Chapter 1
The globalization of international relations
Narrowly defined, the field of international relations (IR) concerns the relationships
among the world’s governments. But these relationships cannot be understood in isolation.
They are closely connected with other actors (such as international organizations,
multinational corporations, and individuals); with other social structures and processes
(including economics, culture, and domestic politics); and with geographical and historical
influences. These elements together power the central trend in IR today—globalization.
Although leaders do play a major role in international affairs, many other people participate.
College students and other citizens participate in international relations every time they vote
in an election or work on a political campaign, buy a product or service traded on world
markets, and watch the news.
Core principles:
IR revolves around one key problem: How can a group—such as two or more countries—
serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual
interests? For example, every country has an interest in stopping global warming, a goal that
can be achieved only by many countries acting together. Yet each country also has an
individual interest in burning fossil fuels to keep its economy going.
Individual nations can advance their own short-term interests by seizing territory
militarily, cheating on trade agreements, and refusing to contribute to international efforts
such as peacekeeping or vaccination campaigns. But if all nations acted this way, they
would find themselves worse off, in a chaotic and vicious environment where mutual
gains from cooperating on issues of security and trade would disappear.
This problem of shared interests versus conflicting interests among members of a group goes
by various names in various contexts—the problem of “collective action,” “free riding,”
“burden sharing,” the “tragedy of the commons,” or the “prisoner’s dilemma.” We will refer
to the general case as the collective goods problem, that is, the problem of how to provide
something that benefits all members of a group regardless of what each member contributes
to it.
In general, collective goods are easier to provide in small groups than in large ones. In a
small group, the cheating (or free riding) of one member is harder to conceal, has a
greater impact on the overall collective good, and is easier to punish.
The collective goods problem occurs in all groups and societies, but is particularly acute in
international affairs because each nation is sovereign, with no central authority such as a
world government to enforce on individual nations the necessary measures to provide
for the common good. By contrast, in domestic politics within countries, a government
can force individuals to contribute in ways that do not serve their individual self-
interest, such as by paying taxes or paying to install antipollution equipment on vehicles
and factories.
, Three basic principles—which we call dominance, reciprocity, and identity—offer possible
solutions to the core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for the common good
without a central authority to make them do so.
Dominance The principle of dominance solves the collective goods problem by establishing
a power hierarchy in which those at the top control those below—a bit like a government but
without an actual government.
In international relations, the principle of dominance underlies the great power system, in
which a handful of countries dictate the rules for all the others. Sometimes a so- called
hegemon or superpower stands atop the great powers as the dominant nation. The UN
Security Council, in which the world’s five strongest military powers hold a veto,
reflects the dominance principle. The advantage of the dominance solution to the collective
goods problem is that, like a government, it forces members of a group to contribute to
the common good. It also minimizes open conflict within the group. However, the
disadvantage is that this stability comes at a cost of constant oppression of, and resentment
by, the lower-ranking members in the status hierarchy.
Reciprocity The principle of reciprocity solves the collective goods problem by
rewarding behavior that contributes to the group and punishing behavior that pursues
self- interest at the expense of the group. Reciprocity is very easy to understand and can be
“enforced” without any central authority, making it a robust way to get individuals to
cooperate for the common good.
But reciprocity operates in both the positive realm (“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch
yours”) and the negative (“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”)
In international relations, reciprocity forms the basis of most of the norms (habits;
expectations) and institutions in the international system. Many central arrangements in
IR, such as World Trade Organization agreements, explicitly recognize reciprocity as the
linchpin of cooperation. For instance, if one country opens its markets to another’s goods, the
other opens its markets in return.
Identity A third potential solution to the collective goods problem lies in the identities of
participants as members of a community. Although the dominance and reciprocity principles
act on the idea of achieving individual self-interest (by taking what you can, or by mutually
beneficial arrangements), the identity principle does not rely on self-interest. On the
contrary, members of an identity community care about the interests of others in that
community enough to sacrifice their own interests to benefit others.
In each case, individual members will accept solutions to collective goods problems that
do not give them the best deal as individuals, because the benefits are “all in the
family,” so to speak.
