Political Science 101 POLS: International Relations - Levels of Analysis Individual State International System Waltz

1. What This Is & Why It Matters

Levels of Analysis is the study of how to examine and understand the world of politics through different lenses, each focusing on distinct units of analysis. This concept is central to political science because it allows us to explain and predict various phenomena, from the collapse of democracies to the effectiveness of international institutions. Without understanding the levels of analysis, you can't explain why some countries adopt authoritarian regimes, why international trade agreements are successful, or why certain policies fail.

Consider the example of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the United States government responded to the crisis with a patchwork of state and local policies, while the international community coordinated efforts through the World Health Organization (WHO). A political scientist analyzing this situation would need to consider the individual level (e.g., how citizens responded to the pandemic), the state level (e.g., how governors and mayors implemented policies), and the international system level (e.g., how the WHO coordinated global responses).

2. Essential Thinkers, Concepts & Models

• Karl Deutsch's Interdependence Model: A framework for understanding how countries become interdependent and how this affects their relationships.
  • Definition: Deutsch's model explains how countries become economically and politically interconnected, leading to increased cooperation and conflict.
  • Why it's still relevant: Deutsch's ideas underpin modern theories of globalization and international relations.
• Waltz's Neorealism: A theory that explains international relations through the lens of the international system.
  • Definition: Waltz's neorealism posits that the international system is anarchic, and states are primarily motivated by self-interest and security concerns.
  • Why it's still relevant: Waltz's ideas continue to influence international relations theory and inform policy decisions.
• Locke's Social Contract Theory: A framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state.
  • Definition: Locke's theory posits that individuals enter into a social contract with the state, which provides protection and services in exchange for obedience.
  • Why it's still relevant: Locke's ideas underpin modern democratic theory and inform debates about government power and individual rights.
• Geddes's Concept of the "State": A framework for understanding the role of the state in international relations.
  • Definition: Geddes's concept emphasizes the state's ability to provide public goods and services, which affects its relationships with other states.
  • Why it's still relevant: Geddes's ideas continue to influence international relations theory and inform policy decisions.
• Hobbes's Leviathan: A framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state.
  • Definition: Hobbes's theory posits that individuals are inherently self-interested and that the state must provide a strong authority to maintain order.
  • Why it's still relevant: Hobbes's ideas continue to influence modern debates about government power and individual rights.
• Rousseau's General Will: A framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state.
  • Definition: Rousseau's theory posits that the general will of the people should guide the actions of the state.
  • Why it's still relevant: Rousseau's ideas continue to influence modern democratic theory and inform debates about government power and individual rights.
• Grotius's Concept of Sovereignty: A framework for understanding the role of the state in international relations.
  • Definition: Grotius's concept emphasizes the state's sovereignty and its ability to make decisions without external interference.
  • Why it's still relevant: Grotius's ideas continue to influence international relations theory and inform policy decisions.

3. Step-by-Step 'Political Analysis'

1. Define the research question: Clearly articulate the research question or hypothesis you want to test.
2. Choose the level of analysis: Decide which level of analysis (individual, state, international system) is most relevant to your research question.
3. Gather data: Collect data from relevant sources, such as surveys, government reports, or international organizations.
4. Compare cases: Select relevant cases and compare them to identify patterns and trends.
5. Test a hypothesis: Use statistical analysis or other methods to test your hypothesis and draw conclusions.
6. Consider alternative explanations: Think about alternative explanations for your findings and consider how they might affect your conclusions.

4. Common Student Mistakes

• Misconception: Assuming that the individual level of analysis is always the most relevant.
  • The right view: Consider the state and international system levels of analysis, as they may be more relevant in certain situations.
• Misconception: Believing that Waltz's neorealism is the only relevant international relations theory.
  • The right view: Consider other theories, such as liberalism or constructivism, which may provide alternative explanations for international relations.
• Misconception: Thinking that Locke's social contract theory is only relevant to modern democratic theory.
  • The right view: Consider how Locke's ideas continue to influence modern debates about government power and individual rights.

5. Exam/Essay Tips

• Multiple-choice questions: Be careful to distinguish between different levels of analysis and theories.
• Free-response questions: Use specific examples and data to support your arguments.
• Trap distinctions: Be aware of common trap distinctions, such as pluralism vs. elitism or dual federalism vs. cooperative federalism.
• Integrating the topic into an argumentative essay: Use the levels of analysis to support your argument and consider alternative perspectives.

6. Quick Practice Scenario

Scenario: A president deploys troops without Congressional approval – which constitutional principle is at stake?

Answer: The principle of separation of powers is at stake, as the president is exercising executive power without Congressional approval.

Justification: The Constitution grants the president the power to deploy troops, but also requires Congressional approval for such actions. In this scenario, the president is exercising executive power without Congressional approval, which raises concerns about the separation of powers.

7. Last-Minute Cram Sheet

• Karl Deutsch's Interdependence Model: A framework for understanding how countries become interdependent.
• Waltz's Neorealism: A theory that explains international relations through the lens of the international system.
• Locke's Social Contract Theory: A framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state.
• Geddes's Concept of the "State": A framework for understanding the role of the state in international relations.
• Hobbes's Leviathan: A framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state.
• Rousseau's General Will: A framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state.
• Grotius's Concept of Sovereignty: A framework for understanding the role of the state in international relations.
• Separation of Powers: A constitutional principle that divides power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
• Dual Federalism: A system of government in which power is divided between the federal government and the states.
• Cooperative Federalism: A system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the states.
• "Separate but equal" was overturned by Brown v. Board – Plessy v. Ferguson was the earlier, racist ruling.

8. Further Study Resources

• Textbook: American Government: Stories of a Nation by David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas A. Bailey
• Khan Academy Unit: International Relations
• YouTube Channel: Crash Course Government
• Supreme Court Case: Marbury v. Madison (1803)