Interdependence and Foreign Policy

http://cac.sagepub.com/Cooperation and Conflict

http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/001083678001500401

1980 15: 187Cooperation and ConflictBengt Sundelius

Interdependence and Foreign Policy

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Nordic International Studies Association

can be found at:Cooperation and ConflictAdditional services and information for

http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cac.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1980Version of Record >>

at Universite du Quebec a Montreal - UQAM on January 18, 2012cac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cac.sagepub.com/

http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.sagepub.net/isa

http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cac.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187.refs.html

http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Interdependence and Foreign Policy*BENGT SUNDELIUSInstitute of International Studies, Bradley University, Illinois

Sundelius, B. Interdependence and Foreign Policy. Cooperation and Conflict, XV, 1980,187-208.

This survey briefly dissects the concept of interdependence, indicating its many interpreta-tions and dimensions. Following a broad overview of the structure and process of theinternational politics of interdependence, as indicated in the literature covered, someimplications for national foreign policy-making are pointed to. The impact of interdepen-dence on state objectives and instruments, the relation between domestic and foreignpolicy, prevalent international processes and actors, and national processes and strategiesare discussed, in particular with a view to the implications for smaller European nations.Finally, some important limitations of the discussed features are emphasized. The conclu-sion calls for some empirical research to test the many interesting assertions contained inthe interdependence literature.

I. INTRODUCTION

During the seventies, a significant propor-tion of the international relations literaturehas been devoted to analysis of internationalinterdependence. It has been argued thatworld politics is changing from a traditionalbalance-of-power game to a modified sys-tem of interactions characterized by inter-

dependence. At times, an assumption is alsomade that the international system is

changing for the better. It is hoped that

interdependence will make for increasedinternational political cooperation and thatall parties will benefit from this new, moreharmonious order.

In this study, interdependence is viewedas an analytical concept which may provehelpful in arriving at an understanding ofcontemporary international relations. Theterm is not seen as a normative guide to

policy, neither does it infer a harmonious,cooperative state of affairs. Rather, the con-cept denotes a set of international charac-teristics which help to define the presentinternational system. Interdependence,however, is a rather vague and multifacetedconcept. The term is defined and used dif-

ferently by various scholars. It is hoped thata brief review of its many interpretations

will assist in giving a clearer comprehensionof the phenomenon.

Following this conceptual discussion, theessay continues with a review of some ofthe many interesting assertions in the lit-erature regarding the structure and processof the international politics of interdepen-dence. Some implications for the externalconditions and internal processes of national

foreign policy are noted. An attempt to

indicate some limits for the discussed fea-tures is also made. The paper draws atten-tion to a research area offering many in-triguing and fundamental questions.

II. SOME DIMENSIONS OF INTER-DEPENDENCE .

Several dimensions of the concept of inter-dependence can be explored. One of themost fundamental is the distinction between

sensitivity interdependence and vulnerabilityinterdependence. Oran Young defines theformer as ’the extent to which events oc-

curring in any given part or within anygiven component units of a world systemaffect (either physically or perceptually)events taking place in each of the other

parts or component units of the system’ .1 1



188

This sensitivity aspect, often referred to assystemic interdependence, is basic to sev-eral analysts.2 2To several writers, the sensitivity aspect

is too broad to give a useful definition ofinternational interdependence. They arguethat being sensitive to environmental condi-tions does not necessarily mean being sig-nificantly affected by external forces. Suchan outcome is also conditioned by the

ability to adapt to environmental changes.The availability and costs of alternatives tocontinued external impacts must also beconsidered. These factors are basic to whatis generally called vulnerability interdepen-dence. To Alex Inkeles this is the crucialdimension of the concept. He writes, ’Inter-connectedness may suggest, but does not

necessarily define interdependence. Depen-dence exists where a service commodity orresource obtained from abroad is relativelyvital and not easily substitutable. Inter-

dependence exists where there are relativelyequal or balanced exchanges of such

goods’.3 Vulnerability interdependence re-

lates to more permanent relations, ones

which are costly to break or alter.Keohane and Nye point out that nations

with similar sensitivities to environmentalconditions may in fact experience differentvulnerabilities to external forces. The dif-ference between European and NorthAmerican approaches to the OPEC nationsin 1973/74 is a case in point. While bothcontinents are highly sensitive to changes inoil production and prices, the U.S. is farless vulnerable to such external impacts.Differing degrees of relative vulnerabilityalso involve different capacities to manipu-late interdependence to enhance the influ-ence over international outcomes. This vul-

nerability aspect is the most crucial dimen-sion to those scholars and statesmen whoview international interdependence as an

important power resource to be utilized to-ward national objectives.4 4A useful distinction can be made between

societal interdependence and policy inter-

dependence. Societies are both sensitive and

vulnerable to conditions in other societies.

According to several scholars, Oran Young,Edward Morse, Richard Cooper, KarlDeutsch, and Peter Katzenstein, amongothers, the growth of international transac-tions serves as an increasingly importanttransmission belt of international change. 5As a result, the present day menace is the

inability to effectively isolate societies fromeach other. National economic problems,political unrest, technological innovationsand business practices as well as consumertastes, fashions, and scientific ideas are

quickly diffused throughout the world.The existence of such transnational ties

across a wide range of human activity pro-vides many governments with a serious

challenge. On the one hand, nations mayexperience some of the rewards of socialand economic integration from these flows.On the other hand, increased sensitivities

may also lead to greater policy interdepen-dence. This concept refers to the effects ofone government’s policy on another.6 6

Political leaders are sensitive to the deci-sions of their colleagues and may even copytheir actions. For example, trans-

governmental networks of senior officialsoften contribute to transnational policy dif-fusion within specialized sectors.’ A unilat-eral policy decision may also seriously af-fect the choices available to other govern-ments. For one thing, such a decision by aleading government may restrict the optionsremaining to other states. Similarly, a desireto nullify the possible negative effects of aneighboring policy on one’s own societymay, in effect, force a government to accepta certain policy choice.

In addition to separately analyzingsocietal and policy interdependence, a

number of scholars have stressed the re-

lationship between these dimensions. For

example, Karl Kaiser has pointed out thatone reason why transnational relations arevery important to contemporary world poli-tics is that the vertical ties between societyand government have been strengthenedduring the post-war era.8 In the past, the



189

societal sector operated more independentlyof governmental or political involvement.At that time, the prevailing laissez-faireattitude of limited governmental responsi-bility left ample room for international

dealings beyond state involvement or con-cern. Thus, many commercial and financialissues were not directly introduced on theagendas of international political relations.Today, the expanded role and the responsi-bility of government encompass virtually allaspects of society. As a result, internationalnongovernmental relations have become

politically more important as domestic gov-ernment activity has expanded.Some writers have studied a distinct

functional dimension of interdependenceacross the policy-societal axis. Studies ofeconomic relations have been undertaken byCooper, Morse, Rosecrance, Inkeles, andKeohane and Nye.9 These works have

pointed to the restraining effects ofeconomic sensitivities on governmentalpolicy and the international societal impactsof national economic decisions. Morse, inparticular, shows how national leaders areoften severely restricted in their policychoices by existing interdependencies.Similarly, the international ramifications ofnational decisions are often significant, butthis effect is not always recognized by thepolicy-makers.

Interdependence has also been measuredin terms of trade flows, international in-vestments, price sensitivity, and interestrates. It is generally accepted that the

phenomena of international interdependenceis most evident and most important as anexplanatory factor in world economic-politi-cal relations. However, Kenneth Waltz, andto a certain extent Edward Morse, have alsoanalyzed traditional military-security mat-

ters from this perspective.10 Karl Deutschconcentrated mainly on social interactions,particularly international communications,11and Oran Young pointed to the ideologicalor perceptual dimension of relations. 12

International interdependence has alsobeen analyzed at various levels. Some writ-

ers view the concept as a systemic propertyimportant in arriving at an understanding ofthe structure of the international system.Oran Young, Ernest Haas, Andrew Scott,and Alex Inkeles are interested in mappingout the ’emerging social structure of theworld’ .13 To them, interdependence is an

important structural feature with ramifica-tions for the actors participating in it. Ac-

cordingly, interdependence is regarded as

an absolute condition with similar, but notindentical, effects on the nation-states. Animportant task facing these analysts is thedetection of changes in the system gener-ated by increased interdependence.Many writers choose to study interna-

tional interdependence at the level of unitinteraction, in which case the concept isseen as a relative condition involving two ormore international actors. Instead of being afeature of the system, interdependence is aproperty of the relation. Robert Keohaneand Joseph Nye have given considerableattention to these issues. 14 They focus onthe bargaining processes of nation-states.