The globalization of international relations
Narrowly defined, the field of international relations (IR) concerns the relationships
among the world’s governments. But these relationships cannot be understood in isolation.
They are closely connected with other actors (such as international organizations,
multinational corporations, and individuals); with other social structures and processes
(including economics, culture, and domestic politics); and with geographical and historical
influences. These elements together power the central trend in IR today—globalization.
Although leaders do play a major role in international affairs, many other people participate.
College students and other citizens participate in international relations every time they vote
in an election or work on a political campaign, buy a product or service traded on world
markets, and watch the news.
Core principles:
IR revolves around one key problem: How can a group—such as two or more countries—
serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual
interests? For example, every country has an interest in stopping global warming, a goal that
can be achieved only by many countries acting together. Yet each country also has an
individual interest in burning fossil fuels to keep its economy going.
Individual nations can advance their own short-term interests by seizing territory
militarily, cheating on trade agreements, and refusing to contribute to international efforts
such as peacekeeping or vaccination campaigns. But if all nations acted this way, they
would find themselves worse off, in a chaotic and vicious environment where mutual
gains from cooperating on issues of security and trade would disappear.
This problem of shared interests versus conflicting interests among members of a group goes
by various names in various contexts—the problem of “collective action,” “free riding,”
“burden sharing,” the “tragedy of the commons,” or the “prisoner’s dilemma.” We will refer
to the general case as the collective goods problem, that is, the problem of how to provide
something that benefits all members of a group regardless of what each member contributes
to it.
In general, collective goods are easier to provide in small groups than in large ones. In a
small group, the cheating (or free riding) of one member is harder to conceal, has a
greater impact on the overall collective good, and is easier to punish.
The collective goods problem occurs in all groups and societies, but is particularly acute in
international affairs because each nation is sovereign, with no central authority such as a
world government to enforce on individual nations the necessary measures to provide
for the common good. By contrast, in domestic politics within countries, a government
can force individuals to contribute in ways that do not serve their individual self-
interest, such as by paying taxes or paying to install antipollution equipment on vehicles
and factories.
, Three basic principles—which we call dominance, reciprocity, and identity—offer possible
solutions to the core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for the common good
without a central authority to make them do so.
Dominance The principle of dominance solves the collective goods problem by establishing
a power hierarchy in which those at the top control those below—a bit like a government but
without an actual government.
In international relations, the principle of dominance underlies the great power system, in
which a handful of countries dictate the rules for all the others. Sometimes a so- called
hegemon or superpower stands atop the great powers as the dominant nation. The UN
Security Council, in which the world’s five strongest military powers hold a veto,
reflects the dominance principle. The advantage of the dominance solution to the collective
goods problem is that, like a government, it forces members of a group to contribute to
the common good. It also minimizes open conflict within the group. However, the
disadvantage is that this stability comes at a cost of constant oppression of, and resentment
by, the lower-ranking members in the status hierarchy.
Reciprocity The principle of reciprocity solves the collective goods problem by
rewarding behavior that contributes to the group and punishing behavior that pursues
self- interest at the expense of the group. Reciprocity is very easy to understand and can be
“enforced” without any central authority, making it a robust way to get individuals to
cooperate for the common good.
But reciprocity operates in both the positive realm (“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch
yours”) and the negative (“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”)
In international relations, reciprocity forms the basis of most of the norms (habits;
expectations) and institutions in the international system. Many central arrangements in
IR, such as World Trade Organization agreements, explicitly recognize reciprocity as the
linchpin of cooperation. For instance, if one country opens its markets to another’s goods, the
other opens its markets in return.
Identity A third potential solution to the collective goods problem lies in the identities of
participants as members of a community. Although the dominance and reciprocity principles
act on the idea of achieving individual self-interest (by taking what you can, or by mutually
beneficial arrangements), the identity principle does not rely on self-interest. On the
contrary, members of an identity community care about the interests of others in that
community enough to sacrifice their own interests to benefit others.
In each case, individual members will accept solutions to collective goods problems that
do not give them the best deal as individuals, because the benefits are “all in the
family,” so to speak.
