transnational relations
contacts, coalitions and interactions across state boundaries that aren’t controlled by the central foreign policy organs of governments
*may involve governments, but not only governments : NGOs must play an important role
*can include transnational actors activities that may not directly involve movements across state boundaries, as activities in home countries may have consequences outside
areas of inquiry
what are the authors mainly concerned about with this article?
What types of global interaction are there?
many international activities involve all types of interaction at the same time
- e.g. trade and warfare
transnational interactions
movement of tangible or intangible items across state boundaries when at least one actor is not an agent of a government or an IGO
How can individuals and organizations in a given society play roles in world politics?
J. David Singer
actors position
roles may slide back and forth in between these 3
geocentric (institution)
composition of leadership and pattern of behavior of an organization indicate that it has lost all special ties to one or two particular states
*transnational organizations tend to become geocentric gradually and after outside pressure (mostly by host governments)
how do transnational interactions or organizations affect interstate politics?
5
transnational relations increase sensitivity of societies to one another -> alter relationships between governments
five major effects:
how do transnational interactions or organizations affect interstate politics?
cybernetic + neo-functionalist school
cybernetic = studies effect of transactions on mass attitude changes
neo-functionalist = emphasize roles of interest groups and elites, or international pluralism
thus they touch upon the first 2 effects transnational relations have on interstate politics
transnational relations -> dependence and interdependence on states
e.g. dependent on transnational communication network or transnational travel
dependent on transnational organizations, e.g. if they provide something states need
dependence in policy: certain policies which a government might otherwise follow can become prohibitively costly
- bureaucratic cost of changing
- transnational organizations can alter patterns of domestic interests -> some policy can become costly
coping with dependence and interdependence is mostly costly for large states: they have to take changes in the international system (they cause) + the perception of other large states into account (e.g. retaliate actions if they choose for a certain policy)
Perceptions of transnational relations by governmental elites are therefore a crucial link between dependence or interdependence, on the one hand, and state policies on the other
loss of control by governments?
governments remain the most important actors
after WW1 there have been more transnational organizations, but states have also adopted more areas of activity
- e.g. international monetary flows: governments more and more try to protect the state from intrusion on national economic policy
increased aspirations for control + increased interdependence are connected
! loss of control is deceptive: governments are rarely able to control their environment for long periods of time, also without transnational relations
governments try to get as much control as possible, they adapt to transnational forces/relations -> transnational relations essential to understand behavior of governments
control gap
governments become more ambitious, they want more control
impact of transnational relations creates a control gap between aspiration for control and the capability to achieve it
does the phenomenon of transnational relations make the state-centric paradigm inadequate for understanding contemporary world politics?
state-centric view has excluded transnational relations from the interstate system:
- small direct political importance
- indirect effects enter into formation of national foreign policies
states are and remain the main actors in world politics (e.g. they monopolize large-scale organized force = ultimate bargain)
we shouldn’t put aside state-centrism, we should pay more attention to transnational relations
continuing importance of transnational actors -> state-centric paradigm progressively more inadequate
better = alternative world politics paradigm
definitions of politics
classic model: world politics as the actions and interactions of states
domestic politics students: process by which societies make binding decisions
problem with moving past state-centrism = no clear limits to the definition
writers of the book: politics = relationships in which at least one actor consciously employs resources (material and symbolic, incl. threat or exercise of punishment) to induce other actors to behave differently than they would otherwise behave
definition politics + world politics (writers)
politics = relationships in which at least one actor consciously employs resources to induce other actors to behave differently than they would otherwise behave
world politics =
all political interactions between significant actors in a world system
significant actor =
any somewhat autonomous individual or organization that controls substantial resources and participates in political relationships with other actors across state lines
- e.g. oil companies: they act to maintain political stability in producing countries
who benefits from transnational relations
some say ‘transnational relations’ is a new word for imperialism (marxist)
- better to focus on transnational relations as is, not as imperialism, as the definitions/implications of imperialism differ
- better to focus on asymmetries or inequalities than trying to employ older terms
definition imperialism
imperialism = virtually any relationship across state boundaries between unequals that involves the exercise of influence
- almost no analytic value as it includes most of world politics
imperialism = cross-national relationships in which unequal power is used to achieve ‘‘unfair’’ allocations of value
Context of this article
realism dominates international relations
- focus on states
- focus on security (war and peace)
- neglect for economic issues (-> neoliberal institutionalism)
Do Keohane and Nye argue that governments are losing control?
they say it’s an empirical question that needs to be determined by research
so they don’t make an argument