Interdependence and Foreign Policy

Cooperation
and Conflict
http://cac.sagepub.com/
Interdependence and Foreign Policy

Bengt Sundelius
Cooperation and Conflict 1980 15: 187
DOI: 10.1177/001083678001500401
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Nordic International Studies Association
Additional services and information for Cooperation and Conflict can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cac.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://cac.sagepub.com/content/15/4/187.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1980

What is This?
Downloaded from cac.sagepub.com at Universite du Quebec a Montreal - UQAM on January 18, 2012
Interdependence
and
BENGT SUNDELIUS
Institute of International Studies,
Foreign Policy*
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 interpretations and dimensions. Following a broad overview of the structure and process of the
international politics of interdependence, as indicated in the literature covered, some
implications
for national
are pointed to. The impact of interdepenand instruments, the relation between domestic and foreign
policy, prevalent international processes and actors, and national processes and strategies
are discussed, in particular with a view to the implications for smaller European nations.
Finally, some important limitations of the discussed features are emphasized. The conclusion calls for some empirical research to test the many interesting assertions contained in
the interdependence literature.
dence
on state
foreign policy-making
objectives
I. INTRODUCTION
the seventies, a significant proportion of the international relations literature
has been devoted to analysis of international
interdependence. It has been argued that
world politics is changing from a traditional
balance-of-power game to a modified system of interactions characterized by interdependence. At times, an assumption is also
made that the international system is
changing for the better. It is hoped that
interdependence will make for increased
international political cooperation and that
all parties will benefit from this new, more
harmonious order.
In this study, interdependence is viewed
as an analytical concept which may prove
helpful in arriving at an understanding of
contemporary international relations. The
term is not seen as a normative guide to
policy, neither does it infer a harmonious,
cooperative state of affairs. Rather, the concept denotes a set of international characteristics which help to define the present
During
international
however, is
system.
Interdependence,
rather vague and multifaceted

concept. The term is defined and used differently by various scholars. It is hoped that
a brief review of its many interpretations
a
will assist in giving a clearer comprehension

of the phenomenon.
Following this conceptual discussion, the
essay continues with a review of some of
the many interesting assertions in the literature regarding the structure and process
of the international politics of interdependence. Some implications for the external
conditions and internal processes of national
foreign policy are noted. An attempt to
indicate some limits for the discussed features is also made. The paper draws attention to a research area offering many intriguing and fundamental questions.
SOME DIMENSIONS OF INTERDEPENDENCE

II.
Several dimensions of the concept of interdependence can be explored. One of the

most fundamental is the distinction between
sensitivity interdependence and vulnerability

Oran Young defines the
the extent to which events occurring in any given part or within any
given component units of a world system
interdependence.
former
as
physically or perceptually)
taking place in each of the other1
or
component units of the system .1
parts
affect (either
events
188
sensitivity aspect, often referred to as

systemic interdependence, is basic to several analysts.2 2
To several writers, the sensitivity aspect
is too broad to give a useful definition of
This
international interdependence. They argue

that being sensitive to environmental conditions does not necessarily mean being significantly affected by external forces. Such
an outcome is also conditioned by the
ability to adapt to environmental changes.
The availability and costs of alternatives to
continued external impacts must also be
considered. These factors are basic to what
is generally called vulnerability interdependence. To Alex Inkeles this is the crucial
dimension of the concept. He writes, Interconnectedness may suggest, but does not
necessarily define interdependence. Dependence exists where a service commodity or
resource obtained from abroad is relatively
vital and not easily substitutable. Interdependence exists where there are relatively
equal 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 environmental
conditions may in fact experience different
vulnerabilities to external forces. The difference between European and North
American approaches to the OPEC nations
in 1973/74 is a case in point. While both
continents are highly sensitive to changes in
oil production and prices, the U.S. is far
less vulnerable to such external impacts.
Differing degrees of relative vulnerability
also involve different capacities to manipulate interdependence to enhance the influence over international outcomes. This vulnerability aspect is the most crucial dimension to those scholars and statesmen who
view international interdependence as an
important power resource4 to be utilized toward national objectives.4
A useful distinction can be made between
societal interdependence and policy interdependence. Societies are both sensitive and
vulnerable to conditions in other societies.

