241 F03 Transparencies

POLS 241: Intro IR, Class 1 Outline


1.         Introductory remarks

            1.         Follow the bouncing globe

            2.         Why care?

                        1.         Weapons, WMD, People, Money, Death and Destruction

            3.         What to do about it?

            4.         IR scholars and their toolboxes

            5.         Two parts to course: Toolbox (theories) and Application of tools to Topics and Issues


2.         Introduce myself and TAs


3.         Introduce the syllabus and requirements


4.         Goals of the Course

            1.         Be competitive with any intro-IR course anywhere

            2.         Offer something to the diverse set of customers

            3.         Offer lessons beyond IR about analysis, writing, and argumentation


5.         Mini-lecture

            1.         Anarchy and Death

            2.         Realism vs. Liberalism

                                    (1)       What is anarchy and what are its effects?

                                    (2)       What can be done to reduce the effects of anarchy?

            3.         The Race

Don't automatically follow the bouncing ball!


1.         Lessons:

            1.         No Truth, Politics

            2.         Politics is messy and sometimes brutal, so:

                        1.         Carry an Edge

                        2.         Be Skeptical

                        3.         Think Analytically

                        4.         Push the Course Around

            3.         Participate!


























Myths and Fears about Class Participation

Dan Lindley, v. 1.1


1.         Myth/fear: I will ask a stupid question and everyone will find out that I am dumb.

            a.         Fact: 98.7% of questions are not dumb 1

            b.         Fact: 99.6% of questions motivated by curiosity are not dumb

            c.         Fact: Most other students will be thinking: thank goodness someone asked that question because they didn't understand it either (you will be a hero)

            d.         Fact: Most people fear that they will be found out to be dumb


2.         Myth/fear: I will ask a good question but this will challenge the professor and this will upset him and he will lower my grade, especially if he is wrong.

            a.         Fact: those who challenge me are courageous heroes (unfortunately, b/c it should be normal). Hero-dom is also assured by the following:

            b.         Fact: those who correct me make me more accurate and truthful

            c.         Fact: those who criticize me help me (try to) be excellent

            d.         Fact: those who ask hard questions usually help me learn.

            e.         Fact: Students engaged in any of the above often demonstrate admirable intellectual acuity.


3.         Myth/fear: I will interrupt the lecture by asking a question.

            a.         Fact: it's true, but so what?


4.         Myth/fear: I will answer a question poorly and I will look like an idiot.

            a.         Fact: 97.2% of answers are not dumb, virtually none are idiotic.  Sincerity and trying one's best wards off dumbness.

            b.         Fact: 98.9% of all answers are greatly appreciated by this professor. Even the very few dumb answers are usually appreciated as they are a jumping off point for further discussion and debate.  Of the less appreciated answers (1.1%), 97.6% create annoyance because of ego-centrism and social maladjustment, not dumbness.2

            c.         Fact: Most students will also greatly appreciate your answer as it helps them learn how their peers are thinking about the issue. Debate and discussion helps even non-participators think about the course materials with greater depth and perspective.


5.         Jervis bowling shoe exercise: Why is Lindley in this business?

            a.         To help students learn, to help himself learn, to debate and be intellectually stimulated. Questions are part of why I am here!!

 1. Factz I. Makemup, "Spuriating the Factoid," Journal of Irreproducible Results, Vol. 0, (Y2K), page 3.

2. Makemup, "Spuriating the Factoid," page 4.


































Each data point is a state, and the graph shows how much each state spends on guns and butter (security/defense and social needs) per year.


What does Guns vs. Butter mean? What can it teach us?


Correlation: States that buy more guns tend to buy less butter; States that buy more butter tend to buy less guns. But Why? We need a theory, a causal statement.


Causation: For a theory, let's try:


For any given state, less security —> more guns, less butter

   ⇓ Security —> ⇑ Guns, ⇓ Butter  [Note Imagine up and down arrows as per the description]


For any given state, more security —> less guns, more butter

   ⇑ Security —> ⇑ Butter, ⇓ Guns


Here, Security is the INDEPENDENT variable, and guns and butter are the DEPENDENT variables.


Independent variables are the cause part of causal statements; they cause things. Dependent variables are the caused part of causal statements. IDV —> DV


Changes in the amount of the independent variable cause changes in the amount of the dependent variable.

