The Second Level of Analysis

Variations Amongst the States

An explanation of WWI

• Each great power thought the war would be short and victorious

• The rally ‘round the flag effect would strengthen the state

• War would divert from other problems

Austria

• Had no national unity; secessionists abound

• Russia backs the Slav separatists

• Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by Croat and Serb nationals

• Domestic politics (maintaining unity) dictated foreign policy

Britain

• Relative decline vis-à-vis Germany, Russia and USA

• Naval race with Germany• Constitutional conflict on liberal democracy• Women's suffrage• Trade unionism• Ireland/Ulster• Guns v. butter

France

• Electoral reform (unstable political system)

• 3 years compulsory military service

• Income tax imposed to pay for buildup

• Fragmented, polarized multi-party system with ever-changing coalitions

• Accusations of treason

• Alsace-Lorraine

Russia

• Lost war with Japan (1904)

• Revolution at home (1905 and on)

• Liberals vs. nationalists

• Expansionist policy

• Balkan Wars (1912-3) were unfinished. By 1915, 250,000 ethnic minorities expelled.

Germany

• Economic development (industrial revolution) has led to social dislocation

• Government afraid of the proletariat• System is constructed amongst the Kaiser (monarch), Junkers

(agrarian elite) and Bureaucrats. Where does the bourgeoisie and proletariat fit in?

• Did not reflect “real” distribution of power• Weltpolitik (1897)

– Colonial policy– Expansionism– Challenging the UK to a naval race

• A victorious leader must always seek the next victory

Germany’s Demands in Africa

Anglo-German Antagonism

Economic Rivalry

1880 1880 1913 1913

Britain Germany Britain Germany

Share of world manufacturing

23% 9% 14% 15%

Per Capita industrial’n

(Britain 1900 = 100)

87 25 115 85

Anglo-German Antagonism

Trade Rivalry

1913 Total (£m) % in Europe

Britain 793 5

France 357 52

Germany 230 44

USA 139 20

Anglo-German Antagonism

Colonial RivalryPopulation of

Empire (m) 1914

Britain 400

Germany 15

France 60

Italy 0.2

Anglo-German Antagonism

Military Rivalry

Ratio of British-German warship tonnage

1880 1890 1900 1910 1914

7.4 3.6 3.7 2.3 2.1

Anglo-German Antagonism

Military Rivalry (Navy 1914)Personnel (K) Large

vesselsTonnage (m)

Russia 54 4 0.3

France 68 10 0.7

Britain 209 29 2.2

TOTAL 331 43 3.2

Germany 79 17 1.0

Austria-Hun.

16 3 0.3

TOTAL 95 20 1.3

Anglo-German Antagonism

Military Rivalry (militarization)

% population in military service

Russia 0.77

France 2.29

Britain 1.17

TOTAL 1.07

Germany 1.33

Austria-Hun

0.85

TOTAL 1.12

Anglo-German AntagonismMilitary Rivalry (defence spending as % of GNP)

1939 – Germany = 20%

1984 – Britain = 5%; USSR = 15%

Britain France Russia Germany

A-H Italy

1893 2.5 4.2 4.4 3.4 3.1 3.6

1913 3.2 4.8 5.1 3.9 3.2 5.1

Variations

• Regime Type

• Ideology

• Economics

• Implementation Institutions

• Political Culture

• Extract-ability of Resources

Regime Types• Democratic – rule by the citizenry• Authoritarian - ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in

power. The state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be a direct challenge to the state.

• Totalitarian - the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology, and do not tolerate activities by individuals or secondary associations such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals. They maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics.

• Post-Totalitarian – after the fall of Totalitarianism, government with absent or weak institutions and lacking secondary associations

• Sultanic - all individuals, groups and institutions are permanently subject to the unpredictable and despotic intervention of the sultan, and thus all pluralism is precarious

Dimensions of Regimes

• Pluralism – alternatives to government policies (political parties, interest groups, etc.)

• Mobilization – public participation (rallies, voting, etc.)• Charismatic Leadership - Charisma is a special

characteristic of some leaders. The followers trust the correctness of the leader's beliefs; The followers feel affection for the leader and obey the leader willingly; The followers feel an emotional involvement in the mission they are led to do.

• Pervasive Ideology – set of beliefs about how government and society should be

Ideology

• A comprehensive and logically ordered set of beliefs about the nature of people, institutions and the roles of government.

• Is the ideology transformative?

• Does it seek expansion? Will it be resisted?

• Can it coexist with non-believers?