to several scholars, Oran Young,
Edward Morse, Richard Cooper, Karl
Deutsch, and Peter Katzenstein, among
others, the growth of international transactions serves as an increasingly important
transmission belt of international change.5
As a result, the present day menace is the
inability to effectively isolate societies from
each other. National economic problems,
political unrest, technological innovations
and business practices as well as consumer
tastes, fashions, and scientific ideas are
quickly diffused throughout the world.
The existence of such transnational ties
across a wide range of human activity provides many governments with a serious
challenge. On the one hand, nations may
experience some of the rewards of social
and economic integration from these flows.
On the other hand, increased sensitivities
may also lead to greater policy interdependence. This concept refers to the effects of
one
governments policy on another.66
Political leaders are sensitive to the decisions of their colleagues and may even copy
transtheir
actions.
For example,
of
senior
officials
networks
governmental
often contribute to transnational policy diffusion within specialized sectors. A unilateral policy decision may also seriously affect the choices available to other governments. For one thing, such a decision by a
leading government may restrict the options
remaining to other states. Similarly, a desire
to nullify the possible negative effects of a
neighboring policy on ones own society
may, in effect, force a government to accept
a certain policy choice.
In addition to separately analyzing
societal and policy interdependence, a
number of scholars have stressed the relationship between these dimensions. For
example, Karl Kaiser has pointed out that
one reason why transnational relations are
very important to contemporary world politics is that the vertical ties between society
and government have been strengthened
during the post-war era.8 In the past, the
According
189
societal sector operated more independently

of governmental or political involvement.
At that time, the prevailing laissez-faire
attitude of limited governmental responsibility left ample room for international
dealings beyond state involvement or concern. Thus, many commercial and financial
issues were not directly introduced on the
agendas of international political relations.
Today, the expanded role and the responsibility of government encompass virtually all
aspects of society. As a result, international
nongovernmental relations have become
politically more important as domestic government activity has expanded.
Some writers have studied a distinct
functional dimension of interdependence
across the policy-societal axis. Studies of
economic relations have been undertaken by
Cooper, Morse, Rosecrance, Inkeles, and
Keohane and Nye.9 These works have
pointed to the restraining effects of
economic sensitivities on governmental
policy and the international societal impacts
of national economic decisions. Morse, in
particular, shows how national leaders are
often severely restricted in their policy
choices by existing interdependencies.
Similarly, the international ramifications of
national decisions are often significant, but
this effect is not always recognized by the
policy-makers.
Interdependence
has also been measured

in terms of trade flows, international investments, price sensitivity, and interest
rates. It is generally accepted that the
phenomena of international interdependence

is most evident and most important as an
explanatory factor in world economic-political relations. However, Kenneth Waltz, and
to a certain extent Edward Morse, have also
analyzed traditional military-security matters from this perspective.10 Karl Deutsch
concentrated mainly on social interactions,
particularly international communications,11
and Oran Young pointed to the ideological
or perceptual dimension of relations. 12
International interdependence has also
been analyzed at various levels. Some writ-
view the concept as a systemic property

in arriving at an understanding of
the structure of the international system.
Oran Young, Ernest Haas, Andrew Scott,
and Alex Inkeles are interested in mapping
out the emerging social structure of the
world .13 To them, interdependence is an
important structural feature with ramifications for the actors participating in it. Accordingly, interdependence is regarded as
an absolute condition with similar, but not
indentical, effects on the nation-states. An
important task facing these analysts is the
detection of changes in the system generated by increased interdependence.
Many writers choose to study international interdependence at the level of unit
interaction, in which case the concept is
seen as a relative condition involving two or
more international actors. Instead of being a
feature of the system, interdependence is a
property of the relation. Robert Keohane
and Joseph Nye have given considerable
attention to these issues. 14 They focus on
the bargaining processes of nation-states.
Through case studies, they show how interdependence affects such interactions in
terms of relative dominance and influence,
behavioral norms, and conflict resolution
mechanisms.
In this type of research, interdependence
is used as a net concept involving a differential between mutual dependencies. James
Caporaso defines such dependence of actor
A on actor B as the extent that A relies on B
for large quantities of important goods
which cant be easily replaced at sufferable
costs while B acquires small quantities of
from A which it can
unimportant goods
easily replace 15 The interdependence of A
and B is then calculated as the net difference between these dependencies. In this
approach, considerations of asymmetric relations as sources of power which can be
converted into decisional influence are
ers
important
paramount.
It should be clear from this overview that
the interdependence concept is complex because several aspects are involved. Perhaps
190
the wisdom of using the concept in its