            Example: ⇑ Security —> ⇑ Butter, ⇓ Guns





1. Worry, fear, and hope seldom lead to wise policy prescriptions


2. Wise prescription depends on analysis


3. Analysis amounts to discerning patterns in the events of concern


4. Specifying what the pattern(s) is and how it works is theory building


5. A well specified pattern is a theory. A theory is a causal statement (A–>B) along with an explanation of why.


6. A theory which is accurate (rests on firm evidentiary and methodological foundations) is at least roughly predictive.


7. Policy recommendations are predictions.

POLS 241: Lecture 2, Main Outline


1.         Review last class

            a.         Policy requires analysis and analysis is theory

            b.         Thinking analytically about different arguments and theories requires methodology


2.         IR is complex, so two ways to categorize:

            a.         Levels of Analysis (sep slide)

            b.         Realism vs. Liberalism (sep slide)

            c.         IR's big questions:

                        i.         How much anarchy is there and how much does it drive international relations?

                        ii.        What can be done about it?


3.         Methods:

            a.         Guns and Butter (sep slide)

                        i.         correlation vs. causation

                        ii.        quantitative and case study methods


4.         Anarchy and its consequences...


            a.         Waltz and the structural level

            b.         Grieco and relative gains

            c.         Wendt and constructivism


Levels of Analysis:

What Drives IR?


1.         Structural - ordering principles, functions, and capabilities of units

            a.         Waltz: Anarchy, Functional Similarity (even with Different Capabilities)

                        i.         with Three Effects (for now): 1. Self Help; 2. Relative Gains;                    3. Collective Action Problems


2.         State - internal structures


3.         People - innate and idiosyncratic variants


4.         Trans-national? IOs, NGOs, media...


5.         What questions are best answered by looking at what level? What kind of solutions for problems exist at each level?






















































Capra's Prelude to War


Themes/Questions (write this down - we'll discuss it on Tuesday, and I'll want answers...):


1.          International relations changes fast. As seen in the film, the 1920s saw agreements outlawing war (Kellogg/Briand Pact), various arms control deals, and the League of Nations. But early in the 1930s saw the rise and march of Fascism.

2.          What happened? Could it happen again? What today makes the recurrence of similar events harder or easier? If bad things happen, how will they be different or the same?

3.          This Academy Award best documentary for 1943 was made for a purpose. What was the purpose? How much of this film is the truth, and how much is spin?

4.          If you were making an anti-American film then, what would you include? And now?



Theory, Part #1: The Constraints and Incentives of Anarchy


1.          Jervis and the Security Dilemma

             a.         Starting point for realism: structure

                         i.         anarchy vs hierarchy

             b.         Anarchy leads to:

                         i.         War is always possible

                                     (1)       Self-help (aka, sort of, functional similarity)

                                                 (a)       Concerns for Relative Gains

                                                             (i)        security dilemma

                                                 (b)       Collective action problems

                                                             (i)        tragedy of the commons


             c.         What is the security dilemma?

                         i.         See other slide

                         ii.        Often only means weapons, but I think it also describes a general level of fear and threat assessment

             d.         Manipulating the severity of the security dilemma:

                         i.         the Offense/Defense Balance

                                     (1)       Influences on the Balance



The Security Dilemma


The dilemma: "An increase in one state's security decreases the security of others."


Anarchy ---> Fears ---> Security dilemma


Security dilemma is: ⇑ My security = ⇓ Your security


Security dilemma ---> Arms Races, Security Spirals


⇑ Offense Dominance ---> ⇑ Arms Races, Security Spirals

(and vice versa with defense dominance)


⇑ Offense Dominance ---> ⇑ Instability

(and vice versa with defense dominance)

2.          Jervis, Deterrence and Spiral -Two strategies for dealing threats and enemies

             a.         When threatened do you deter or appease?

                         i.         Deterrence

                                     (1)       capability

                                     (2)       resolve

                                     (3)       communication

                                     (4)       rationality

                         ii.        Costs of Deterrence = spirals

                                     (1)       security dilemma

                         iii.       How to Choose?


Deterrence Model:

⇑ Strength ---> Back Down (Prevent War)


Spiral Model:

⇑ Strength ---> Rear Up (Arms Races, Security Spirals)







(sometimes similar to balancing)

Deterrence works: no war

Backfires: leads to spiral, arms race, tension

Appease (or despiral)

(sometimes similar to bandwagoning)

Appeasement works: no war

Fails: whets appetite of aggressor, so not just war, but war against stronger adversary


Continuum of non-balancing policies:

Bandwagon <—> Appease <—> Despiral


Continuum of balancing policies:

Pre-empt <—> Misc. denial <—>Build up/Ally w\others


3.          Jervis, Hypotheses on Misperception

             a.         How does psychology influence decision-making?

                         i.         Newtonian Psychology hypothesis

                         ii.        pre-Copernican Psychology

                         iii.       Bowling Shoe hypothesis


             b.         How do these relate to other theories?