Through case studies, they show how inter-dependence affects such interactions interms of relative dominance and influence,behavioral norms, and conflict resolutionmechanisms.

In this type of research, interdependenceis used as a net concept involving a diffe-rential between mutual dependencies. JamesCaporaso defines such dependence of actorA on actor B as ’the extent that A relies on Bfor large quantities of important goodswhich can’t be easily replaced at sufferablecosts while B acquires small quantities ofunimportant goods from A which it can

easily replace’ 15 The interdependence of Aand B is then calculated as the net differ-ence between these dependencies. In this

approach, considerations of asymmetric re-lations as sources of power which can beconverted into decisional influence are

paramount.It should be clear from this overview that

the interdependence concept is complex be-cause several aspects are involved. Perhaps



190

even the wisdom of using the concept in itsaggregate form is questionable. Several cri-tics of the interdependence literature have

questioned the value of using the conceptthis way. 16 At the very least, one must bealert to potentially conflicting definitionsand usages of the term. If it is to provehelpful as an analytical tool these limita-tions should be kept in mind.

III. FORCES OF CHANGE

Scholars cannot agree on what forces are at

play in international interdependence. Norcan they agree on whether international in-terdependence is increasing or decreasing inmagnitude over time. Several schools of

thought can be identified. Karl Deutschand his associates pioneered the study ofhistorical changes in international inter-

dependence. They measured internationaltransaction flows during the twentieth cen-tury and concluded that in some respectsinterdependence has declined significantlysince 1913.1~ Deutsch argues that with acontinual rise in industrialization, nationsbecome more self-preoccupied and lessoriented toward their international environ-ments. Subsequently, the ratio of externalactivity to domestic activity has declined

during this century. Although the absolutevolume of international flows has increased

substantially, particularly during the post-war era, these have not kept up withdomestic growth. Deutsch’s claim that in-ternational interdependence has declined hasbeen widely questioned. A number ofscholars, among them Young, Morse,Cooper, and Rosecrance, have criticized hisindices.18 Peter Katzenstein refutes histhesis for at least the period 1950-65.’9A sizeable number of analysts contend

that the contemporary importance of inter-national interdependence is related to the

growth that has taken place in the externalsector of national activity since 1945. Theimportance of a rise in the absolute volumeof external flows is stressed by Young.20Cooper points to the increased domestic

sensitivity to international factors regardlessof the volumes involved.21 Morse focuseson financial policy and emphasizes the sig-nificance of international investments and

capital flows.22 Kaiser points to the grow-ing political involvement in internationalinteractions.23 In sum, it is argued that theincreased intensity in international relationshas helped dissolve the traditional nation-state system, which has been transformedinto a new interdependent international

system.In response to this theory, Wolfram Han-

rieder presents the view that the changingnature of domestic affairs has led to modifi-cations in the international system.24 Heaccepts the growth of the external sector asa crucial force behind interdependence, butbelieves that the causes of this expansionare to be found within the nation-state ratherthan within the international system.

Alex Inkeles, Gerhard Mally and, in par-ticular, Edward Morse attribute the growthof international interdependence to interna-tional development and modemization.25

Interdependence is a basic feature of mod-em society and is likely to increase evenfurther in the foreseeable future. Severalfactors are said to reinforce this new inter-national phenomenon. The revolutions thathave taken place in communication enablepeople to be more aware of global problemsand to participate more in internationalevents and movements. Progress in trans-

portation has removed the traditional bar-riers to mobility. These factors, in turn,have contributed to the penetration of na-tional economies through trade and invest-ments. The growing pressure on our

planet’s finite resources is also of widerconcern because of our general reliance onthese resources for material comfort. Simi-

larly, the threat of environmental damageis becoming more acute and widespread.Finally, the development and proliferationof mass destruction weapon systems with

long range delivery capabilities has

heightened sensitivities to conflicts

throughout the world. Within this perspec-



191

tive of interdependence as a result of mod-ernization, national governments are said tobe facing enormous challenges resultingfrom these rapid changes. Indeed, Scott

predicts eventual system breakdown as thecomplexities of interdependence overrun thecapacity for management. 26

Rosecrance argues that international in-

terdependence is likely to increase only upto a certain level. 27 At some point it willreach a level at which national governmentswill feel threatened. When this occurs, in-

terdependence will likely stagnate. The

political authorities will act to reduce the

impact of interdependence on their domesticarenas. To Rosecrance, the capacity of es-tablished governments to cope with and

manage the effects of international inter-

dependence is an important factor in its

development. He has found that since 1960governmental interventions in internationaleconomic flows have generated ’a shift infavor of individual national policies within acontext of broad interdependence.’ 28 Inter-national interdependence is therefore no

longer increasing but is leveling off at afairly high level. A number of other scho-lars, among them Robert Keohane, JosephNye, and Ernst Haas, have also stressed thelikelihood of governmental reassertion.29Efforts toward greater control of domestic

developments affected by external forcesrelated to interdependence may be expected.

It is evident from the preceding briefdiscussion that the literature on international

interdependence is comprehensive and fullof interesting assertions about the nature ofthe international system. In this study, weshall draw on these works in order to dis-cuss how participation in an international

system characterized by interdependencemay impact on the foreign policy conditionsof states.Much of the literature on interdependence

deals with features at the level of the inter-national system. Discussion on changinginternational power structures, different in-teraction patterns, the establishment andtransformation of international regimes and

various forces contributing to such changesis fairly common. Fewer writers focus onthe implications of such international struc-tural changes for national foreign policy. Inparticular, a more systematic, explicitanalysis where this issue is addressed as a

general problem affecting national foreignpolicy would seem important. 30Many studies relating international inter-

dependence to national foreign policy areconcerned with the larger, more dominantinternational actors such as the U . S . , GreatBritain, West Germany or France.31 As asupplement to these valuable works it wouldalso be interesting to explore the possibleimplications for smaller states. Small statesare often said to be more system dominantor to experience greater potential for stresssensitivity. In addition, the national

capacity of small states to adjust to and toutilize forces in the environment may be

significantly different from larger states.32To reach a more general understanding ofthe relationship between interdependenceand national policy it might be worth whileextending the analysis beyond one particulartype of state. Here, some aspects of rele-vance to smaller European nations will bepointed to.When undertaking this analysis, one must

bear in mind the previously noted contra-dictions, limitations, and ambiguities in theliterature covered. It is not intended that this

essay should present a new and more

sophisticated definition of, or a theory ab-out, international interdependence. Instead,it is hoped that it will provide a review ofwidely scattered research results in a briefbut comprehensive manner. Such a litera-ture survey could serve as a starting pointfor subsequent empirical investigations intoseveral of the propositions found in theworks covered.The first task is to give a brief interpreta-

tion of the central features of the ’intema-tional politics of interdependence’. A

bird’s-eye view focusing on the broad,structural aspects will be offered to helpoutline the general patterns and conditions



192

prevalent in this type of international sys-tem.

IV. STATE OBJECTIVES ANDINSTRUMENTS

In the interdependent international system,the concept of distance has changedmeaning. The traditional importance of

geographical proximity has declined. Here,time and cost constitute important dimen-sions of the concept. The time elementinvolved in launching and deliveringICB Ms might prove of greater importancefor strategic purposes than their geographi-cal location. When international bankstransfer funds through telecommunications,the question of geography seems irrelevant.Corporate investments, trade patterns, andmoney flows are more determined by rela-tive costs than by geographical considera-tions.

