The Problem of Levels of Analysis in the Theory of International Relations: on the Way Towards Ontological Obligations?
https://doi.org/10.24412/2221-3279-2021-10036
Abstract
In the modern theory of international relations there are several fundamental problems, the discussion and comprehension of which, in fact, sets the trajectory of further development of theoretical schools. This article is devoted to one of such problems which is often defined as the problem of levels of analysis. At the initial stage of the scientific discussion, the levels of analysis were perceived as a research tool, the use of which does not limit or oblige the researcher. This tool made it possible to more clearly identify a group of determining factors of the behavior of international players. However, this interpretation of the levels of analysis turned out to be excessively static, which reduced the attractiveness of this tool for research. An important breakthrough was the idea of «weaker components» at different levels, which are more susceptible to influence from other levels of analysis. In the second stage of the discussion, as the studies of the inter-level and intra-level dynamics proceeded, it turned out that the most important aspect of the problem of levels of analysis is the content of interactions. And the identification of meaningful elements of interactions explicitly or implicitly implies an appeal to the issues of social epistemology and ontology, which has led to the identification of a new layer of contradictions and conceptual forks within the problem of levels of analysis. The third stage of the discussion on the problem of levels of analysis has only just begun with major contribution from constructivism. At the present stage, the problem of levels of analysis retains its significance for research methodology as well as for the epistemology and ontology of IR studies. The article summarizes the achievements and shortcomings of each stage of the scientific discussion on the problem of levels of analysis and offers some promising new areas for further theorizing.
About the Author
I. D. Loshkariov
Russian Foreign Ministry
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ivan D. Loshkariov
MGIMO University
Institute of International Studies
Candidate in Political Science, Associate Professor, Research Fellow
Department of Political Theory
Moscow
References
1. Albert, M.; Buzan, B. International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology // International Political Sociology, 2013, Vol. 7, No. 2.
2. Allison, G. T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1971.
3. Andriole, S. J. The Level of Analysis Problems and The Study of Foreign, International, and Global Affairs: a Review Critique and Another Final Solution // International Interactions, 1979, Vol. 5, No. 2-3, рp. 122-127.
4. Berkowitz, B. D. Levels of Analysis Problems in International Studies // International Interactions, 1986, Vol. 12, No. 3.
5. Brecher, M. The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Setting, Images, Process. London, Oxford University Press, 1972.
6. Bueno de Mesquita, B.; Smith, A. Domestic Explanations of International Relations // Annual Review of Political Science, 2012, Vol. 15, рp. 161-181.
7. Bueno de Mesquita, B. B.; Siverson, R. M. War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability // American Political Science Review, 1995, Vol. 89, No. 4, рp. 841-855.
8. Bull, H. The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Pp. 45-49.
9. Buzan, B.; Jones, C. A.; Little, R. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York, Columbia University Press, 1993. Рp. 69-80.
10. Buzan, B.; Little, R. International Systems in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Рp. 76-78.
11. Copp, D. Hobbes on Artifi cial Persons and Collective Actions // The Philosophical Review, 1980, Vol. 89, No. 4, рp. 579-606.
12. Cowhey, P. F. Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitment: Japan and the United States // International Organization, 1993, Vol. 47, No. 2, рp. 299-326.
13. Dahl, R. A. The Concept of Power // Behavioral Science, 1957, Vol. 2, No. 3.
14. Degterev, D. A. Formalizovannye modeli v mezhdunarodno-politicheskoj nauke (Formalized Models in the IR) // Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija, 2017, Vol. 4, No. 4.
15. Elman, C. Cause, Effect, and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz // Security Studies, 1996, Vol. 6, No. 1, рp. 58-61.
16. Fearon, J. D. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes // American Political Science Review, 1994. Vol. 88, No. 3, рp. 577-592.
17. Gallie, W. B. Essentially contested concepts // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1955, Vol. 56, No. 1, рp. 167-198.
18. Gourevitch, P. The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics // International Organization, 1978, Vol. 32, No. 4, рp. 881-912.
19. Hermann, C. F.; East, M. A.; Salmore, S. A. Why Nations Act: Theoretical Perspectives for Comparative Foreign Policy Studies. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications,1978.
20. Hollis, M.; Smith, S. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1990.
21. Jervis, R. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New edition. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2017.
22. Katzenstein, P. J. International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States // International Organization, 1976, Vol. 30, No. 1, рp. 1-45.
23. Lebedeva, M. M. Sistema politicheskoj organizacii mira: «ideal’nyj shtorm» (The System of Global Political Organization: Ideal Storm) // Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta (MGIMO Review of International Relations), 2016, No. 2.
24. Leeds, B. A. Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation // American Journal of Political Science, 1999. Vol. 43, No. 4, рp. 979-1002.
25. Mabee, B. Levels and Agents, States and People: Micro-Historical Sociological Analysis and International Relations // International Politics, 2007, Vol. 44, No. 4.
26. Marks, M. P. Revisiting Metaphors in International Relations Theory. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
27. Morgan, T. C.; Campbell, S. H. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: so Why Kant Democracies Fight? // Journal of Confl ict Resolution, 1991, Vol. 35, No. 2, рp. 187-211.
28. Morgenthau, H. J. Another “Great Debate”: the National Interest of the United States // American Political Science Review, 1952, Vol. 46, No. 4.
29. Moul, W. B. The Level of Analysis Problem Revisited // Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Sience Politique, 1973, Vol. 6, No. 3.
30. Noone, H. Two-Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory // World Affairs, 2019, Vol. 182, No. 2.
31. Onuf, N. Levels // European Journal of International Relations, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1.
32. Putnam, R. D. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games // International Organization, 1988, Vol. 42, No. 3.
33. Ringmar, E. On the Ontological Status of the State // European Journal of International Relations, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 4, рp. 439-466.
34. Romanova, T. A. Institucional’nye urovni analiza i jevoljucija otnoshenij Rossii i Evrosojuza: nekotorye voprosy teorii i praktiki (Institutional Levels of Analysis and the Evolution of Russia-EU Relations: Some Issues of Theory and Practice) // Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij: obrazovanie, nauka, novaja jekonomika, 2016, Vol. 11, No. 4.
35. Rosenau, J. Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy // Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Ed. by R. B. Farrell. Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1966. Pp. 29-92.
36. Singer, D. J. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations // World Politics, 1961, Vol. 14, No. 1.
37. Singer, J. D. International Conflict: Three Levels of Analysis // World Politics, 1960, Vol. 12, No. 3, рр. 453-461.
38. Temby, O. What Are Levels of Analysis and What Do They Contribute to International Relations Theory? // Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 4.
39. Walker, R. B. J. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
40. Waltz, K. Man, the State, and War: Theoretical Analysis. New York, Columbia University Press, 2001.
41. Wendt, A. Levels of Analysis vs. Agents and Structures: part III // Review of International Studies, 1992, Vol. 18, No. 2, рp. 181-185.
42. Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
43. Wendt, A. E. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory // International Organization, 1987, Vol. 41, No. 3, рp. 335-370.
44. Yalem, R. J. International Politics: The Continuing Search for Theory // International Interactions, 1982, Vol. 9, No. 3.
45. Yurdusev, N. “Level of Analysis” and “Unit of Analysis”: a Case for Distinction // Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1993, Vol. 22, No. 1.
Review
For citations:
Loshkariov I.D. The Problem of Levels of Analysis in the Theory of International Relations: on the Way Towards Ontological Obligations? Comparative Politics Russia. 2021;12(4):5-18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2221-3279-2021-10036
Views:
877
Email this article 
