Interdependence
reciprocal effects among states resulting from cross-border
flows of money, goods, people, and information.
immediate consequence of interdependence 1.0
the well-being of a state and its citizens depends on decisions
taken by actors in other countries.
Varying of interdependence 1.0
(1) over time
(2) across issue-areas – higher in some than others
(3) across regions and relationships – higher in some than others
(4) within relationships – A may depend more on B than B depends on A
Int. Coop expectations of Keohane and Nye 1977 1.0
Interdependence motivates int’l cooperation by (1) exposing states to a risk of external shocks
and (2) creating opportunities for joint gains.
* States will create international institutions (rules and organizations) to reduce risks and maximize
gains from interdependence.
Int. Coop. observations post 1977 1.0
- Interdependence broad and deep institutionalization of world politics (within and across all
regions and issue-areas) more cross-border integration of economies and societies. - Extensive int’l cooperation & support for rules-based int’l order.
- Cross-border integration massive but uneven growth.
- But… continued global shocks to domestic well-being backlash against interdependence
power of states expectations of Nye and Keohane 1977 1.0
- Difference in two states’ dependence on each other – i.e., the costs each would pay if crossborder flows were reduced or increased – enables the less-vulnerable state to (threaten to)
manipulate cross-border flows if the more-vulnerable state doesn’t comply with its wishes. - A form of power!
power of states observations post 1977 1.0
- Massive expansion in use of ‘sanctions’ as a tool of statecraft.
- States try to shield themselves from sanctions, via:
- Self-reliance in production
- Diversification of supply
- Accumulation of financial reserves
2021 EU - Belarus
- EU reduces cross-border flows:
imposes financial sanctions to punish Belarus govt for election fraud and political repression. - Belarus increases cross-border flows:
facilitates passage of 3rd country migrants to punish EU for financial sanctions.
2022 EU - Russia after Ukraine invasion
EU reduces cross-border flows:
cuts energy purchases, investment & technology to Russia.
* Russia reduces cross-border flows:
reduces supplies of energy to EU
New interdependence Newman and Farrel 2016 2.0
We live in “the world that trade built”: Decades of pro-globalization policies have restructured
the international system.
Rule overlap 2.0
- Development of global rules creates clashes between national and global jurisdictions.
transnational alliances 2.0
Institutionalization of globalization creates new opportunities for firms, citizens, NGOs to
form transnational alliances and press for policy change.
Power asymmetries 2.0
- Institutions are not just ‘rules of the game’ – they’re a source of uneven, asymetric power.
- Some states have more influence over the institutions that govern interdependence.
Results of new interdependence
Institutions of globalization are contested and non-state actors play a critical role
China’s contestation of institutions that govern interdependence
- Place personnel in leadership positions in existing (‘legacy’) institutions.
* Will senior personnel change the policy agenda of existing int’l institutions? - Create new, alternative institutions, less controlled by US & EU.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; New Development
Bank
* Will new institutions complement or compete with legacy institutions?
* Do new institutions have similar or different policy aims, compared to legacy instits?
Weaponized interdependence 2.0 Farrel & Newman 2019
Focus on a structural aspect of interdependence.
In complex networks, some actors are more centrally connected than others new & uneven opportunities
for ‘weaponization.’
* On power & coercion: Actors who occupy key positions within networks of interdependence can use these
positions to gain power by gathering information on others (‘panopticon effect’) and limiting their access to
resources (‘chokepoint effect’).
“[S]tates with political authority over the central nodes in the international networked structures through which money,
goods, and information travel are uniquely positioned to impose costs on others… [They can] gather information or choke off
economic and information flows, discover and exploit vulnerabilities, compel policy change, and deter unwanted actions.” (45)
* On international institutions: “Institutions designed to generate market efficiencies and reduce
transaction costs can be deployed for coercive ends.” (46-7)
Implications
Powerpoint
