You are on page 1of 3

WHAT ARE THE METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE 'LEVELS OF

ANALYSIS' DEBATE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ?

The choice of conceptual framework used to study international relations has provided an enduring
discourse throughout the literature since the 'levels of analysis' debate was initiated in the late 1950s and
1960s. In this essay, it is my intention to firstly define the levels of analysis and its development, and then
secondly to identify the questions concerning methodology which the literature has highlighted, particularly
the Holism / individualism, and Inductivism / Deductivism debates.
The 'levels of analysis' addressed the problem of how to study international politics, in terms of
'conceptual lenses' as Allison (1971) referred to them, using certain ontological choices to analyse a
problem at various levels 1 Kenneth Waltz in his studies of conflict in the 1950s, and later Singer (1961)
identified distinct levels at which a problem could be theorised. In his studies of conflict causation the
problem of conflict was analysed using the following perspectives;

i - The Individual Level


ii - The State Level
iii - The International System level

In the context of the 'behavioural revolution' redefining social science during the 1960s, the Levels of
analysis highlighted the scientific way in which international problems could now be considered. The
'levels of analysis' concept also can be seen as part of the attack on the realist paradigm, and the state-
centricity model, in which states were the supreme unit of analysis. However this concept was to raise a
number of questions, highlighting debates about the approach taken to academic study which I shall
attempt to consider during the course of this paper, starting with the question of which level is the most
useful to study ?
Singer argued that the choice of level and units of analysis determined what the analyst's
conclusions would be. To use Waltz's findings on the cause of conflict as an example, using the third
perspective, he saw the international system as the permissive cause of conflict due to its anarchic nature,
however examining the other levels of analysis, he saw what he perceived to be the effective causes of
conflict 2
To illustrate this problem further, Russett's study of military expenditures provides further
evidence of the problems of differing results from conceptual frames of analysis. In this study he uses first
the international system or "macro" level to study, looking at conflict and the role of alliances as a tool of
explanation, after which he studied the domestic or state level, examining the government budgetary
process to find answers. It could be suggested that his study shows how the choice of level, and its
associated ontological choices will influence academic findings. In Russett's case, he noted that using the
international system, he found that conflict rather than bargaining and burden sharing were looked at, and
that the domestic study highlighted the relationship between legislators and military expenditure, showing
the problem from a different perspective 3
As these two case studies have tried to show, Academics were finding that the use of 'levels of
analysis' was leading to vastly different results. It could be suggested that the answer to the question of
'which level is best suited' depends on the problem, and even then it could be asserted that the use of all
three levels will provide the most latitude for theorising a phenomena. However, the arguments have not
lapsed into obscurity, Mandelbaum, Watkins and Lukes discourses on the focus for analysis showing the
persistently sharp divisions present in the choice of analysis.
The second issue raised by the 'levels of analysis' debate is the distinction between 'levels of
analysis' and 'units of analysis'. In Singer's work, he failed to differentiate the above two concepts, leading
to them being used interchangeably in subsequent literature. In one academic journal, The levels of
analysis refers to the methodology utilised to examine a phenomena, whereas the units of analysis on the
other hand are the processes and actors selected in order to solve the problem 4
It could be suggested that this is an important distinction as the levels of analysis is more of a
conceptual issue, and the units of analysis a tool to analyse the theoretical level at which the problem is
deemed answerable by the analyst, leading to The third methodological question arising from the 'levels of
analysis' debate is that of the Holism versus Individualism approaches.
The Holism / Individualism question put simply is the way in which an analysis of society is
undertaken. Weber (1904) outlined Holism as a 'macro' level of analysis, selecting a phenomena, for
example economic history, and narrowing the analysis steadily by examining capitalism for example, and
descending further analysing its components and so on, until finally relating the 'micro' facts to the 'macro'
problem 5 The problem with this study which led Weber to abandon it was the plethora of variables
involved which could never be adequately accounted for. Weber proceeded to refine his theory, leading to
the conceptualisation of the 'ideal type'. This involved taking the most prominent features from a historical
situation and organising it into a simple macro explanation, for example the Napoleonic Wars had at their
heart the problem of Napoleon's military attempt to dominate Europe. This 'macro' or 'whole' view
approach was termed the Holistic approach.
Watkins (1953) argued that the key unit of analysis was the individual, and that Holism had
limited utility, arguing that Holistic ideal types could be compared and measured with reality, raising the
question that if the historical situation has already been analysed, why go to the trouble of analysing it
again with a simplified model ?
The Individualism concept can be seen as an attempt to understand social activity utilising the
individual as the key ontological process. This could be viewed as a bottom-up approach in comparison
with Holism, examining the behavioural patterns and interactions of the individual with the environment.
Watkins was an ardent supporter of individualism, claiming that, "Holistic ideal types, which would
abstract essential traits from a social whole while ignoring individuals, are impossible: they always turn
into individualistic ideal types" 6
In analysing Weber, it could be suggested that as in certain types of economic theory, the 'Holistic'
level of analysis is little more than the aggregation of individual behaviour, with extremes cancelling one
another out, allowing generalisations to be made. Watkins on the other hand appears to disregard the
usefulness of the macro approach, as a tool to examine large scale phenomena, such as war for example
which could be suggested to be more complex than the interaction of one human with another.
In summary the Holism / Individualism debate was not resolved by the introduction of the 'levels
of analysis' concept, rather it was merely been inflamed, exacerbating divisions between scholars as to the
most suitable method of examining international relations.
The fourth methodological issue raised by the 'levels of analysis' debate are the repercussions
arising from this concept for the ongoing debate between empiricists and theorists. Easton (1953) wrote
that "few great social thinkers turned to empirical research" 7 He saw that theorists were under intellectual
attack because of their dependence upon the traditional methodologies.
The 'levels of analysis' concept generated a requirement for information, the three conceptual
frames requiring inputs, to be analysed in order to receive outputs, or facts. Russett (1981) highlighted this
by reference to the fact that Deutsch saw that; "advances in global modelling make clear the fact that the
stress on data and the use of sophisticated modes of mathematical analysis have revolutionised the study of
politics" 8
The result of the 'levels of analysis' introduction to the academic world was to elevate the position
of empirical research within a new framework for studying international behaviour at an inter-disciplinary
level. This concern also affected the Deductivism / Inductivism debate, A branch of scientific method
which is the next methodological concern to be raised in this paper.
The Inductivism approach to learning involves the collation of information, which is then used to
make a theory. Deductivism on the other hand is an approach which uses an argument to make a theory
which can then be tested in its environment in order to establish its validity. The effect of the introduction
of new theoretical frameworks it could be suggested as in the previous debate emphasised a move towards
inductivism as a methodological approach to studying international relations. Charlesworth (1967) realised
the situation which was developing, stating that the behavioural revolution, though it emphasised
objectivity and inductivism to describe the what, where, how and when, it did not explain "why" 9 It could
be suggested that by the exclusion of the "why" from his assertions about inductivism, Charlesworth makes
an important distinction, that inductivism cannot answer a phenomena in vacuum, the inference being that
although the 'levels of analysis' provide a methodology involving distinct ontological processes, are in
themselves sterile. The debate between the Deductivists and Inductivists was still present a decade later in
the literature, when Russett (1976) noted that "Methodologically too, the IR scientific community is
marked by subdivisions" 10
In conclusion, it could be suggested that the divisions between empiricists (Inductivists), and
theorists (Deductivists) are still strong, as they represent the challenge of the behavioural revolution
against the traditional, more philosophical approach to theorising which has been used for far longer, by
virtue of the fact no other approaches existed to seriously challenge it.
In summary, this paper has outlined the methodological questions arising from the introduction of
the 'levels of analysis' in the early 1960's, discussing the units of analysis, holism and individualism,
Empiricism, and Inductivism and Deductivism. For all these debates, the levels of analysis provided a
catalyst in the context of an academic critique of the realist paradigm which had dominated the field of
international relations until this time. The definition of neo-realism, with a wider definition of actors and
processes can be seen as an acknowledgement of the flaws which had developed in the theory, exemplified
by the writings of Russett, Deutsch, and Allison. The one central theme common to all the methodological
questions in this paper, is the sharp divisions which exist particularly in the Holism / Individualism and the
Deductivism / Inductivism debates.
The divisions highlighted in this paper however can still be noted in current thought, especially in
the absence of a unified methodological approach to the study of international relations. It could be
suggested therefore, that the 'levels of analysis' provide scholars with a variety of common 'conceptual
lenses' to utilise in the examination of phenomena, which then can be chosen in accordance with the
academics methodological preferences.