aggregate form is questionable. Several critics of the interdependence literature have
questioned the value of using the concept
this way. 16 At the very least, one must be
alert to potentially conflicting definitions
and usages of the term. If it is to prove
helpful as an analytical tool these limitations should be kept in mind.
even
III. FORCES OF CHANGE

Scholars cannot agree on what forces are at
play in international interdependence. Nor
can they agree on whether international interdependence is increasing or decreasing in
magnitude over time. Several schools of
thought can be identified. Karl Deutsch
and his associates pioneered the study of
historical changes in international interdependence. They measured international
transaction flows during the twentieth century and concluded that in some respects
interdependence has declined significantly
since 1913.1~ Deutsch argues that with a
continual rise in industrialization, nations
become more self-preoccupied and less
oriented toward their international environments. Subsequently, the ratio of external
activity to domestic activity has declined
during this century. Although the absolute
volume of international flows has increased
substantially, particularly during the postwar era, these have not kept up with
domestic growth. Deutschs claim that international interdependence has declined has
been widely questioned. A number of
scholars, among them Young, Morse,
Cooper, and Rosecrance, have criticized his
indices.18 Peter Katzenstein refutes his
thesis for at least the period 1950-65.9
A sizeable number of analysts contend
that the contemporary importance of international interdependence is related to the
growth that has taken place in the external
sector of national activity since 1945. The
importance of a rise in the absolute volume
of external flows is stressed by Young.20
Cooper points to the increased domestic
sensitivity to international factors regardless

of the volumes involved.21 Morse focuses
on financial policy and emphasizes the significance of international investments and
capital flows.22 Kaiser points to the growing political involvement in international
interactions.23 In sum, it is argued that the
increased intensity in international relations
has helped dissolve the traditional nationstate system, which has been transformed
into a new interdependent international
system.
In response to this theory, Wolfram Hanrieder presents the view that the changing
nature of domestic affairs has led to modifications in the international system.24 He
accepts the growth of the external sector as
a crucial force behind interdependence, but
believes that the causes of this expansion
are to be found within the nation-state rather
than within the international system.
Alex Inkeles, Gerhard Mally and, in particular, Edward Morse attribute the growth
of international interdependence to international development and modemization.25
Interdependence is a basic feature of modem society and is likely to increase even
further in the foreseeable future. Several
factors are said to reinforce this new international phenomenon. The revolutions that
have taken place in communication enable
people to be more aware of global problems
and to participate more in international
events and movements. Progress in transportation has removed the traditional barriers to mobility. These factors, in turn,
have contributed to the penetration of national economies through trade and investments. The growing pressure on our
planets finite resources is also of wider
concern because of our general reliance on
these resources for material comfort. Similarly, the threat of environmental damage
is becoming more acute and widespread.
Finally, the development and proliferation
of mass destruction weapon systems with
long range delivery capabilities has
heightened sensitivities to conflicts
throughout the world. Within this perspec-
191
as a result of modnational
ernization,
governments are said to
tive of
be
interdependence
facing
enormous
challenges resulting
from these rapid changes. Indeed, Scott

predicts eventual system breakdown as the
complexities of interdependence overrun the
capacity for management. 26
Rosecrance argues that international interdependence is likely to increase only up
to a certain level. 27 At some point it will
reach a level at which national governments
will feel threatened. When this occurs, interdependence will likely stagnate. The
political authorities will act to reduce the
impact of interdependence on their domestic
arenas. To Rosecrance, the capacity of established governments to cope with and
manage the effects of international interdependence is an important factor in its
development. He has found that since 1960
governmental interventions in international
economic flows have generated a shift in
favor of individual national policies within a
context of broad interdependence. 28 International interdependence is therefore no
longer increasing but is leveling off at a
fairly high level. A number of other scholars, among them Robert Keohane, Joseph
Nye, and Ernst Haas, have also stressed the
likelihood of governmental reassertion.29
Efforts toward greater control of domestic
developments affected by external forces
related to interdependence may be expected.
It is evident from the preceding brief
discussion that the literature on international
interdependence is comprehensive and full
of interesting assertions about the nature of
the international system. In this study, we
shall draw on these works in order to discuss how participation in an international
system characterized by interdependence
may impact on the foreign policy conditions
of states.
Much of the literature on interdependence