Similarly, cultural distances can be grea-ter within societies than between the capi-tals of the world. The international systemhas shrunk, in certain respects, and withincertain segments. At the same time, otherareas are as far apart as ever. But, in con-trast to traditional thought, these great dis-tances are not necessarily determined bygeography.As the concept of distance has changed

meaning, the territorial issue has declined inimportance. Among the OECD nations, fewterritorial disputes remain. The idea of ter-ritorial expansion would seem alien to mostof these governments. This change in em-phasis toward nonterritorial foreign policygoals does not mean that governments havegiven up the idea of increasing their inter-national influence and prestige. It is ratherthat the basis for such influence and statushas changed. Military power is viewed asless useful for most political and economicobjectives. Instead, governments use a

strategy of manipulating interdependent re-lations. Here, the vital resources are ’accessrather than acquisition, presence rather thanrule, penetration rather than possession’ .33

Obviously, numerous instruments for an

active foreign policy are available in this

type of international system. However,these have changed character from thetraditional emphasis on territorial expan-sion. For most states, the high cost of ter-ritorial conflict in relation to the potentialgain seems exorbitant. Besides, much of thegovernment’s resources are now orientedtoward domestic growth and prosperity.These objectives can only marginally be

accomplished through territorial acquisi-tion. 34

By and large, present foreign policies tendto reflect the contemporary emphasis onwelfare issues. These do not require sol-utions through a zero-sum system of ter-

ritorial exchanges but can generally be set-tled within the non-zero-sum bargainingcontext of economic growth. In the futurethe increasing adoption of neo-mercantilisticpolicies could place a potential strain oninterstate bargaining over economic matters.In times of economic slow-down and stressthe common emphasis on current account

surpluses and export promotion can lead tosharpened interstate conflicts. One notes

here not a lessening of the potential forinternational conflict but a qualitativelydifferent basis for such disputes. Althoughgloomy forecasts about imminent trade warsmight seem exaggerated, the record of re-cent trade negotiations points toward con-tinued, intensive competition in this area.

The relevance of force as an instrumentof state policy has declined in the interde-pendent international system. In spite of thevast weapons arsenals available, these re-

sources are not considered as viable meanstoward settling conflicts among the ad-vanced, industrialized societies. This fun-damental break with past orientations is

probably less related to basic attitudinalshifts than to the decreased utility of forceto reach important policy goals. Politicalleaders are keenly aware of the real pos-sibilities for mutually assured destruction

resulting from modem warfare. This wouldinclude not only the physical and humandestruction of nuclear exchanges but also



193

the politically unbearable economic an so-cial costs of conventional weapons. Thenational economies and social systems areso closely intertwined through various trans-actions that any serious damage to one unitwould result in considerable disruption in

the others.The risk of destroying the fabrics of in-

terdependence through the use of force actsas an effective deterrent to governments,who reap considerable political rewardsfrom this web. It has often been pointed outthat this consideration has lain at the heartof French - West-German relations duringthe last 25 years. Similarly, this motive hasprovided an incentive for wealthier, export-oriented nations, such as West Germany, toassist weaker partners like Italy. It is notsufficient to avoid military conflict. Largescale economic collapse of any partnercould seriously endanger the welfare ofothers. The possibilities for excessiveeconomic warfare would seem reduced inthis type of relationship.

Contemporary major governmental ob-

jectives are directed toward issues concern-ing prosperity and welfare. As noted above,the best instruments for achieving these

goals are found in economic and politicalbargaining and manipulation within thecontext of the established international or-der. To destroy this order would not, at

least in the short run, enhance one’s objec-tives, but would require major material sac-rifices. Also, most present disputes do notreach the magnitude where national pre-stige, dignity, or independence seem

threatened. Likewise, the physical securityof the nation is not at jeopardy. In this typeof conflict, lives are not at stake, althoughlivelihoods may well be.

Growing international interdependence isalso reflected in modifications in interna-tional legal norms. Public international lawis now extended to include as subjects suchvarious nonstate actors as international or-ganizations, corporations, and even indi-viduals. From its traditional concern withthe rights and obligations of sovereign

states, public international law has reachedwithin the national units to recognize actorsat this lower level. Similarly, the scope ofrelevant issues covered by international lawis extended into traditionally domestic con-cerns such as social equality, welfare andhuman rights. An ever larger proportion ofgovernment policy is today beingscrutinized from the perspective of adher-ence to internationally acceptable norms.

The growth of more humanitarian values isalso manifested in the widespread ques-tioning of the legitimate use of force, forboth external and internal objectives.

These alterations in the conceptualizationof public international law have placed in-creasing restraints on the freedom of gov-ernments to choose between legitimate in-struments of policy. The jurisdiction of in-ternational law has been expanded acrossboth issues and actors, to increasingly in-fringe on the traditional competence ofstates. Thus, while international interdepen-dence has eroded effective governmentalautonomy, contemporary internationalnorms have undermined the exclusive for-mal sovereignty of governments.

V. MINGLING OF DOMESTIC ANDFOREIGN POLICY

During the post-war era national govern-ments have extended their scope of in-volvements and responsibilities into virtu-

ally every aspect of domestic activity. Thestate is increasingly viewed as the majorcreator, arbitrator, and distributor ofsocietal wealth. It is in the political arenathat the major forces behind social changeand distribution of welfare are active. Therecord of major interest groups is a case inpoint. These promoters of special interestsare sensitive to the centers of power anddirect their efforts increasingly at the politi-cal arena. Major corporations have turned tothe state for support and, at times, financialassistance. In most countries it is only thegovernment that is viewed as being capableof solving economic difficulties or of



194

guaranteeing societal prosperity. The tradi-tional ’night watchman’ concept of the statehas been replaced by an image of an ac-tivist, ever present, promoter of nationalwelfare.While governments have assumed great

power and become multifunctional theyhave also become faced with the challengeof the ’revolution of rising entitlements’.The dilemma of increasing popular demandsand insufficient national resources is viewedas a political problem. Not surprisingly, thisconstant dilemma has led to a decreased

priority of foreign goals relative to domesticneeds. Often, the response has been to re-duce traditional external commitments to

allow for domestic expansion. The gradualreorientation of British priorities during the1960s is well known. At times, continuedexternal involvements are justified in termsof their beneficial domestic impacts, e.g.aid programs tend to strengthen domesticproduction and exports. Arms procurementsand sales mean sustained employment.The domestic arena seems to have been

extended into the foreign policy field in anunprecedented way. The considerable powersof government can only be sustained to theextent that its domestic responsibilities aremet. This can best be achieved throughinternational economic cooperation and

political accommodation. To satisfy domes-tic demand, governments are being forcedinto forms of interaction with their foreigncounterparts. Theoretically, of course, anygovernment can reject such an approach andinstead pursue a course of societal autarchyand governmental autonomy. However, thematerial and political costs of this solution,at least in the short run, would seem toohigh for any Western government. The

changing domestic character of the nation-state is also contributing to fundamentalchanges in the interaction among these na-tion-states. The domestic arenas are reach-ing out into the international setting andreshaping its basic features.As a result of increasing societal com-

plexity and the continuous task expansion of

government, foreign policy agendas are alsobecoming broader. Issues such as invest-

ment, migration, energy, pollution, infla-

tion, education, food, and health are todayall part of the substance of internationalrelations. In many cases these problems alsotake up more time and require greater effortby political leaders and governmental offi-cials than the traditional issues of war and

peace. With broader agendas and increasingnumbers of policy objectives covering dis-perse areas, governmental leaders are find-ing it increasingly difficult to set priorities,avoid contradictory targets, and maintain asense of national interest and direction.Since the alternatives are more numerous

and less clear cut, the task of choosingbecomes more complex. Choices cannot beexplained as simply and as clearly to the

public. With limited popular comprehensionof the issues, political leaders face growingdifficulties gaining mass support for desiredobjectives. A loss of leadership image isoften the result of this increased com-

plexity.In addition, the leaders themselves face

growing difficulties in understanding anddeciding upon a multitude of complex inter-national issues. The use of bureaucratic as-sistance and involvement in foreign rela-tions would seem to be enhanced by thistrend. In some respects, the pursuit of na-tional foreign policy can be characterized asthe participation in a decentralized processof collective policy-making. Nationalbureaucracies have stakes in many issueswith international ramifications and engageactively in international dealings. Politicalleaders often become far removed frommost foreign policy-making and insteadconcentrate on their main concern, domesticissues. Politicians with a special interest ininternational issues are at times even criti-cized for their supposed neglect of the

politically more attractive domestic con-

cerns.

A weakness with this pattern of broadforeign policy agendas and heavy adminis-trative involvements is the potential for loss



195

of cohesion and consistency. Here, the re-liance on national doctrines or myths as

guidelines for policy would seem important.Generally accepted notions of what definesthe national interest and main objectives canserve to bring together diverse issues andactivities under a few simplistic slogans.For example, the Swedish doctrine of

nonalignment has been useful in this regard.Recently, the concept has even been ex-tended beyond the traditional East-Westconflict to also serve as a guide for North-South relations. In contrast, American in-

ability to find a generally accepted foreignpolicy doctrine for the post-Cold War erahas weakened its ability to appear unifiedand determined. This has not only affectedinternational perceptions of America butalso made it more difficult for U.S. officialsto choose among policy alternatives.

