salaried by superior institutions
Decision Making Graham Allisons Essence of Decision identifies three paths along which decisions can be made: 1.A "rational actor" model which describes a state's behavior as that of a perfectly rational individual, who is normally assumed to have perfect situational knowledge, and who attempts to optimize whatever values/goals are sought in a given situation. 2.An "organizational process" model in which the decision maker operates under time and information constraints, and does not seek an optimal solution. Instead, the decision maker engages in "satisficing" behavior and attempts to find a solution which achieves a set (minimum) goal, and minimizes risk of failure. 3.A "bureaucratic politics" model in which state actors seek to achieve separate goals, which may conflict with each other. In this case, various individuals, representing various organizational interests, engage in a process of "pulling and hauling" to achieve a negotiated group decision which will represent the policy of the state. The agreed upon policy may erode over time, as the situation changes dynamically, as organizational interests evolve, and as individuals gain and lose bureaucratic power, status, and access to critical information. Where you sit determines where you stand.
Resources Called into Government Service
The Democratic Peace Kants Perpetual Peace –A government answerable to the people –A League of Nations to manage the peace –A freedom of intl travel and commerce –Confidence-building measures (CBM) including disarmament Democratic Peace Theory, based upon Kantian peace, was first described by Bruce Russett and John Oneal H1: Democracies tend to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not. H2: Democracies are more peaceable with each other. Is it true? That depends on how you define democracy and peace
Possible Definitions Democratic –Elected legislature –Elected executive –more than one effective party in the system –alternation of party/coalition members in government Peace –Absence of conflicts with 1000 or more annual battle deaths by state system members
Related Hypotheses The relatively transparent decision-making inherent in democratic institutions reduces the uncertainty of others over motivation. In turn less uncertainty reduces the likelihood of war amongst security-seekers. Transparent democratic institutions promote peace. These institutions include statutory public laws, a voting parliament and a court system. (Kydd)
Related Hypotheses Free states are less likely to engage in war with other free states (Freedom House) Democracies are less likely to be the target of coercive diplomacy or to intervene in the military affairs of others (Herrmann and Kegley) Trade, or cosmopolitan law - the costs of trade disruption forms a disincentive to militarized conflict (Gowa) Democracies do not fight democracies in their home region (Thompson)
Counter-Examples to a Historical Application of a Dogmatic Democratic Peace Theory Athenian Sicilian Expedition, BC [Athens vs. Syracuse] Trail of Tears, 1838 [Cherokee vs. USA] French Second Republic attack on the Roman Republic, 1849 American Civil War, [USA vs. CSA] War of the Pacific, [Chile vs. Bolivia over the Atacama] Spanish-American War, 1898 World War I, [UK/France vs. Germany] The state of war between Finland and the Western Allies, The Lebanese aerial participation in the Six Day War against Israel, The Paquisha War, [Ecuador vs. Peru] Peru-Ecuador Cenepa War, 1995 The Kargil War, 1999 [Pakistan vs. India]