FOOTNOTES
(1) Allison G T, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Harper Collins 1971).
(2) Viotti P R & Kauppi M V, International Relations Theory Realism, Pluralism, Globalism (Macmillan
1987) p. 42.
(3) see Russett B M, 'Apologia pro Vita Sua' in Rosenau J N (eds.) In Search of Global Patterns
(Macmillan 1976) Ch. 3.
(4) see Yurdusev A N 'Levels of analysis and unit of analysis: A case for distinction' in Millennium Vol. 22.
No. 1 (Spring 1993).
(5) see Watkins J W N 'Ideal Types and Historical Explanation' in Ryan A (ed.), The Philosophy of Social
Explanation (Oxford University Press 1973) p. 83.
(6) ibid. p. 104.
(7) Easton D, The Political System (Alfred A.Knopf 1953) Ch. 1. p. 7.
(8) Merritt R L & Russett B M, From National Development to Global Community (George Allen &
Unwin 1981) p. 19.
(9) Charlesworth J C, Contemporary Political Analysis (Macmillan 1967) p. 3.
(10) Op.Cit. Rosenau (1976) Ch. 1. p. 4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allison G T, Essence of Decision (Harper Collins 1971).
Charlesworth J C, Contemporary Political Analysis (Macmillan 1967).
Easton D, The Political System (Alfred A.Knopf 1953).
Merritt R L & Russett B M, From National Development to Global Community (George Allen & Unwin
1981).
Rosenau J N, In Search of Global Patterns (Macmillan 1976).
Ryan A, The Philosophy of Social Explanation (Oxford University Press 1973).
Viotti P R & Kauppi M V, International Relations Theory Realism, Pluralism, Globalism (Macmillan
1987).
Millennium Vol. 22. No. 1 (Spring 1993).

You might also like