Nationalism can thrive in an interdepen-dent world. One of the paradoxes of con-temporary politics is the simultaneous

growth of interdependence and nationalism.The clearest example is perhaps the consis-tent national assertion of France within thecontext of European interdependence andcooperation. The nation-state remains thefundamental building block organizing theglobe. Forces toward coordination and

parallelism have been met by deliberate re-sistance to integration and international

streamlining. The European record as wellas the surge of nation-building in the thirdworld point to the continued vitality andimportance of this traditional force. Simi-

larly, a renewed awareness of the pos-sibilities for national assertion and influence

through exploiting asymmetric interdepen-dence can be noted. For example, the oil

producing states have successfully usedtheir dominance in the energy field to

strengthen their nations internally and inter-nationally.Some analysts point out that nationalism

has changed character and refer to the ’newnationalism’ . 35 Rather than emphasizingexpansionism, prestige, glory, the modemversion is defensive, inward-looking, and

stresses exclusiveness. Priority is given todomestic goals and needs. The internationalenvironment is mainly regarded as a usefularena where domestic demands can be met.The states are outward-looking with regardto choosing the means toward achievingtheir inward-looking objectives. Increas-

ingly, the primary objective of internationalrelations is the sustaining of nation-states intheir domestic arenas.

VI. PREVALENT INTERNATIONALPROCESSES AND ACTORS

The previous section emphasized how thesubstance of international politics hasshifted from such indivisible issues as warand peace, to divisible issues. Gradually,the concerns of domestic politics have alsobecome the focus of international politics.Accompanying this shift in policy content isa change in the processes themselves. In-

creasingly, international relations within theOECD world have come to resembledomestic political processes.

International transactions are increasinglybecoming channelled through routine in-stitutionalized procedures. A network of or-ganizational contacts and direct administra-tive access across national boundaries makefor more predictable routine operationslargely handled beyond the scope of in-volvement by the political leaders. Problem-solving more closely approximates a

bureaucratic bargaining pattern than a dip-lomatic negotiation game. Conflicts are

over appropriate means rather than over

clashing national objectives. The attitudesof major participants can be described as

pragmatic with a belief in a step-by-stepapproach to problem-solving. Perceptions ofmutual interdependencies and an awarenessof the need for sensitivity and responsive-ness toward others are common. Established

procedures and organizations are widely ac-cepted as a legitimate framework for in-teractions. Possibly, this international pro-cess could be characterized as a ’half-wayhouse’ between international power politicsand domestic consensus politics. It searches



196

for solutions to international distributive

problems within the context of distinct na-tional identities and authority.

In the interdependent international sys-tem, multilateral diplomacy and interna-tional institutions play an important part.Much of foreign policy is directed at inter-national policy coordination and conflict re-solution. In most cases, the collective in-volvement of several major states is re-

quired for a successful solution. Ad hoc

arrangements to find mutually acceptablepolicies are often turned into more perma-nent institutional structures and processes.These innovations in statecraft tend to

facilitate the continued successful resolutionof various disputes. The presence of inter-national organizations tends to give somepermanence and stability to such conflict

reducing processes. A forum where grie-vances can be raised, other governmentschallenged, and international pressuresbrought to bear is always available.The importance of international sec-

retariats as centers of communications andinteractions cannot be underestimated. It isoften pointed out how the secretariats inNew York and Geneva, Paris and Brusselsare used as information and communica-tions centers. In particular, smaller states

with limited international representationhave found it cost effective to concentratetheir resources here. The international sec-retariat’s role as broker, coalition builderand promoter of innovative policy solutionscan also be crucial. Although not the formalequals of nation-states, such secretariats canhave decisive influence on many importantnegotiations. Because of their international,impartial status, they can successfully pushfor ideas otherwise unacceptable to some

governments. As a result, they facilitateinternational agreements and increase the

capacity to deal with international inter-

dependence. The growing importance ofsuch international institutions is also re-

flected in the increasing attention given tothem by national governments. An ever

larger proportion of foreign policy activity

is directed at multilateral interactions. Par-

ticularly, this is the case on the Europeanscene, where nationally vital issues are sel-dom handled by traditional bilateral diplo-macy.

States remain dominant actors of interna-tional politics. They maintain the ultimatepolitical authority within their territoriesand, at least formally, engage in interna-tional activities on a voluntary basis. How-ever, the present international system ischaracterized by a great variety of actorsinvolved in world affairs. Not only do theseother actors participate in international rela-tions, but they are also in many cases im-portant to international outcomes. Their in-fluence on developments tends to vary be-tween issue areas and levels of activity. Forexample, in the national security field theirimportance may be marginal, while in theareas of financial, agricultural, energy, andcommercial policy they have had major in-fluence. Similarly, nonstate actors tend tohave more influence on issues mainly deter-mined at the level of bureaucratic interac-tion than in areas in which national politicalleaders are directly involved.New participants in international politics

include multinational corporations andbanks, transnational interest groups, inter-

governmental organizations with permanentsecretariats, and autonomous governmentalentities. Several cases have been noted inthe literature where such actors have suc-

cessfully pursued independent interest in theinternational arena. Naturally, the likely re-sult of a direct confrontation between anestablished government and a nonstate actoris a defeat for the latter. The volume and

scope of resources available to virtually alltraditional nation-states are far in excess ofthose of other types of actors. However, therelative cost of constantly exerting authorityis formidable for any government. Becauseof the great scope of governmental con-cerns, scarce resources cannot be mobilizedin all areas. In contrast, nonstate actors inmost cases are less multifunctional and canconcentrate their efforts in a few crucial



197

areas. Thus, the relative weights of theseparticipants, within specific issue areas,

might not be as disproportionate as is oftenassumed. Consequently, on many issuesnonstate actors must be considered impor-tant determinants of international policyoutcomes.

With broadened foreign policy agendasand an emphasis on welfare issues, theinvolvement of government administrationsin international affairs is strengthened. Di-rect contacts between governmental sub-units responsible for specific policy sectorsare growing in magnitude and intensity.Many aspects of a nation’s external rela-tions are handled primarily through suchtransgovemmental interactions. The existenceof a web of bureaucratic contacts in theNordic area, within the EC and in manytransatlantic relations is well documented.The growth of transgovernmental rela-

tions has often been met by concern by thenational foreign offices. It has been pointedout that these autonomous external activitiesdiminish the possibilities for central politi-cal control and consistency in foreignpolicy. A slightly schizophrenic personalityseems to characterize some governments.The U.S. government, in particular, hasbeen said to suffer from this tendency. Itsenormous size and decentralized structure

create many opportunities for such au-

tonomous relations. However, also smaller,more cohesive governments could facesimilar problems when experiencing moredirect administrative involvements in inter-national issues. The danger is that the na-tional interest is defined differently on dif-ferent issues, at different times, and bydifferent governmental subunits.

In response to this tendency, a resurgenceof central coordination and planning of na-tional policy is evident in many govern-ments. Here, the foreign ministries and attimes the prime ministers’ offices havetaken the lead by ensuring that fundamentalnational or political objectives are not com-promised in various issue areas. In particu-lar, efforts at building transgovernmental

coalitions of like-minded governmentalagencies on certain issues have been chal-lenged with moderate success. Increasedcentral control of disperse policy sectors

involves considerable administrative costs

and tends frequently to disturb smoothlyfunctioning coordination processes. Thisdrawback must be considered in relation tothe potential damage to basic national in-terests caused by inconsistent and perhapseven contradictory external commitments.In any case, the bureaucratic, administrativeelements of government must be viewed asincreasingly important international actors.The broader agendas and multitude of

actors in international politics enhance thelikelihood of issue linkages. Numerous

policy areas are included as legitimateforeign policy subjects and no clear politicaldistinctions are made between them. Thetraditional two-track system, where securityissues were separated from economic prob-lems, has been considerably eroded. In-

stead, these policy issues now mingle to-gether on the agendas. At times, interna-tional actors create explicit linkages to bet-ter use their strengths in one area to influenceoutcomes in another, analytically unrelatedsector. For instance, the U.S. has increas-ingly tied resolution of international finan-cial problems to American military in-volvements in Europe and Asia. Here, herrelatively weak negotiating position on

economic questions is strengthened by lin-kage to her superior military capabilities.