deals with features at the level of the international system. Discussion on changing
international power structures, different interaction patterns, the establishment and
transformation of international regimes and
various forces contributing to such changes

is fairly common. Fewer writers focus on
the implications of such international structural changes for national foreign policy. In
particular, a more systematic, explicit

analysis where this issue is addressed as a
general problem affecting national foreign
policy would seem important. 30
Many studies relating international interdependence to national foreign policy are
concerned with the larger, more dominant
the U . S . , Great
France.31 As a
supplement to these valuable works it would
also be interesting to explore the possible
implications for smaller states. Small states
are often said to be more system dominant
or to experience greater potential for stress
sensitivity. In addition, the national
capacity of small states to adjust to and to
utilize forces in the environment may be
significantly different from larger states.32
To reach a more general understanding of
the relationship between interdependence
and national policy it might be worth while
extending the analysis beyond one particular
type of state. Here, some aspects of relevance to smaller European nations will be
such
as
Britain, West Germany
or
international
actors
pointed to.
When undertaking this analysis,
one
must
previously noted contradictions, limitations, and ambiguities in the

literature covered. It is not intended that this
essay should present a new and more
sophisticated definition of, or a theory about, international interdependence. Instead,
it is hoped that it will provide a review of
widely scattered research results in a brief
but comprehensive manner. Such a literature survey could serve as a starting point
for subsequent empirical investigations into
several of the propositions found in the
works covered.
The first task is to give a brief interpretation of the central features of the intemational politics of interdependence. A
birds-eye view focusing on the broad,
structural aspects will be offered to help
outline the general patterns and conditions
bear in mind the
192
prevalent
in this type of international sys-
tem.
IV. STATE OBJECTIVES AND

INSTRUMENTS
In the interdependent international system,
the concept of distance has changed
meaning. The traditional importance of
geographical proximity has declined. Here,
time and cost constitute important dimensions of the concept. The time element
involved in launching and delivering
ICB Ms might prove of greater importance
for strategic purposes than their geographical location. When international banks
transfer funds through telecommunications,
the question of geography seems irrelevant.
Corporate investments, trade patterns, and
money flows are more determined by relative costs than by geographical considerations.
cultural distances can be greawithin societies than between the capitals of the world. The international system
has shrunk, in certain respects, and within
certain segments. At the same time, other
areas are as far apart as ever. But, in contrast to traditional thought, these great distances are not necessarily determined by
Similarly,
ter
geography.
As the concept of distance has changed
meaning, the territorial issue has declined in
importance. Among the OECD nations, few
territorial disputes remain. The idea of territorial expansion would seem alien to most
of these governments. This change in emphasis toward nonterritorial foreign policy
goals does not mean that governments have
given up the idea of increasing their international influence and prestige. It is rather
that the basis for such influence and status
has changed. Military power is viewed as
less useful for most political and economic
objectives. Instead, governments use a

strategy of manipulating interdependent relations. Here, the vital resources are access
rather than acquisition, presence rather than
rule, penetration rather than possession .33
Obviously, numerous instruments for an
foreign policy are available in this

international system. However,
of
type
these have changed character from the
traditional emphasis on territorial expansion. For most states, the high cost of territorial conflict in relation to the potential
gain seems exorbitant. Besides, much of the
active
governments
resources
are
now
oriented
growth and prosperity.

