Levels of Analysis and Hierarchy in International Relations

U.S. diplomacy in response to international situations or a crisis traditionally combine and fluctuate between path dependency and the important attributes of the personality of the decision maker. 

There is a hierarchy in the process of decision making. The three levels of analysis in an international situation or crisis are the individual, the state, and the international system. Liberalism is based upon the idea that governments derive their power from the individual. As the Declaration of Independence stated, governments get their right to govern from the consent of the people. The individual by agreeing to be governed by a set of laws is giving up some of his or her personal freedoms. The individual could have chosen to live in a society of anarchy. Instead, in choosing to live in organized society, the individual concedes some powers to the state in exchange for security. 

The state is the second level of analysis. The state derives its authority from the individual. However, it has a lot of discretion in how it operates and decides how to be responsive to the individuals needs. An advantage that the state has is that the individual’s needs are not all the same. The states role is to balance the different and diverse needs of the individuals. All while achieving legitimacy and not alienating too many citizens. One example of this is the nations choosing to be in international organizations. Very similar to the way in which the nation obtains its right to govern from the consent of the people. All international organizations obtain their authority and jurisdiction from the consent of the member states. A concrete example of this is the situation in the European Union. The relationship between the people, the states, and the international system is very fragile. Part of the uncertainty of the future of the European Union resides in its inability to connect with the changing needs of the individual. 

In an international situation, there is room for path dependency as well as being room for the importance of the personality attributes. The international trade system provides a good example of the role of path dependency. The international trade system formed in the post WorldWar Two world, its underlying institutions, beliefs, and customs have led to a path dependent outcome resulting in ever greater levels of trade and integration. Much of the backlash that we are seeing in the political developments in the United States, European Union, and other advanced countries can be connected to this path dependency and it not being able to understand the negative effects of international trade. This would be an example of many of the individuals in the state not benefiting from a multilateral system adopted by the nations. 

At the same time path dependency can exist with the level of decision making and personality attributes of decision making and policy outcomes. As an example, a strong individual leader can influence and redirect path dependency.  For example, Trump’s position on free trade in 2016 was outside the institutional beliefs of the path dependency theory of free trade. His position was not mainstream and more in line with Bernie Sanders’ position. The positions of Sanders and Trump pulled Clinton in 2016 in their direction on trade issues. Today the institutional underpinnings of free trade are perhaps forever altered in part because of the leadership of this strong personality.    

Previous
Previous

Humans and Automation

Next
Next

The Obama Doctrine: Realism, Institutionalism, and Constructivism