Such linkages may facilitate trade-offsand package deals across policy sectors,thus making solutions easier. On the otherhand, issue linkages can also politicize low-level technical questions, contribute to crisissituations, and sometimes make solutionsmore difficult to accept. Manipulating in-terdependent relations through a strategy ofissue linkages is an important power re-source available to governments. Dependingon its utilization, this strategy will enhanceinternational cooperation or contribute to amore politicized, crisis-ridden internationalsystem.



198

The effects of international interdepen-dence on participating societies are not

identical. Because of built-in asymmetriesin relations some countries benefit morethan others from their active involvement in

interdependent relations. One suspects thatlarger societies with broad but not veryintensive interactions profit most from suchlinks. The U.S. State Department increas-ingly uses the rhetoric of interdependence asa slogan for its overseas involvement. Abrief review of major speeches and policystatements reveals that the concept nowparallels the Cold War rhetoric as a majorforeign policy theme. The frequent messageto other governments that ’we are in this

together, can benefit or suffer together, andtherefore must cooperate’ often includes theimplicit assumption that all governmentsmust show restraint in their demands andnot upset the prevailing order.

This theme of interdependence can beused to support and legitimize continuedAmerican dominance of international poli-tics. It is not surprising that with the growthof international interdependence the advo-cates of nationalism and greater national

autonomy have also become more vocal.The relative gains of an interdependentsystem are unequally distributed and tend tomake for increased political activity of adefensive nature. For instance the Frenchresistance to U.S. led international coop-eration schemes, the Nixon plan for ’ProjectIndependence’, and the British reluctance tojoin the European Monetary System can benoted.

Differential effects within societies are

also crucial and have contributed to a frag-mentation of the support for foreign policy.Local groups such as farmers, textile andsteel workers, see international interdepen-dence as a threat to their livelihood and takedefensive action to protect their futures. Thedemand for tariff or quota protection from’unfair’ foreign competition is rising in alladvanced industrial societies. In contrast,other national groups regard continued in-volvement in interdependent relations as a

requirement for growth, prosperity and in-fluence. In particular, export oriented in-dustries emphasize the dangers of trade re-strictions while multinational corporationsand banks note the value of a free flow ofgoods and capital.

Apparently, the changing character of theinternational system may contribute to newinternal political divisions in many coun-tries. The traditionally bipartisan support forforeign policy has been replaced by politicalcontroversy over many issues which appearto directly affect local constituencies. Someimportant examples of this trend are the ECconflicts in Great Britain, Norway and Den-mark during the 1970s. The fusion of inter-national and domestic politics is obviousfrom these cases.

VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONALPROCESSES AND STRATEGIES

Both benefits and costs are generated fromparticipation in an international systemcharacterized by interdependence relations.However, it is difficult to convincingly de-termine whether such relations offer a net

gain or loss to the nation. For instance, adistinction must be made between short-term and long-term effects. It is possiblethat a relationship which offers substantialimmediate benefits could also involve a

long-term autonomy loss and increasedsocietal vulnerability. For example, theSwedish energy orientation toward inexpen-sive, plentiful, imported oil in the 1950sand early 1960s could have been seen as astrategy with at least major immediate be-nefits to a growing economy. The less posi-tive long-range effects were not fully ap-preciated until several years later.

In addition, analysts are seldom fullyaware of the full potential effects of inter-dependence. Because of limited informationand deficiencies in human analysis, manyfuture risks are not easily recognized. Sev-eral recent examples of intelligence failuresrelated to insufficient foresight can benoted. This cognitive problem limits the

capacity to accurately estimate the conse-



199

quences of participation in interdependentrelations.

Furthermore, different types of gains andlosses must be considered and somehow

weighted together. Also, the empiricalmeasurements necessary for a reliable in-

vestigation are often not available. Finally,the effects of interdependence tend to varyamong groups within society. It is likelythat different evaluations of costs and be-nefits will be made, resulting in politicalcontroversy over the results of the analysisitself. In sum, one can claim that the type ofanalytical effort required in this area is ex-tremely complex and difficult to obtainAfter noting this problem, some possibleeffects can be discussed.

_

It is widely alleged that participation ininterdependent relations involves a loss ofgovernmental autonomy. Bertil Dun6r hasdiscussed the complexities and multidimen-sionality of this concept.36 He has alsoindicated its operational difficulties and

questioned the general assumption that ris-ing interdependence is directly related to

reduced autonomy. Bearing his theoreticalanalysis in mind, one can still claim that thefreedom to shape domestic developmentsand pursue independent foreign policy goalsis somehow restricted by the factors of in-terdependence.

Because of societal sensitivities related tothe existence of a broad range ofsocioeconomic transmission belts, the effec-tiveness of policy instruments may be con-siderably reduced. Governments have lostsome control of policy outcomes since theseare also strongly affected by developmentsin the international environment. The publicauthorities can seldom hope to act quicklyand effectively in response to domestic de-mand. Unilateral governmental policy oftenproves to be an ineffective means for shap-ing the internal and external conditions ofthe nation.To overcome their apparent inability to

control policy outcomes, governments mayengage in international policy coordination.The hope is that through collective action

they may be able to adopt more effectivepolicy instruments. However, this strategyalso involves a form of autonomy loss.Successful international policy coordinationnecessitates political accommodation and areduction of possible alternatives for na-

tional action. Through involvement in inter-national collaboration of this type, govern-ments face external restrictions on the

policy instruments available. Coordination

may lead to greater policy effect but thisalso means a limitation on the freedom tochoose among instruments.

It appears that participation in interde-

pendent relations may result in two forms ofrestrictions on governmental autonomy: a

reduced policy effectiveness and/or a morelimited scope of acceptable policy alterna-tives may be experienced. In all, the resultwould be a loss of control of policy out-comes.

A reorientation of policy priorities in theexternal area may be an important result ofthe general loss of control of policy out-comes. If governmental leaders feel -theycan only achieve very limited results in

tangible foreign policy sectors, they maydevote more effort to elusive objectives. Forexample, a government might perceive its

ability to shape the immediate environmentas very limited. Neighboring militarycapabilities cannot be altered, importanttrading and financial partners cannot be in-fluenced. In contrast, the government feelsthat a significant role can be played in theattainment of more general foreign policyobjectives. Here, direct tangible results arenot expected but the success of the effort ismainly measured in terms of the existenceof the activity itself. Examples could in-clude global arms limitation efforts, the

pursuit of a more equitable internationaleconomic order, the adoption of more

humane international norms, the spread ofnational goodwill, and engagement in sym-bolically important international and re-

gional cooperation processes. If such ac-

tivities were emphasized too strongly, therewould be a danger that one might lose sight



200

of where the immediate, vital interests wereat stake. Although such broadly conceivedefforts can have a significant long-term ef-fect by creating a more stable, less conflict-prone world, short-term concerns may beoverlooked. Governments must be clearlyaware of the pattern for, and the rationalebehind, their allocation of scarce adminis-trative resources.The limited governmental control of

policy outcomes may also affect domesticpolitical stability. If adopted policy seemsineffective, and if political leaders are un-able to respond to domestic concerns, pub-lic perceptions of governmental perfor-mance and leadership are likely to becomeincreasingly negative. Voters may turn

away from the established parties, with theirtarnished images, and instead support moreradical, left or right-wing parties promisinggrand reform. The ensuing polarization ofthe political system may involve reducedpolitical stability and possibly also result ina real decline in governmental performance.Naturally, such changes in the domestic

political system would have some impact onforeign policy. One impact could be the

undermining of traditional multiparty sup-port of established external goals and meas-ures. In addition, foreign perceptions of thereliability and future stability of a nation’sexternal and internal policies could be al-tered. In sum, participation in interdepen-dent relations may indirectly upset the pre-vailing domestic political order, and this

may affect the foreign policy situation.Participation in interdependent relations

can also result in the undermining of thesolidity of government. The growth of trans-governmental relations was discussed earlieras one of the features of the international

politics of interdependence. The great scopeof such interactions in combination with thedifficulties in controlling them at the center,involves a potential loss of governmentalunity. It is increasingly difficult to set

priorities, determine a clear direction of

policy, and even to define the national in-terest. Administrative units may unwittingly

I

commit the government to unfavorable de-pendency relations. Transgovernmental co-alitions among like-minded units may un-dermine the best interests of the governmentsconcerned. The existence of direct accesschannels can also make it easier for othersto influence national policy by gaining thesupport of crucial subunits.

