Heywood, A. (2014): Introducing Global Politics, in: Global Politics (2nd ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave,
1-21.
CH 1 - Introducing Global Politics
WHAT IS GLOBAL POLITICS?
What is in a name?
• Global as a term means worldwide = conducted at a global rather
than national or regional level. Global issues e.g. climate change,
they involve the world as a whole and should concern everybody
equally.
• However, the notion that politics absorbs all its units and parts into
an indivisible, global whole is difficult to sustain, as well as the
notion that the state is dead and sovereignty is irrelevant. Because
of this, the idea of global politics draws on the second meaning of
the word global, comprehensive = it refers to all elements within a
system, not just the system as a whole.
• Both that what goes on within states and what goes on between
states impact on one another to a greater degree than ever before =
global dimension of politics
From international politics to global politics
• Most significant changes include the following:
- New actors on the world stage
- Increased interdependence and interconnectedness
- The trend towards global governance
The state and new global actors
Reminder: The IT ‘great debates’
A. 1930s to 1950s: between liberal internationalists, who emphasised the possibility of a peaceful cooperation, and
realists, who believed in power politics. By 1950s, realism had gained ascendance in the discipline
B. 1960s: between behaviouralists and traditionalists over whether it is possible to develop objective ‘laws’ of
international relations
C. 1970s to 1980s: inter-paradigm debate between realists and liberals, on the one hand, and Marxists on the
other, who focused on economic terms.
D. Late 1980s: between positivists and so-called post-positivists over the relationship between theory and reality.
• Definition of state = a state must possess four qualifying properties: a defined territory, a permanent
population, an effective government, and the ‘capacity to enter into relations with other states’
• The conventional approach to world politics is state-centric (takes the state to be the key actor in the
domestic realm and on the world stage), and the international system is often portrayed as state-system (a
pattern of relationships between and amongst states that established a measure of order and predictability).
• Since the 1970s, pluralist theorists have advocated a mixed-actor model (theory that, while not ignoring
the role of states and national governments, international politics is shaped by a much broader range of
interests and groups). Nevertheless, states and national governments remain the most important actors.
,Increased interdependence and interconnectedness
• 1950s and later - dominating thinking about IR = state-centric approach “billiard ball model” : suggested
that states, like billiard balls, are impermeable and self-contained units, which influence each other
through external pressure. Sovereign states interacting within the state system are thus seen to behave like
a collection of billiard balls moving over the table and colliding with each other. This raises military and
security matters, with the assumption that power and survival are the primary concerns of the state.
• Implications of the billiard ball model of world politics:
- Suggests a clear distinction between domestic politics and international politics = boarders are
significant
- Implies that patterns of conflict and cooperation within the international system are largely determined
by the distribution of power among states. Therefore, even though they acknowledge the equality of
states, each being a sovereign entity, they recognise that some states are more powerful than others (not
all billiard balls are of the same size)
• Billiard model under pressure?
- Substantial growth in transitional flows and transactions in all fields = boarders are becoming less
significant and so is the distinction between domestic and international politics = associated with
globalisation.
- Grown interdependence and interconnectedness of the relationships between states, and rise of
collective action problems which are impossible to resolve alone, regardless how powerful a state is.
States are drawn into cooperation and integration by such forces = “cobweb model of world politics”
However, there are parts of the world where countries remain enmeshed in military-military-strategic
conflicts = levels of interdependence vary across the globe - asymmetrical interdependence could lead
to conflict rather than harmony.
• International politics is thus orientated mainly around issues of war and peace, with diplomacy and
possibly military action being the principal forms of state interaction. (Diplomacy = a process of
negotiation and communication between states that seeks to resolve conflict without recourse to war: an
instrument of foreign policy)
From international anarchy to global governance?
• Assumption of traditional approach - state system operates in a context of anarchy (anarchy = without
rule, absence of central government or higher authority, sometimes associated with instability and chaos).
This assumption implied external politics operates as an international ‘state of nature’ = absence of any
other force attending to their interests, states rely on self-help (reliance on internal or inner resources,
often seen as the principal reason states prioritise survival and security). If states rely solely on self-help,
survival and security become their main priorities and hence war and conflict become inevitable features of
the international system. In this system, conflict is constrained by balance of power (conditions in which
no one state predominates over others, tending to create general equilibrium and curb/restrain the
hegemonic ambitions of all states)
• This traditional approach and the idea of international anarchy is now more difficult to sustain because of
the emergence, especially since 1945, of a framework of global governance and sometimes regional
governance = reflected by the growth of international institutions such as United Nations, the European
Union… mainly because of the fact that states are confronted by collective dilemmas. Although the
presence and existence of international institutions needs to be taken into account, they remain still under
the will of their state members.