Some ideologies

• Marxism

• Lenin’s variant

• Nazism

• Franquism

• Pan-Arabism

• Democracy as “the end of history”

• Anarchism

Economic Development

• GDP• Capital markets• Trade dependency• Single-product dependency• Sectoral employment (Ag, Industry, Service)• Discretionary resources• Technology

Economic Systems

• Laissez-faire capitalism (MoP owned by private actors, market distribution)

• Socialism (MoP owned by society)

• Market socialism (MoP owned by state or collectives but no central planning)

• Soziale Marktwirtschaft (private and public MoP, heavy state involvement, goal is full employment)

• State-led capitalism (state owns large and important sectors with substantial planning, private sector coexists, usually capital markets are weak)

• Mixed economy (market and private sector dominant with some state ownership and planning)

Bureaucracy

A bureaucracy is the name given to a large organization that is structured hierarchically to carry out specific functions. Generally, most bureaucracies are characterized by an organization chart. The units of the organization are divided according to the specialization and expertise of the employees.

Weberian Model of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracies as rational, hierarchical organizations in which power flows from the top downward

• Decisions are based on logical reasoning and data analysis.

• Division of labor• Chain of command• Formal rules• Apolitical (neutral decision making)• Advancement based upon merit• Bureaucrats are salaried by superior institutions

Decision MakingGraham Allison’s Essence of Decision identifies three paths along which decisions can be made:1. A "rational actor" model which describes a state's behavior as that of a

perfectly rational individual, who is normally assumed to have perfect situational knowledge, and who attempts to optimize whatever values/goals are sought in a given situation.

2. An "organizational process" model in which the decision maker operates under time and information constraints, and does not seek an optimal solution. Instead, the decision maker engages in "satisficing" behavior and attempts to find a solution which achieves a set (minimum) goal, and minimizes risk of failure.

3. A "bureaucratic politics" model in which state actors seek to achieve separate goals, which may conflict with each other. In this case, various individuals, representing various organizational interests, engage in a process of "pulling and hauling" to achieve a negotiated group decision which will represent the policy of the state. The agreed upon policy may erode over time, as the situation changes dynamically, as organizational interests evolve, and as individuals gain and lose bureaucratic power, status, and access to critical information. “Where you sit determines where you stand.”

Resources Called into Government Service

The Democratic Peace

• Kant’s Perpetual Peace

– A government answerable to the people

– A League of Nations to manage the peace

– A freedom of int’l travel and commerce

– Confidence-building measures (CBM) including disarmament

• Democratic Peace Theory, based upon Kantian peace, was first described by Bruce Russett and John Oneal

• H1: Democracies tend to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not.

• H2: Democracies are more peaceable with each other .

• Is it true? That depends on how you define “democracy” and “peace”

Possible Definitions

• Democratic– Elected legislature

– Elected executive

– more than one effective party in the system

– alternation of party/coalition members in government

• Peace– Absence of conflicts with 1000 or more annual battle

deaths by state system members

Related Hypotheses

• The relatively transparent decision-making inherent in democratic institutions reduces the uncertainty of others over motivation. In turn less uncertainty reduces the likelihood of war amongst security-seekers. Transparent democratic institutions promote peace. These institutions include statutory public laws, a voting parliament and a court system. (Kydd)

Related Hypotheses

• Free states are less likely to engage in war with other free states (Freedom House)

• Democracies are less likely to be the target of coercive diplomacy or to intervene in the military affairs of others (Herrmann and Kegley)

• Trade, or “cosmopolitan law” - the costs of trade disruption forms a disincentive to militarized conflict (Gowa)

• Democracies do not fight democracies in their home region (Thompson)

Counter-Examples to a Historical Application of a Dogmatic Democratic Peace Theory

• Athenian Sicilian Expedition, 415-413 BC [Athens vs. Syracuse]• Trail of Tears, 1838 [Cherokee vs. USA]• French Second Republic attack on the Roman Republic, 1849• American Civil War, 1861-1865 [USA vs. CSA]• War of the Pacific, 1879-1884 [Chile vs. Bolivia over the Atacama]• Spanish-American War, 1898• World War I, 1914-1918 [UK/France vs. Germany]• The state of war between Finland and the Western Allies, 1941-1944• The Lebanese aerial participation in the Six Day War against Israel,

1967.• The Paquisha War, 1981. [Ecuador vs. Peru]• Peru-Ecuador Cenepa War, 1995• The Kargil War, 1999 [Pakistan vs. India]