4.          Walt and Balance of Threat

             a.         Q. Where do friends and alliances come from?

             b.         A. Balancing against threats.

                         i.         vs. bandwagoning

                         ii.        any other options/strategies?

             c.         Four components of (influences on) threat are:

                         i.         aggregate power

                         ii.        geography

                         iii.       offensive power

                         iv.       intentions

             d.         Note competing explanations and structure of argument

             e.         Note policy implications




5.          Ostrom

             a.         Three problems that hinder cooperation, all caused or exacerbated by anarchy:

                         i.         Tragedy of the Commons

                         ii.        Prisoners’ Dilemma

                         iii.       Collective Action Problems

             b.         How can one fix these problems? (for future classes)

                         i.         hints: enforcement, communication, reciprocity, shadow of the future/concern for reputation.



6.          Review of Realism

             a.         The consequences of anarchy

             b.         Focus on power and the possibility of war

             c.         Influence of the distribution of capabilities on state behavior

7.          Questions for next section:

             a.         How much anarchy is there? How can it be mitigated?



Jervis, Security Dilemma


The dilemma: "An increase in one state's security decreases the security of others."


Anarchy ---> Fears ---> Security dilemma


Security dilemma is: ⇑ My security = ⇓ Your security


Security dilemma ---> Arms Races, Security Spirals


⇑ Offense Dominance ---> ⇑ Arms Races, Security Spirals

(and vice versa with defense dominance)


⇑ Offense Dominance ---> ⇑ Instability

(and vice versa with defense dominance)


Prisoner's Dilemma


                                                             Prisoner # 1

                                                  Silent Confess


















CC= both silent, nailed on minor charge, both get 1 year in jail

DC, CD=one confesses (rats), the other silent. Silent guy is major league evil, gets 15 years. Rat gets time served.

DD=both rat, both pretty evil, both get 10 years.


Game highlights basic incentives to cheat given certain assumptions: bad guys that can not talk to each other. One shot iteration.





Fisherperson’s Dilemma


                                                         Fisher # 1

                                            Cooperate Cheat 



Fisher #2


               +5 +5











CC: both gain and pre-crisis stocks are eventually restored.

CD, DC: One gaining twice and one losing from cheating and thinning fish

DD: Both losing everything from no fish, having to use savings to look for job, etc.


Game highlights Common Goods/Tragedy of the Commons Problems (CPRs common pooled resources)





Also relevant: Stag Hunt


POLS 241: Mitigating Anarchy


Oye/Cooperation under Anarchy: An Attack on Realism's Assumptions


1.         Assumptions for Cooperation to be achieved

            a.         It must be preferred (aha!), but...

                        i.         How to increase payoff of cooperation (CC)?

                        ii.        How to decrease payoffs of defection?


2.         The assumptions that drive states to defect, and how to address them:

            a.         Lack of enforcement

                        i.         fixes

            b.         Lack of communication

                        i.         remedies

            c.         Irrelevance of reputation

                        i.         still true?

            d.         Lack of Time/One shot iteration

                        i.         Oye and The Shadow of the Future...

                                    (1)       Time and its effect on reciprocity and retaliation

                                                (a)       Can defection be recognized?


            e.         Barriers to cooperation and number of actors

                        i.         buckpassing


Keohane and Regimes/Institutions: Fine Tuning a Remedy


1.         Where do institutions come from? How and why are they created?

2.         What is an Institution?

            a.         A continuum from norms to organizations

3.         How and when are institutions formed?

            a.         Hegemonic stability

            b.         Crises

            c.         New ideas

            d.         Keohane and market failure


4.         Measuring regime effectiveness: are they causes or consequences of great power interests and actions?

                        i.         If GPs —> regimes, then do regimes —> GP interests/actions?

            b.         3 possible ways regimes affect behavior:

                        i.         Feedback (GP <—> Regime

                        ii.        Intermediation GP —>Regime—>Influence

                        iii.       Lags/Gaps/Life of Own:





Nye and Keohane on Interdependence: A Force for Peace?