can only marginally be
accomplished through territorial acquisi-
toward domestic
These objectives
tion. 34
By and large, present foreign policies tend
to reflect the contemporary emphasis on
welfare issues. These do not require solutions through a zero-sum system of territorial exchanges but can generally be settled within the non-zero-sum bargaining
context of economic growth. In the future
the increasing adoption of neo-mercantilistic
policies could place a potential strain on
interstate bargaining over economic matters.
In times of economic slow-down and stress
the common emphasis on current account
surpluses and export promotion can lead to
sharpened interstate conflicts. One notes
here not a lessening of the potential for
international conflict but a qualitatively
different basis for such disputes. Although
gloomy forecasts about imminent trade wars
might seem exaggerated, the record of recent trade negotiations points toward continued, intensive competition in this area.
The relevance of force as an instrument
of state policy has declined in the interdependent international system. In spite of the
vast weapons arsenals available, these resources are not considered as viable means
toward settling conflicts among the advanced, industrialized societies. This fundamental break with past orientations is
probably less related to basic attitudinal
shifts than to the decreased utility of force
to reach important policy goals. Political
leaders are keenly aware of the real possibilities for mutually assured destruction
resulting from modem warfare. This would
include not only the physical and human
destruction of nuclear exchanges but also
193
politically unbearable economic an social costs of conventional weapons. The

national economies and social systems are
so closely intertwined through various transactions that any serious damage to one unit
would result in considerable disruption in
the
the others.
The risk of
destroying the fabrics of interdependence through the use of force acts

an effective deterrent to governments,
who reap considerable political rewards
from this web. It has often been pointed out
that this consideration has lain at the heart
of French - West-German relations during
the last 25 years. Similarly, this motive has
provided an incentive for wealthier, exportoriented nations, such as West Germany, to
assist weaker partners like Italy. It is not
sufficient to avoid military conflict. Large
scale economic collapse of any partner
could seriously endanger the welfare of
others. The possibilities for excessive
economic warfare would seem reduced in
this type of relationship.
Contemporary major governmental objectives are directed toward issues concerning prosperity and welfare. As noted above,
the best instruments for achieving these
goals are found in economic and political
bargaining and manipulation within the
context of the established international order. To destroy this order would not, at
least in the short run, enhance ones objectives, but would require major material sacrifices. Also, most present disputes do not
reach the magnitude where national preas
stige, dignity,
or
independence
seem
threatened. Likewise, the physical security

of the nation is not at jeopardy. In this type
of conflict, lives are not at stake, although
livelihoods may well be.
Growing international interdependence is
also reflected in modifications in international legal norms. Public international law
is now extended to include as subjects such
various nonstate actors as international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. From its traditional concern with
the rights and obligations of sovereign
public international law has reached

within the national units to recognize actors
at this lower level. Similarly, the scope of
relevant issues covered by international law
is extended into traditionally domestic concerns such as social equality, welfare and
human rights. An ever larger proportion of
is
today being
government policy
scrutinized from the perspective of adherstates,
ence
to
internationally acceptable
norms.
The growth of more humanitarian values is

