Chapter 3 - Levels of Analysis

Do you remember the saying: "the devil is in the details"?

Well if he is, than so is salvation! The details are what social science is all about, the measurable, countable, verifiable details. The kind of stock questions, who gets hurt? who benefits? who pays? how and when do they pay?

In international relations those too are the questions we ask, but we always must stay clear on what level we are asking the questions. What level of the international arena are we studying or formulating policy for?

The global level? The regional level? the best interests of each country (state is the preferred word) involved?

Is what's good for the US always good for Canada or Mexico let alone the rest of the world? And is what's good for Canada or Mexico or any other country also good for the whole world? ... Of course not.

"Level of Analysis" is one of these concepts that apply in life, work etc. Your boss may say "we" but does he really mean you and him as some kind of partners?

In the study of American Government, federalism is an exact example of the levels of analysis problems. Is it the responsibility of the federal government? the state government? the county? city? etc..

Levels of Analysis is one of those concepts that when you start to understand its importance and relevance, you see it every where.

Your book uses the term "sub state level" meaning things that happen within the country - also known as domestic politics.

This is always a touchy subject for any state to think that an international organization is mandating that they do some specific thing that is completely domestic in nature. That is always seen as an assault on sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a strange concept in the 21st century. Of course it was born before nation states really came into being in Europe. The saying was "the king is the land and the land is the king." He was Severeign. End of story.

But through out the 20th century the idea of state sovereignty was at least eroded. At the end of world war two here were 52 states in the world. Today there are just short of 200. That's a great change. Many borders are artificial or not revenant to the local population except as a way to exact their meager wealth from them.

Also, with the rise of ngos, corporations and other global and regional actors, In the 21st century, sovereignty will become a far more slippery concept .

For the entire time I have been studying international relations (I got my BA in 1982) there have been those experts who specialized in talking about the continuing decline in the role and the relevance of the state as a tool of analysis in international relations.

But the reality is the state remains the major concept and the chief actor in the international area. Sure all these other growing factors are true, more ngos, corporations with budgets larger than some countries, etc, but the state - the country - remains the most important concept and actor in international relations.

Even in a place like Somalia where there is almost no real functioning national government, it is that very thing - a functioning national government - that the many sides are fighting over.

So we have the constant reminder of levels of analysis - always be aware what you are looking at, what you are looking for and how you are looking at something.

In international relations that means are you looking at the global system, regional, state, sub state or domestic, or the individual?

In the strictness of meaning the social sciences do not really study individuals. Yet the impact of a particular individual cannot be over stated.

Would the US have invaded Iraq if Gore were President? I think the US would have invaded Afghanistan if Donald Duck was president, but Iraq under Gore? I'm not so sure.

Some argue: look if it wasn't Hitler or Stalin it would have been two other animals, that they are products of the times or their culture. Others want to believe that certain humans, certain famous humans are some how different from all of us regular humans and that these certain humans are, well, evil. And that explains that, it is argued.

Here's a little video by me about leadership.

I read historical biographies as a hobby, but I don't think we will ever "get to know" historical figures like they were alive today, because they are not. Political science can and often does name eras, or policies after people, but the study of individuals, even leaders, is best left psychology. Political science studies groups of humans not individual humans.

This idea of checking your "level of analysis" is an important reminder that how we seek answers often creates our answers. How we seek answers effects the outcome. Our methods to arrive at a conclusion often pre-determine our conclusion. That is not science. that is not social science. That's Talk radio or Fox news.

We have to approach the international system without our ownnationalism, regionalism, sexism, or whatever - we have to attempt to be scientific.