, Globalisation and its implications
• Economic globalisation is the process through which national economies have, to a greater or lesser extent,
been absorbed into a single global economy
• Cultural globalisation is the process whereby information, commodities and images that have been
produced in one part of the world enter into a global flow that tends to ‘flatten out’ cultural differences
between nations, regions and individuals
• Political globalisation is the process through which policy- making responsibilities have been passed from
national governments to international organisations
Lenses on global politics
Mainstream perspectives
Realism v Liberalism
• Common features:
- they are both grounded around positivism (the theory that social and indeed all forms of enquiry
should conform to the methods of the natural sciences). This suggests that it is possible to develop
objective knowledge, through the capacity to distinguish ‘facts’ from ‘values’. In short, it is possible to
compare theories with the ‘real world’
- They share similar concerns and address similar issues - their core issue is the balance between conflict
and cooperation in state relations. Although realism focuses on conflict more and liberalism highlights
cooperation, they don’t remain indifferent to what each other proposes.
• Main differences:
- Hobbes (realist) - realist vision is pessimistic: constant power struggles and conflict mark international
politics, with a wide range of obstacles standing in the way of peaceful cooperation. Realism grounded
on the bases of power politics, which emphasises the following assumptions
a) Human nature is characterised by selfishness and greed
b) Politics is a domain of human activity structured by power and coercion
c) States are the key global actors
d) States prioritise self-interest and survival, and security above all else
e) States operate in a context of anarchy, and thus rely on self-help
f) Global order is structured by the distribution of power (capabilities) among states
g) The balance of power is the principal means of ensuring stability and avoiding war
h) Ethical considerations are irrelevant to the conduct of foreign policy
- Kant (liberal) - liberal vision is more optimistic: belief in human rationality and more goodness,
although they accept the notion os self-interested and competitive. Principle of balance or harmony
operates in all forms of social interaction - commitment to internationalism. The liberal model of
global politics is based on the following key assumptions:
a) Human beings are rational and moral creatures
b) History is a progressive process, characterised by a growing prospect of international
cooperation and peace
c) Mixed-actor models of global politics are more realistic than state-centric ones
d) Trade and economic interdependence makes war less likely
e) International law helps to promote order and fosters rule-governed behaviour among states
f) Democracy is inherently peaceful, particularly in reducing the likelihood of war between
democratic states (dyadic peace)
, Critical perspectives
• Until 1980s, Marxism has constituted the principal alternative to realist and liberal theories. Marxism
placed emphasis, instead of on cooperation and conflict between states, on structures of economic power
and the role played in world affairs by international capital = brought political economy into focus
• However, since Cold War, a wide range of new voices started to emerge in the world of politics such as
social constructivism, critical theory, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, feminism.. etc. All these new
voices had in common 1. They challenged positivism and tried to go beyond mainstream thinking and 2.
They are critical theories in that they oppose the dominant forces and interests in the modern world affairs
- they seek to uncover inequalities and asymmetries that mainstream theories tend to ignore
• Inequalities and asymmetries to which critical theorists have drawn attention are many and various:
- Neo-Marxists highlight inequalities in the global capitalist system through which developed countries
dominate and exploit developing countries or areas
- Social constructivism is more an analytical tool than a theory - argues people contrast the world in
which they live, claiming subjectivity and arguing against mainstream’s objectivity
- Poststructuralists emphasise ideas and concepts expressed in language which itself is enmeshed in
complex relations of power. Drawn attention yo the link between power and systems of thought using
the idea of a ‘discourse of power’
- Feminists = gender inequalities and emphasise how especially realism is based on masculinist
assumptions about rivalry, competition and inevitable conflict
- Post colonialists = preservation of western cultural and political hegemony despite the achievements of
political independence across almost the entire developing world
- Green politics, or ecologism, concerned about environmental degradation as byproduct of
industrialisation and obsessive economic growth
Continuity and change in global politics
Global politics continues to shift and change as a result of global events that trigger it. This can be shown by
examining the balance between continuity and change through three key aspects of world politics: power,
security and justice
Power
• Two main questions:
- Where is power located? During Cold War era there were two dominant ‘superpowers’ - the US and the
Soviet Union. The fall of communism after the end of Cold War left the US as the world’s superpower
= global hegemon. This view took account of the extent to which the US was the architect and chief
beneficiary of globalisation, as well as the possessor of enormous structural power, also considering its
pivotal position in international institutions such as the UN, the WTO, IMF and World Bank, giving it
disproportional influence over the frameworks within which states relate to one another and decide how
things shall be done. Other views suggest power is becoming more fragmented and pluralised - the
increasing importance in the role of non-state actors is an example. Furthermore, rising emerging states
like China, India and Brazil collectively known as the BRICs suggest power fragmentation as well.
- The changing nature of power. Soft power is becoming almost as important as hard power (soft power
being attraction rather than coercion). This is due to new technology, global communications and
rising educational standards.