also manifested in the widespread questioning of the legitimate use of force, for
both external and internal objectives.
These alterations in the conceptualization
of public international law have placed increasing restraints on the freedom of governments to choose between legitimate instruments of policy. The jurisdiction of international law has been expanded across
both issues and actors, to increasingly infringe on the traditional competence of
states. Thus, while international interdependence has eroded effective governmental
international
autonomy,
contemporary
norms have undermined the exclusive formal sovereignty of governments.
V. MINGLING OF
FOREIGN POLICY
DOMESTIC
AND
the post-war era national governhave extended their scope of involvements and responsibilities into virtually every aspect of domestic activity. The
state is increasingly viewed as the major
creator, arbitrator, and distributor of
societal wealth. It is in the political arena
that the major forces behind social change
and distribution of welfare are active. The
record of major interest groups is a case in
point. These promoters of special interests
are sensitive to the centers of power and
direct their efforts increasingly at the political arena. Major corporations have turned to
the state for support and, at times, financial
assistance. In most countries it is only the
government that is viewed as being capable
of solving economic difficulties or of
During
ments
194
guaranteeing societal prosperity. The traditional night watchman concept of the state
has been replaced by an image of an acever present, promoter of national
welfare.
While governments have assumed great
power and become multifunctional they
have also become faced with the challenge
of the revolution of rising entitlements.
The dilemma of increasing popular demands
and insufficient national resources is viewed
as a political problem. Not surprisingly, this
constant dilemma has led to a decreased
priority of foreign goals relative to domestic
needs. Often, the response has been to reduce traditional external commitments to
allow for domestic expansion. The gradual
reorientation of British priorities during the
1960s is well known. At times, continued
external involvements are justified in terms
of their beneficial domestic impacts, e.g.
aid programs tend to strengthen domestic
production and exports. Arms procurements
and sales mean sustained employment.
The domestic arena seems to have been
extended into the foreign policy field in an
unprecedented way. The considerable powers
of government can only be sustained to the
extent that its domestic responsibilities are
met. This can best be achieved through
international economic cooperation and
political accommodation. To satisfy domestic demand, governments are being forced
into forms of interaction with their foreign
counterparts. Theoretically, of course, any
government can reject such an approach and
instead pursue a course of societal autarchy
and governmental autonomy. However, the
material and political costs of this solution,
at least in the short run, would seem too
high for any Western government. The
changing domestic character of the nationstate is also contributing to fundamental
changes in the interaction among these nation-states. The domestic arenas are reaching out into the international setting and
reshaping its basic features.
As a result of increasing societal complexity and the continuous task expansion of
tivist,
government, foreign policy agendas
are
also
becoming broader. Issues such as investment, migration, energy, pollution, inflation, education, food, and health are today
all part of the substance of international
relations. In many cases these problems also
take up more time and require greater effort
by political leaders and governmental officials than the traditional issues of war and
peace. With broader agendas and increasing
numbers of policy objectives covering disperse areas, governmental leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to set priorities,
avoid contradictory targets, and maintain a
sense of national interest and direction.
Since the alternatives are more numerous
and less clear cut, the task of choosing
becomes more complex. Choices cannot be
explained as simply and as clearly to the
public. With limited popular comprehension
of the issues, political leaders face growing
difficulties gaining mass support for desired
objectives. A loss of leadership image is
often the result of this increased com-
plexity.
In addition, the leaders themselves face
difficulties in understanding and
upon a multitude of complex international issues. The use of bureaucratic assistance and involvement in foreign relations would seem to be enhanced by this
trend. In some respects, the pursuit of national foreign policy can be characterized as
the participation in a decentralized process
of collective policy-making.
National
bureaucracies have stakes in many issues
with international ramifications and engage
actively in international dealings. Political
leaders often become far removed from
most foreign policy-making and instead
concentrate on their main concern, domestic
issues. Politicians with a special interest in
international issues are at times even criticized for their supposed neglect of the
politically more attractive domestic con-
growing
deciding
cerns.
A weakness with this pattern of broad

and heavy administrative involvements is the potential for loss
foreign policy agendas
195
of cohesion and consistency. Here, the reliance on national doctrines or myths as

guidelines for policy would seem important.
Generally accepted notions of what defines
the national interest and main objectives can
serve to bring together diverse issues and
activities under a few simplistic slogans.
For example, the Swedish doctrine of
nonalignment has been useful in this regard.
Recently, the concept has even been extended beyond the traditional East-West
conflict to also serve as a guide for NorthSouth relations. In contrast, American inability to find a generally accepted foreign
policy doctrine for the post-Cold War era
has weakened its ability to appear unified
and determined. This has not only affected
international perceptions of America but
also made it more difficult for U.S. officials
to choose among policy alternatives.
Nationalism can thrive in an interdependent world. One of the paradoxes of contemporary politics is the simultaneous
growth of interdependence and nationalism.
The clearest example is perhaps the consistent national assertion of France within the
context of European interdependence and
cooperation. The nation-state remains the
fundamental building block organizing the
globe. Forces toward coordination and
parallelism have been met by deliberate resistance to integration and international
streamlining. The European record as well
as the surge of nation-building in the third
world point to the continued vitality and
importance of this traditional force. Similarly, a renewed awareness of the possibilities for national assertion and influence
through exploiting asymmetric interdependence can be noted. For example, the oil
producing states have successfully used
their 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 new
nationalism . 35 Rather than emphasizing
expansionism, prestige, glory, the modem
version is defensive, inward-looking, and
stresses exclusiveness. Priority is given to

domestic goals and needs. The international
environment is mainly regarded as a useful
arena where domestic demands can be met.
The states are outward-looking with regard
to choosing the means toward achieving
their inward-looking objectives. Increasingly, the primary objective of international
relations is the sustaining of nation-states in
their domestic arenas.
VI. PREVALENT INTERNATIONAL