In some respects, the application of inter-national influence at present involves

exploiting differences of perspectives withinforeign governmental structures. Similarly,a major security concern must be to presenta solid front to the international environ-ment. The stricter the centralization of all

governmental activity, the harder it will befor others to penetrate and inadvertentlyinfluence policy. However, the relativelyunchecked flows of transgovernmental ac-tivities also involve some benefits whichwould be lost through tight, central direc-tion. International policy coordination maybe enhanced through direct administrativecontacts. Such relations are also relativelyinexpensive in terms of administrative costscompared to the costs of centralized ac-

tivities. In addition, efforts at influencingthe international environment can be facili-tated by the use of such direct but discreetinteractions. In sum, the maintenance of

government solidity is important to nationalsecurity in one respect but may also inhibitthe accomplishment of other national goals.One of the hallmarks of interdependence

is societal sensitivity. Socioeconomic de-

velopments in one nation affect, and are

affected by, related changes in othersocieties. Where stable, long-term inter-

dependence relations exist, societal vul-nerabilities to outside forces may also be

important. The opportunities for govern-ments to harm or to threaten others withsocioeconomic interruptions are great in aninterdependent system. Deliberate acts ofinterference in the domestic conditions ofother societies can be used as a means ofinfluence. This can be accomplished by a

wide variety of externally directed activitiesbordering on economic warfare.



201

Governments can also intervene in othersocieties by simply shifting their own

domestic policies. In addition, the ability ofnations to withstand such external interfer-ences has declined with the emergence ofinternational interdependence. However,their relative resistance, or negative power,has not been equalized sufficiently to makesuch efforts counterproductive. Instead,governments are increasingly eager to re-

duce their own societies’ vulnerabilitieswhile trying to increase those of other na-tions. The relative degree of stress sen-

sitivity of nations can be seen as an in-

creasingly important part of their powerbase .37 A subtle, indirect form of interna-tional power politics seems to result fromthis preoccupation with the manipulation ofinterdependent relations.

It is widely claimed that in an interde-

pendent system the relative power of the

participants tends to equalize. This is not tosay that all states possess equal power, butmerely that their relative capacity to deter-mine outcomes is more equal than is oftenassumed. States which are traditionally con-sidered weak powers have found ways to

strengthen their influence on changes in theinternational system, while traditionallystrong powers have noted a relative loss ofcontrol.38 Increasingly, power is viewed asa relational resource derived from more orless symmetrical interdependence patterns.In this context, the ability to interfere in

foreign domestic developments and to con-trol one’s own society, while being rela-

tively immune to similar strategies byothers, is a major base for influence.39 Sucha resource can be utilized by most nations,large or small, to the extent that they reducetheir vulnerabilities and strengthen theirdominance of some crucial interdependencepatterns.

Because of the great scope of interdepen-dent relations among the advanced indus-trial states, many nations can find at leastone sector where the asymmetry is in itsfavor. Relative advantages in some areascan then be linked to offset weaknesses on

other issues. This way, most participantsfind greater opportunities for exerting theirinterests internationally. The result is greater’power equality’ but also less process effi-

ciency as many potential vetoers of out-comes are involved. For traditionallyweaker states such an effect might not beunwelcome. The chances that internationaldecisions will be made quickly and withoutdue concern for the interests of smaller

European states would seem small in this

system.Another effect of participation in an in-

terdependent system is that the usefulness ofnoncoercive strategies of influence is en-hanced. To Klaus Knorr this is the ability toaffect the behavior of another internationalactor without adversary resort to superiorstrength, military or economic.4° Here con-siderable influence on international de-

velopments can be yielded through the ap-plication of noncoercive means. Such in-struments are neither explicitly threateningnor involve an implicit adversary relation.Some examples of altruistically orientedmeans which can also generate internationalinfluence are: material and political ’no

strings attached’ support, participation in

cooperative humanitarian, welfare and reliefefforts, international mediation, the sharingof information and know-how, giving ad-vice, and setting examples. According to

Knorr, in order to be successful in this

respect a nation needs ’an outward-lookingorientation, cross-cultural empathy,diplomatic skill, congruence between verbalprojections and actual conduct, capacity towelcome mutuality of noncoercive influ-ence’ .41 While the conditions for useful

application of superior military or economicstrength have been weakening in the in-

terdependent system, the opportunities forother forms of influence by states adheringto the listed qualifications appear to havebeen strengthened

It was earlier emphasized that interna-tional organizations are crucial centers ofinteraction and decision-making in the in-

terdependent system. Many aspects of the



202

future international order are shaped withina multilateral diplomatic context. In par-ticular, the international secretariats were

pointed to as actors channelling informa-

tion, building coalitions, promoting ideas,and mediating different national views. Un-usual opportunities exist through active in-volvement in these multilateral activities toensure that the future order will more

adequately reflect national needs. Severalstudies have indicated that in such organi-zational settings, bargaining skills, superiortraining and information, and greater rela-tive resource-commitment may be more be-neficial than national size, wealth, or

strength.43 Willingness to offer uniquelyqualified individuals to international servicecan also contribute to greater relative influ-ence on negotiation outcomes.

In addition, participation in internationalforums gives valuable insights into the inter-nal structures and processes of other states.Here, major opportunities exist for intellig-ence on internal differences and on possiblestrategies to influence the government.Also, the possibilities for intervention in thedomestic arena of other nations are en-

hanced in this context. Such domestic in-terferences through international organiza-tions are generally perceived as more

legitimate and less offensive than similarnational activities. In many cases, gov-ernmental officials feel no conflict of loyal-ties from adhering to values or proposalsoriginating in international secretariats. Incontrast, such activities are often viewed aslegitimate means to promote sectorial in-terests within the government administra-tion. In all, greater opportunities to affectthe external and internal policies of majorstates are offered through involvement in

many international organizations. They thusprovide an excellent vehicle for smaller na-tions to influence their international envi-ronments.

A common strategy to avoid unfavorableinterdependence relations is to spread theseacross many partners. Export markets,suppliers of resources, and financial backers

are to be found throughout the internationalsystem. This technique makes for a

minimum degree of interdependence withany one partner or area. Subsequently, noforeign entity could successfully use the

potential dependence relationship to its

political advantage. If such an effort weremade, the diffusion of ties would make it

easy to shift the relationship to another

partner. It follows from this that one benefitof this strategy is a strengthening of thecapacity to resist deliberate interruption ef-forts.However, the price for this positive effect

is greater interdependence with the interna-tional system as a whole. While bilateralrelations may be controlled, the diffusion ofties involves broader sensitivity to

worldwide developments. Thus, the pos-sibilities for unintentional societal distur-bances may be increased. The use of manypartners may reduce the risk of being man-ipulated by other governments but may alsoincrease the overall threat to social andeconomic stability and prosperity. Hence,the structural effects are becoming moreimportant while the control of relations at

the actor level is increased. Such structural

impacts are less well understood and moredifficult to prepare for.An alternative strategy is to take the op-

posite course. The domain of interdepen-dence can be reduced to a few, close

partners. Within this group the intensity ofrelations is heightened to allow for a trulyinterdependent pattern. Here, the sensitivityto global occurrences is minimized resultingin a fairly insulated socioeconomic regionalsetting. In contrast, governmental efforts atinfluencing the domestic conditions of theother nations would be enhanced within the

group. However, such attempts at interfer-ence would not be made in an adversaryperspective since the opportunities for re-taliation would be numerous. Rather,mutual interventions in domestic concernswould be undertaken in the context of

policy coordination and harmonization. Thisreasoning can be said to form a base for the



203

development and operation of the EuropeanCommunity .To ensure the use of noncoercive bar-

gaining techniques and to foster reciprocalperceptions of mutual advantages, symmet-ric relations should be present. If stronglyasymmetric interdependence relations are

avoided and if interdependence is not

viewed as a hierarchical arrangement, theutility of one-sided political manipulationsof interdependence would seem less. Thisway, the opportunities for unacceptable in-tentional external interrupttons would be li-mited. Similarly, many dimensions of soc-iety would be fairly well protected fromdamaging international disturbances. Themixed EC success record can be partly at-tributed to the existence of asymmetric in-terdependencies within the group and to

continued strong links with the externalworld. At least in the areas of energy anddefense, the European Community is still

tightly knit to the larger international envi-ronment.

