Class Notes (807,739)
Canada (492,844)
POLI 244 (343)

Levels of Analysis.docx

7 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Political Science
POLI 244
Mahesh Shankar

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012: Levels of Analysis- Domestic Domestic Level (Second Image) Liberal theory often works at this level, neo-liberalism (institutionalism) is systemic. Liberal scholars expect we cant understand how the system impacts countries and the conditions under which it holds, until without first understanding their domestic politicswhereas the systemic view is the reversal of this logic and looks at systemic level variables and later see if the domestic level doesnt fit into something. The basic foundation of this level is the intuition that if we want to explain state behaviour in the international system and their foreign policy, we have to look at basic sources of their policies, and we look for them within each states domestic politics. The billiard balling of states renders those kind of theories less useful because they cant explain states domestic policy behaviour Causal variables lie within states, not outside them (opposite of the systemic argument view who feels you can abstract away from domestic politics because the system and structure defines the behavioursystemic model uses domestic politics only to explain why a country does not fit into the model) Liberal theory is defined not in terms of optimism for liberal politics, but based on the level of analysis it is placed on. Why do scholars choose to focus on this level? This level is differentiated from the systemic level by their configuration of preferences, not capabilities. For realists/systemic level analysts, how capabilities are distributed in the international system is what matters (how power is distributed, polarity, etc.). The domestic level argues that what matters is the configuration of preferences or interests. We cant assume interests or preferences, and we need to understand the sources of the interests and preferences of states. You cant assume survival is the primary interest, because states may be pursuing other interests more aggressively. They think the primary actors are individuals and groups within domestic society who are rational, risk adverse, and have their own specific ideas and interests (opposite of the system top-down argument). They are socially differentiated and define interests of states independently of politics. There could be some groups involving in activities that are globally competitive, and others could be seeking protectionism. The idea is that there are various individuals and groups in society who define their interest and wellbeing differently. These groups are competing with each other in the ring of domestic politics, so that their preferences in domestic and international politics can be carried out. This means states are just representative of a particular interest in society. It is according to those interests that the interests of the state are defined. What matters in understanding state preferences is finding out who determines stateinterests. States are therefore not actors in and of themselves because they dont do anything. ex) Communist thinkers say in a capitalist society, the ruling classes (a group) have incentives to hold onto the means of production, while the proletariat (another group) have the opposite interests. States arent actors; they are transmission belts for the interests of who wins out domestically. In democracy, it could represent many people or groups, or a dictator could be representing the interests of only one group. States, contrary to realists, are functionally differentiated and do not pursue one particular interest. They all pursue different goals at different times and these goals can basically be traced to the domestic politics. Once the interests of states have been established (the interests of the dominant group/individual), international interactions come at the last step of the theory (bottom-up method). The interdependence of state interests (or configuration of interests) determines outcomes and policies. States cant do whatever they want to do at the international level, and their policies and actions are determined by how their own preferences interact with those of other states. They say the constraints on their actions come as the last step in policy. They are constrained from pursuing their interests as they define them by the preferences of other states. This level can account for not just broad systemic action, but for actual foreign po
More Less

Related notes for POLI 244

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.