1-21.
CH 1 - Introducing Global Politics
WHAT IS GLOBAL POLITICS?
What is in a name?
• Global as a term means worldwide = conducted at a global rather
than national or regional level. Global issues e.g. climate change,
they involve the world as a whole and should concern everybody
equally.
• However, the notion that politics absorbs all its units and parts into
an indivisible, global whole is difficult to sustain, as well as the
notion that the state is dead and sovereignty is irrelevant. Because
of this, the idea of global politics draws on the second meaning of
the word global, comprehensive = it refers to all elements within a
system, not just the system as a whole.
• Both that what goes on within states and what goes on between
states impact on one another to a greater degree than ever before =
global dimension of politics
From international politics to global politics
• Most significant changes include the following:
- New actors on the world stage
- Increased interdependence and interconnectedness
- The trend towards global governance
The state and new global actors
Reminder: The IT ‘great debates’
A. 1930s to 1950s: between liberal internationalists, who emphasised the possibility of a peaceful cooperation, and
realists, who believed in power politics. By 1950s, realism had gained ascendance in the discipline
B. 1960s: between behaviouralists and traditionalists over whether it is possible to develop objective ‘laws’ of
international relations
C. 1970s to 1980s: inter-paradigm debate between realists and liberals, on the one hand, and Marxists on the
other, who focused on economic terms.
D. Late 1980s: between positivists and so-called post-positivists over the relationship between theory and reality.
• Definition of state = a state must possess four qualifying properties: a defined territory, a permanent
population, an effective government, and the ‘capacity to enter into relations with other states’
• The conventional approach to world politics is state-centric (takes the state to be the key actor in the
domestic realm and on the world stage), and the international system is often portrayed as state-system (a
pattern of relationships between and amongst states that established a measure of order and predictability).
• Since the 1970s, pluralist theorists have advocated a mixed-actor model (theory that, while not ignoring
the role of states and national governments, international politics is shaped by a much broader range of
interests and groups). Nevertheless, states and national governments remain the most important actors.
,Increased interdependence and interconnectedness
• 1950s and later - dominating thinking about IR = state-centric approach “billiard ball model” : suggested
that states, like billiard balls, are impermeable and self-contained units, which influence each other
through external pressure. Sovereign states interacting within the state system are thus seen to behave like
a collection of billiard balls moving over the table and colliding with each other. This raises military and
security matters, with the assumption that power and survival are the primary concerns of the state.
• Implications of the billiard ball model of world politics:
- Suggests a clear distinction between domestic politics and international politics = boarders are
significant
- Implies that patterns of conflict and cooperation within the international system are largely determined
by the distribution of power among states. Therefore, even though they acknowledge the equality of
states, each being a sovereign entity, they recognise that some states are more powerful than others (not
all billiard balls are of the same size)
• Billiard model under pressure?
- Substantial growth in transitional flows and transactions in all fields = boarders are becoming less
significant and so is the distinction between domestic and international politics = associated with
globalisation.
- Grown interdependence and interconnectedness of the relationships between states, and rise of
collective action problems which are impossible to resolve alone, regardless how powerful a state is.
States are drawn into cooperation and integration by such forces = “cobweb model of world politics”
However, there are parts of the world where countries remain enmeshed in military-military-strategic
conflicts = levels of interdependence vary across the globe - asymmetrical interdependence could lead
to conflict rather than harmony.
• International politics is thus orientated mainly around issues of war and peace, with diplomacy and
possibly military action being the principal forms of state interaction. (Diplomacy = a process of
negotiation and communication between states that seeks to resolve conflict without recourse to war: an
instrument of foreign policy)
From international anarchy to global governance?
• Assumption of traditional approach - state system operates in a context of anarchy (anarchy = without
rule, absence of central government or higher authority, sometimes associated with instability and chaos).
This assumption implied external politics operates as an international ‘state of nature’ = absence of any
other force attending to their interests, states rely on self-help (reliance on internal or inner resources,
often seen as the principal reason states prioritise survival and security). If states rely solely on self-help,
survival and security become their main priorities and hence war and conflict become inevitable features of
the international system. In this system, conflict is constrained by balance of power (conditions in which
no one state predominates over others, tending to create general equilibrium and curb/restrain the
hegemonic ambitions of all states)
• This traditional approach and the idea of international anarchy is now more difficult to sustain because of
the emergence, especially since 1945, of a framework of global governance and sometimes regional
governance = reflected by the growth of international institutions such as United Nations, the European
Union… mainly because of the fact that states are confronted by collective dilemmas. Although the
presence and existence of international institutions needs to be taken into account, they remain still under
the will of their state members.