VIII. ANALYTICAL RESTRICTIONS

Few scholars claim that the interdependencepattern outlined above is equally relevant inall areas of international politics. States areengaged in several types of internationalenvironments simultaneously. Each suchexternal setting may involve differentramifications for national foreign policyprocesses and strategies. One of the

paradoxes of the contemporary, complexinternational system is its multidimension-

ality. While notions about international in-terdependence may be important factors insome areas more traditional conceptualiza-tions of international politics are quite ap-propriate in other areas. The issue is notwhich paradigm dominates world politicsbut in what areas each is an adequate con-ceptualization of reality. 44

It seems important to identify those di-mensions where the interdependence patternis most or least likely to be a close ap-proximation of national foreign policy con-

ditions. In the literature, distinctions are

primarily made with regard to functional

areas, geography and salience. Any empiri-cal investigation of the many assertionsfound in the interdependence literatureshould at least consider these qualifyingaspects.One could argue that although the inter-

dependence pattern may be relevant to

economic-political issues it does not typifysecurity-political matters. Indivisible issuesconcerning national survival and defense arehandled very much according to traditionalthought on international politics. In con-

trast, it is possible that welfare-oriented is-sues are more adequately analyzed withinthis perspective. The question is whetherthe involved policy area has any bearing onwhat pattern dominates. To indicate the ex-tent of variation one would need to includeboth sectors separately in an empiricalanalysis. One would be a weak test and theother a strong test of the relevance of inter-national interdependence for national pro-cesses.

Most studies outlining the structure of theinternational politics of interdependencehave dealt with West-West and, in some

cases, West-South relations. Could it bethat the interdependence pattern is limited tothese geographical areas? Or are also East-West relations characterized by similar pro-cesses ? Frequently, it is alleged that East-West relations are qualitatively differentfrom West-West interactions. Again, onemust indicate the possible limit to the scopeof applicability of this pattern of interna-tional relations. This time, the question istied to a geographical rather than a func-tional division.One could wonder if the national hand-

ling of international issues can best be attri-buted to what functional type or what

geographical partner is involved. However,it could also be the case that one particularfunctional policy area tends to dominate ageographical relation and thus helps deter-mine the pattern within this area. Similarly,a functional sector could be heavily affected



204

The Interdependence Pattern Across Issue Types

by the dominance of relations with certaincountries. To clarify this problem one needsto separate both between policy areas andbetween geographical direction of relations.

The question of salience is also impor-tant. One could claim that the interdepen-dence pattern is only relevant to low-levelissues of a technical nature. For example,educational, social, cultural, industrial, andenvironmental issues may be handled this

way. These sectors are mainly domestic incharacter but have increasingly gained aninternational dimension. Thus, they are thenewest on the foreign policy agendas andpresumably deviate the most from the tradi-tional patterns of foreign policy-making. Incontrast, where the great stakes are involvedthe traditional pattern prevails. The morevital sectors of international policy such assecurity, diplomacy and financial matters

may not fit the interdependence pattern.The three reviewed limitations lead to a

matrix where one can in a very generalfashion indicate the areas where the inter-

dependence pattern is most or least likely tobe found.

To provide a weak test of the approp-riateness of the interdependence literaturefor understanding national foreign policy-making one could focus on low salient,economic-political, West-West issues. To

strengthen the case further, one could

analyze areas with a presumably mixed

pattern, such as high salient, economic-

political, West-West issues; low salient,economic-political, East-West issues; andlow salient, security-political, West-West

issues. Even stronger tests would be madein those areas which may fall outside the

scope of the paradigm. The issues would behigh salient, economic-political, East-Westissues; high salient, security-political, West-West issues; and low salient, security-political, East-West issues. Finally, the ex-treme case of high salient, security-politi-cal, East-West issues could be included.A detailed investigation in each category

would indicate how far the pattern has

penetrated the national processes, if the

greatest variations are across functional orgeographical sectors, and if the saliencedimension is a major limiting factor. An

empirical study along these lines would be afirst step toward a greater understanding ofthe relationship between the structure of theinternational, interdependent system andnational foreign policy-making.When outlining this model of the interna-

tional system and drawing some implica-tions for the national level, some fairlyspecific propositions could be formulatedand tested. In addition, the limits withinwhich these propositions would be operativecould be spelled out. Similarly, a drasticallydifferent model of international politics withits own national ramifications could be con-ceived for those areas which fall outside therealm of this paradigm. Possibly, inspira-tion for such a system could be found in therealist tradition of intemational politics.45 Tomany, the interdependence school repres-ents the extreme opposite of traditional

thought in the field. Thus, where the inter-dependence pattern is assumed to be least



205

likely to be found, the realist tradition couldmost adequately reflect reality. Two radi-cally different paradigms could be used tocover the whole spectrum of the matrix.

Both schools of thought present extremeversions of the nature of international poli-tics. By focusing on the analytically mostdistant areas in the matrix (economic-politi-cal, low salient, West-West issues and sec-urity-political, high salient, East-West is-

sues) one would most likely find a good fitbetween theory and reality. In addition, thepossible relevance of either model in themiddle range area could be of considerableinterest. It would be valuable to know howfar each paradigm extends into this broad

range of issues. h is also possible that thetwo versions combine and form a new pat-tern not resembling any of the extreme

types.This paper concludes with many un-

answered questions. It is a strength of therich interdependence literature that it forcesus to raise a number of fundamental issuesabout international politics and foreignpolicy. The difficult task of formulatingspecific hypotheses, finding adequateoperationalizations, and undertaking em-

pirical testing still remains.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

This review essay draws heavily on theworks listed below. The objective was to

pool observations made throughout the lit-erature covered. Attributions to specificpieces were not always possible, so thewhole set should be regarded as the refer-ence base for the ideas presented.

(1) James Caporaso, ’Dependence, Depen-dency, and Power in the Global System: aStructural and Behavioral Analysis’ , Inter-national Organization, Vol. 32 (1978), pp.13-44.

(2) Richard Cooper, The Economics of Inter-dependence, McGraw-Hill, New York1968.

(3) Richard Cooper, ’Economic Interdepen-dence and Foreign Policy in the Seventies’ ,

World Politics, Vol. 24 (1972), pp. 159-181.

(4) Karl Deutsch, The Analysis of InternationalRelations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs,1978, Ch. 19.

(5) Karl Deutsch & Alexander Eckstein, ’Na-tional Industrialization and the DecliningShare of the International Economic Sector,1890-1959’, World Politics, Vol. 13(1961), pp. 267-299.

(6) Karl Deutsch & Richard Merritt, ’Transna-tional Communication and the International

System’, Annals, Vol. 442 (1979), pp.84-97.

(7) Bertil Dunér, Autonomi, Research ReportUI-77-3, Swedish Institute of InternationalAffairs, Stockholm 1977.

(8) Bertil Dunér, Ekonomiska Förbindelser ochSäkerhetspolitisk Risk, Research Report UI-78-1, Swedish Institute of InternationalAffairs, Stockholm 1978.

(9) Bertil Dunér, ’Autonomy: What Do WeMean and What Do We Know?’ in KjellGoldmann and Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds.), op.cit.

(10) Morten Egeberg, ’The Fourth Level ofGovernment: On the Standardization ofPublic Policy Within International Re-

gions’, University of Oslo, Oslo 1979

(mimeo.).(11) Werner Feld & Werner Link Eds.), The

New Nationalism, Pergamon Press, NewYork 1979.

(12) Robert Gilpin, ’The Politics of Transna-tional Economic Relations’, InternationalOrganization, Vol. 25 (1971), No. 2.

(13) Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds),Power, Capabilities, Interdependence, Sa-ge, London 1979.

(14) Ernst Haas, ’Is there a Hole in the Whole?Knowledge, Technology, Interdependenceand the Construction of International Re-gimes’, International Organization, Vol.29 (1975), pp. 827-876.

(15) Wolfram Hanrieder, ’Dissolving Intematio-nal Politics: Reflections on the Nation-Sta-te’, The American Political Science Re-view, Vol. 72 (1978), pp. 1276-1287.

(16) Barbara Haskel, ’Access to Society: a

Neglected Dimension of Power’, Interna-tional Organization, Vol. 34 (1980), pp.89-120.

(17) Kalevi Holsti, ’A New International Poli-tics ? Diplomacy in Complex Interdepen-



206

dence’, International Organization, Vol.

32 (1978), pp. 513-530.(18) Samuel Huntington, ’Transnational Organi-

zation in World Politics’, World Politics,Vol. 25 ( 1973), pp. 333-368.