1.         Interdependence

            a.         Independence vs. Interdependence vs. Dependence

                        i.         (autarky vs. sensitivity/efficiency vs. vulnerability)

            b.         Effects of interdependence

                        i.         Increases costs of actions

                        ii.        Incs sources of power & options for deals & compromises


Doyle and the Democratic Peace: State Structure as a Cause of Peace


1.         Democratic Peace: Democracies do not fight each other.

            a.         Why might it work?

            b.         Critiques and what we do not know


Ideas the Mitigation of Anarchy


            a.         Post-modernism/Constructivism (Wendt)

            b.         Obsolescence of war (Mueller)

                        i.         Evolution and the possibility of progress

                        ii.        Slavery and Dueling

            c.         Feminism (Goldstein/Tickner +)


            d.         When do Institutions and Ideas Matter?

            e.         Lindley’s Rotten Apple Theory



Lipson: Cooperation in Security vs. Economics: The Special Peril of Defection


            a.         Stakes are huge in security

            b.         Security issues often more zero sum

                        i.         Not always true...

            c.         Security issues may be more one-shot and less influenced by reputation and time

                        i.         Not always true...

            d.         Monitoring/transparency more difficult with security



Jervis on Leading Power Peace


1.         There is now a Security Community, but:

            a.         How is it threatened?

            b.         Will it last?

            c.         What explains it?

                        i.         Nice overview of theories

            d.         What are the implications for

                        i.         IR?

                                    (1)       4 possible worlds

                                    (2)       Sources of uncertainty...

                        ii.        The Causes of War?


Conclusion of Theory Section


1.         Realism vs. Liberalism: who is right?

2.         How is IR evolving?



Tilly: A Darwinian View of History

            a.         Coercion/War—>State—>Coercion/War

            b.         20th cent: 275 wars w/115 million deaths, compared to 205 wars and 8 million deaths in 19th cent and 68 wars w/4 million deaths in 18th century

            c.         War = coercion works, leads to wealth and power. But ability to coerce and wage war is relative. WHAT THEORY?

            d.         To coerce and make war, States created institutions (courts, treasuries, etc.) which gained lives of their own. WHAT THEORY?

            e.         To compete, smaller municipalities and kingdoms banded together. WHAT THEORY?

            f.         As army sizes grew, mercenary armies went from pillaging to more organized systems of supply and pay to keep them happy and fighting. WHAT FACTOR IS MISSING?

            g.         In what areas of the world has war NOT made the state?

            h.         What is state expenditure on war today?

            i.         What does it say about changing morality and new norms if mercenaries are relatively rare today?

            j.         What is the future if Tilly is right? What if history is a Darwinian evolution towards more efficient coercion serving the state? What of liberal democracy? What current and future threats need to be efficiently balanced against?

            k.         What are the functions of states?

            l.         Counter-arguments?

            m.       Apply arguments to:

                        i.          US history...

                        ii.        Other areas...

1.         World History, History of IR

            a.         Many changes, many categories of change.


            b.         Where have we come from and where are we going?


            c.          Big themes:

                        i.         Change Happens, and sometimes quite fast and often now faster

                        ii.        Which changes are good and which are bad?

                        iii.       What kind of race are we in?


            d.         World civilizations

                        i.         Are we (in) a civilization today?


            e.         States and Great powers

                                    (1)       Who are the upcoming great powers? What are the dangers of power transitions?

                                    (2)       The future of the state?

                                                (a)       Globalization vs. Fractionating Nationalism


            f.         Imperialism/Colonialism

                        i.         Why did it happen? Why did it end?

                        ii.        Are today’s rich GP’s neo-imperialists?


            g.         Nationalism

                        i.         A force for good or ill?






            h.         World Economy

                                    (1)       What are overall economic trends?

                                    (2)       $=power; SO Who dominates and with what effect?

                                    (3)       What are effects of economic changes and turbulence?

                                    (4)       Development: How?


2.         What categories did Goldstein skip or play down?


            a.         Health

                        i.         Population explosion

                        ii.        Lifespan/Old age explosion

                        iii.       Few plagues left...Maybe


            b.         Welfare state

                        i.         What is the function of the state? What do they do for you and where is your allegiance?


            c.         Human rights and norms

                        i.         Slavery

                        ii.        Group vs. individual rights

                                    (1)       Sovereignty vs. human rights


            d.         Globalization

                        i.         What are the effects of Interdependence, MNCs? Telecoms? Internet? Of NGOs and IGOs? Trading blocs and free trade zones? What new world is emerging and what are the costs and benefits?

                        ii.        Race to bottom? Or greater opportunity and wealth for all?


            e.         Lethality

                        i.         Wars over time

                                    (1)       civil wars

                        ii.        Technological

                                    (1)       kill rates

                                    (2)       nuclear history

                                    (3)       Cold War comparison

                        iii.       Rules/norms of war

                                    (1)       Civilians at risk

                                    (2)       Rape

                                    (3)       Terrorism


            f.         Ruling ideologies

                        i.         What are prevailing standards?

                                    (1)       Has history evolved and are ideas important?

                        ii.        Is history over?


            g.         Environment

                        i.         Sanitation

                        ii.        Industrial Pollution

                        iii.       Consumer/auto pollution

                        iv.       Global commons