, Globalisation and its implications
• Economic globalisation is the process through which national economies have, to a greater or lesser extent,
been absorbed into a single global economy
• Cultural globalisation is the process whereby information, commodities and images that have been
produced in one part of the world enter into a global flow that tends to ‘flatten out’ cultural differences
between nations, regions and individuals
• Political globalisation is the process through which policy- making responsibilities have been passed from
national governments to international organisations
Lenses on global politics
Mainstream perspectives
Realism v Liberalism
• Common features:
- they are both grounded around positivism (the theory that social and indeed all forms of enquiry
should conform to the methods of the natural sciences). This suggests that it is possible to develop
objective knowledge, through the capacity to distinguish ‘facts’ from ‘values’. In short, it is possible to
compare theories with the ‘real world’
- They share similar concerns and address similar issues - their core issue is the balance between conflict
and cooperation in state relations. Although realism focuses on conflict more and liberalism highlights
cooperation, they don’t remain indifferent to what each other proposes.
• Main differences:
- Hobbes (realist) - realist vision is pessimistic: constant power struggles and conflict mark international
politics, with a wide range of obstacles standing in the way of peaceful cooperation. Realism grounded
on the bases of power politics, which emphasises the following assumptions
a) Human nature is characterised by selfishness and greed
b) Politics is a domain of human activity structured by power and coercion
c) States are the key global actors
d) States prioritise self-interest and survival, and security above all else
e) States operate in a context of anarchy, and thus rely on self-help
f) Global order is structured by the distribution of power (capabilities) among states
g) The balance of power is the principal means of ensuring stability and avoiding war
h) Ethical considerations are irrelevant to the conduct of foreign policy
- Kant (liberal) - liberal vision is more optimistic: belief in human rationality and more goodness,
although they accept the notion os self-interested and competitive. Principle of balance or harmony
operates in all forms of social interaction - commitment to internationalism. The liberal model of
global politics is based on the following key assumptions:
a) Human beings are rational and moral creatures
b) History is a progressive process, characterised by a growing prospect of international
cooperation and peace
c) Mixed-actor models of global politics are more realistic than state-centric ones
d) Trade and economic interdependence makes war less likely
e) International law helps to promote order and fosters rule-governed behaviour among states
f) Democracy is inherently peaceful, particularly in reducing the likelihood of war between
democratic states (dyadic peace)
, Critical perspectives
• Until 1980s, Marxism has constituted the principal alternative to realist and liberal theories. Marxism
placed emphasis, instead of on cooperation and conflict between states, on structures of economic power
and the role played in world affairs by international capital = brought political economy into focus
• However, since Cold War, a wide range of new voices started to emerge in the world of politics such as
social constructivism, critical theory, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, feminism.. etc. All these new
voices had in common 1. They challenged positivism and tried to go beyond mainstream thinking and 2.
They are critical theories in that they oppose the dominant forces and interests in the modern world affairs
- they seek to uncover inequalities and asymmetries that mainstream theories tend to ignore
• Inequalities and asymmetries to which critical theorists have drawn attention are many and various:
- Neo-Marxists highlight inequalities in the global capitalist system through which developed countries
dominate and exploit developing countries or areas
- Social constructivism is more an analytical tool than a theory - argues people contrast the world in
which they live, claiming subjectivity and arguing against mainstream’s objectivity
- Poststructuralists emphasise ideas and concepts expressed in language which itself is enmeshed in
complex relations of power. Drawn attention yo the link between power and systems of thought using
the idea of a ‘discourse of power’
- Feminists = gender inequalities and emphasise how especially realism is based on masculinist
assumptions about rivalry, competition and inevitable conflict
- Post colonialists = preservation of western cultural and political hegemony despite the achievements of
political independence across almost the entire developing world
- Green politics, or ecologism, concerned about environmental degradation as byproduct of
industrialisation and obsessive economic growth
Continuity and change in global politics
Global politics continues to shift and change as a result of global events that trigger it. This can be shown by
examining the balance between continuity and change through three key aspects of world politics: power,
security and justice
Power
• Two main questions:
- Where is power located? During Cold War era there were two dominant ‘superpowers’ - the US and the
Soviet Union. The fall of communism after the end of Cold War left the US as the world’s superpower
= global hegemon. This view took account of the extent to which the US was the architect and chief
beneficiary of globalisation, as well as the possessor of enormous structural power, also considering its
pivotal position in international institutions such as the UN, the WTO, IMF and World Bank, giving it
disproportional influence over the frameworks within which states relate to one another and decide how
things shall be done. Other views suggest power is becoming more fragmented and pluralised - the
increasing importance in the role of non-state actors is an example. Furthermore, rising emerging states
like China, India and Brazil collectively known as the BRICs suggest power fragmentation as well.
- The changing nature of power. Soft power is becoming almost as important as hard power (soft power
being attraction rather than coercion). This is due to new technology, global communications and
rising educational standards.