(19) Svante Iger, Ekonomiskt beroende i ett

maktperspektiv, Research Report UI-74-2,Swedish Institute of International Affairs,Stockholm 1974.

(20) Alex Inkeles, ’The Emerging Social Struc-ture of the World’, World Politics, Vol. 27( 1975), pp. 467-495.

(21) Interfutures, Facing the Future: Masteringthe Probable and Managing the Unpredic-table, OECD, Paris 1979.

(22) Christer Jönsson, ’The Paradoxes of Super-power : Omnipotence or Impotence?’ in

Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds),op. cit.

(23) Karl Kaiser, ’Transnational Politics: To-ward a Theory of Multinational Politics’,International Organization, Vol. 25(1971), pp. 790-817.

(24) Lauri Karvonen, Diffusionsfenomenet mel-lan stater, Åbo Akademi, Åbo 1977.

(25) Lauri Karvonen, ’Med beaktande även av

förhållandena i Sverige’, Åbo Akademi,Åbo 1979.

(26) Peter Katzenstein, ’International Inter-

dependence : Some Long Term Trends andRecent Changes’, International Organiza-tion, Vol. 28 (1975), pp. 1021-1034.

(27) Peter Katzenstein, ’International Relationsand Domestic Structures: ForeignEconomic Politics of Advanced IndustrialStates’, International Organization, Vol.30 (1976), pp. 1-46

(28) Robert Keohane, ’The Big Influence ofSmall Allies’, Foreign Policy, Vol. 2

(1971), pp. 161-182.(29) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, ’World

Politics and the International EconomicSystem’, in Fred Bergsten (Ed), The Futureof the International Economic Order,Heath, Lexington 1973.

(30) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, ’Transgo-vernmental Relations and International Or-ganization’, World Politics, Vol. 27(1974), pp. 39-62.

(31) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, ’Interna-tional Interdependence and Integration’ , inFred Greenstein & Nelson Polsby (Eds),Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8,Addison-Wesley, Reading 1975.

(32) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, Power andInterdependence, Little Brown, Boston1977.

(33) Klaus Knorr, The Power of Nations, BasicBooks, New York 1975, Ch. 8.

(34) Klaus Knorr, ’National Power in an

Economically Interdependent World’, in

Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds),op. cit.

(35) Olav Knudsen, ’Capabilities, Issue-Areas,and Inter-State Power’, in Kjell Goldmann& Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds), op. cit.

(36) Gerhard Mally, Interdependence, Heath,Lexington 1976.

(37) Stanley Michalak, ’Theoretical PerspectivesFor Understanding International Inter-

dependence,’ World Politics, Vol. 32

(1979), pp. 136-150.(38) Edward Morse, ’The Politics of Interdepen-

dence’, International Organization, Vol.23 (1969), pp. 311-326.

(39) Edward Morse, ’Transnational EconomicProcesses’, International Organization,Vol. 25 (1971), pp. 373-397.

(40) Edward Morse, Foreign Policy and Inter-dependence in Gaullist France, Princeton

University Press, Princeton 1973.(41) Edward Morse, Modernization and the

Transformation of International Relations,Free Press, New York 1976.

(42) Nikolaj Petersen, ’International Power andForeign Policy Behavior’, in KjellGoldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds.), op.cit.

(43) Donald Puchala & Stuart Fagen, ’Interna-tional Politics in the 1970s: The Search fora Perspective’, International Organization,Vol. 28 (1974), No. 2.

(44) Philip Reynolds & Robert McKinlay, ’TheConcept of Interdependence: Its Uses and

Misuses’, in Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar

Sjöstedt (Eds), op. cit.(45) Richard Rosecrance & Arthur Stein, ’Inter-

dependence : Myth or Reality?’ World Poli-tics, Vol. 26 (1973), pp. 1-27

(46) Richard Rosencrance et al., ’Whither Inter-dependence?’, International Organization,Vol. 31 ( 1977), pp. 425-472.

(47) Andrew Scott, ’The Logic of InternationalInteraction’, International Studies Quar-terly, Vol. 21 (1977), pp. 429-460.

(48) Gunnar Sjöstedt, ’Concluding Remarks’, inKjell Goldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds),op. cit.



207

(49) Gunnar Sjöstedt, Förutsättningar förutövande av ickemilitär makt, ResearchNote, Swedish Institute of InternationalAffairs, Stockholm 1980.

(50) William Wallace, ’Old States and New Cir-cumstances : The International Predicamentof Britain, France and Germany’, in Wil-liam Wallace & W. E. Paterson (Eds),Foreign Policy-Making in Western Europe,Saxon House, Farnborough 1978, pp.31-55.

(51) Kenneth Waltz, ’The Myth of National In-terdependence’, in Charles Kindleberger(Ed), The International Corporation, MITPress, Cambridge 1970.

(52) Oran Young, ’Interdependence in World

Politics’, International Journal. Vol. 24(1969), pp. 726-750.

NOTES

Works included in the bibliography are indicatedby their numbers.

* This paper was concluded while I was in

residence at the Swedish Institute of InternationalAffairs, Stockholm. It presents some tentative

thoughts in the early stages of an ongoing re-

search project. Some of the points covered hereare discussed at greater length in my National

Security in an Interdependent Environment

(FOA, Stockholm 1980).1 Young (52), p. 720.2 Among others, note Cooper (2); Rosecrance

(46); Keohane & Nye (29); Deutsch (4).3 Inkeles (20), p. 483.4 Goldmann & Sjöstedt (13); Keohane (28);

Knorr (33 ); Waltz (51); Iger (19).5 Young (52); Morse (39); Cooper (3);

Deutsch (4); Katzenstein (26).6 Keohane & Nye (31); Morse (41).7 Karvonen (24), (25); Egeberg (10).8 Kaiser (23).9 Cooper (3); Morse (40); Rosecrance (46);

Inkeles (20); Keohane & Nye (31).10 Waltz (51); Morse (41).11 Deutsch (4).12 Young (52).13 Young (52); Haas (14); Scott (47); Inkeles

(20).14 Keohane & Nye (32).15 Caporaso (1), p. 22.16 Reynolds & McKinlay (44); Michalak (37).17 Deutsch & Eckstein (5); Deutsch & Russett

(6).18 Young (52); Morse (39); Cooper (3);

Rosecrance (45).19 Katzenstein (26).20 Young (52).21 Cooper (3).22 Morse (39).23 Kaiser (23).24 Hanrieder (15).25 Inkeles (20); Mally (36); Morse (41).26 Scott (47).27 Rosecrance (46).28 Ibid., p. 440.29 Keohane & Nye (30); Haas (14).30 This approach is used by Maurice East in

his important article ’The Organizational Impactof Interdependence on Foreign Policy-Making:The Case of Norway’, Sage International Year-book of Foreign Policy Studies, Vol. VI, CharlesKegley & Patrick McGowan (Eds.), Sage, Be-verly Hills 1980. It is also recognized in an earlycontribution by Gunnar Sjöstedt, who in 1976pointed to the need for such studies. See his

’Decentralisering av Utrikesförvaltningen?’ In-ternationella Studier, 6/1976.

31 Keohane & Nye (32); Morse (40); Wallace(50).

32 A comprehensive review of the literatureon the foreign policy problems of small states isfound in Niels Amstrup ’The Perennial Problemof Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts’,Cooperation and Conflict, 1976, No. 3, pp. 163- 182.

33 Hanrieder (15), p. 1280.34 Possibly, the seas still remain an area of

territorial conflict. Overlapping claims and trulyexpansionist policy during the last twenty yearshave generated some disputes. In many cases,the territorial question is closely intertwined withissues of economic survival and prosperity forcertain domestic groups. Possibly, governmentpolicy in this area may be more a manifestationof the salience of domestic economic issues thanan expression of territorial ambitions.



208

35 ’Feld & Link (11).36 Dunér (7), (8).37 Petersen (42).38 Jönsson (22).39 Haskel (16).40 Knorr (33), p. 311.41 Ibid., p. 316.42 Knorr (34); Sjöstedt (49).

43 Knudsen (35); Sjöstedt (48).44 This is also strongly emphasized by

Keohane & Nye (32), pp. 4, 24, 29, 60, 242.45 The elements contained in this theory of

international politics are surveyed in KjellGoldmann, Det Internationella Systemet, Aldus,Stockholm 1978. It is also discussed in Keohane& Nye (32) and Michalak (37).



Interdependence and Foreign Policy

Documents

Transcript of Interdependence and Foreign Policy