PROCESSES AND ACTORS
The previous section emphasized how the
substance of international politics has
shifted from such indivisible issues as war
and peace, to divisible issues. Gradually,
the concerns of domestic politics have also
become the focus of international politics.
Accompanying this shift in policy content is
a change in the processes themselves. Increasingly, international relations within the
OECD world have come to resemble
domestic political processes.
International transactions are increasingly
becoming channelled through routine institutionalized procedures. A network of organizational contacts and direct administrative access across national boundaries make
for more predictable routine operations
largely handled beyond the scope of involvement by the political leaders. Problem-
solving
more
closely
approximates
bureaucratic bargaining pattern than a diplomatic negotiation game. Conflicts are

over appropriate means rather than over
clashing national objectives. The attitudes
of major participants can be described as
pragmatic with a belief in a step-by-step
approach to problem-solving. Perceptions of
mutual interdependencies and an awareness
of the need for sensitivity and responsiveness toward others are common. Established
procedures and organizations are widely accepted as a legitimate framework for interactions. Possibly, this international process could be characterized as a half-way
house between international power politics
and domestic consensus politics. It searches
196
for solutions to international distributive

problems within the context of distinct national identities and authority.
In the interdependent international system, multilateral diplomacy and international institutions play an important part.
Much of foreign policy is directed at international policy coordination and conflict resolution. In most cases, the collective involvement of several major states is required for a successful solution. Ad hoc
arrangements to find mutually acceptable
policies are often turned into more permanent institutional structures and processes.
These innovations in statecraft tend to
facilitate the continued successful resolution
of various disputes. The presence of international organizations tends to give some
permanence and stability to such conflict
reducing processes. A forum where grievances can be raised, other governments
challenged, and international pressures
brought to bear is always available.
The importance of international secretariats as centers of communications and
interactions cannot be underestimated. It is
often pointed out how the secretariats in
New York and Geneva, Paris and Brussels
are used as information and communications centers. In particular, smaller states
with limited international representation
have found it cost effective to concentrate
their resources here. The international secretariats role as broker, coalition builder
and promoter of innovative policy solutions
can also be crucial. Although not the formal
equals of nation-states, such secretariats can
have decisive influence on many important
negotiations. Because of their international,
impartial status, they can successfully push
for ideas otherwise unacceptable to some
governments. As a result, they facilitate
international agreements and increase the
capacity to deal with international interdependence. The growing importance of
such international institutions is also reflected in the increasing attention given to
them by national governments. An ever
larger proportion of foreign policy activity
is directed at multilateral interactions. Particularly, this is the case on the European

scene, where nationally vital issues are seldom handled by traditional bilateral diplomacy.
States remain dominant actors of international politics. They maintain the ultimate
political authority within their territories
and, at least formally, engage in international activities on a voluntary basis. However, the present international system is
characterized by a great variety of actors
involved in world affairs. Not only do these
other actors participate in international relations, but they are also in many cases important to international outcomes. Their influence on developments tends to vary between issue areas and levels of activity. For
example, in the national security field their
importance may be marginal, while in the
areas of financial, agricultural, energy, and
commercial policy they have had major influence. Similarly, nonstate actors tend to
have more influence on issues mainly determined at the level of bureaucratic interaction than in areas in which national political
leaders are directly involved.
New participants in international politics
include multinational corporations and
banks, transnational interest groups, inter-
governmental organizations
secretariats, and
with permanent
autonomous
governmental
entities. Several cases have been noted in

the literature where such actors have successfully pursued independent interest in the
international arena. Naturally, the likely result of a direct confrontation between an
established government and a nonstate actor
is a defeat for the latter. The volume and
scope of resources available to virtually all
traditional nation-states are far in excess of
those of other types of actors. However, the
relative cost of constantly exerting authority
is formidable for any government. Because
of the great scope of governmental concerns, scarce resources cannot be mobilized
in all areas. In contrast, nonstate actors in
most cases are less multifunctional and can
concentrate their efforts in a few crucial
197
areas.
Thus, the relative weights of these
specific issue areas,

be as disproportionate as is often
Consequently, on many issues
participants,
might
not
assumed.
within
nonstate actors must be considered

tant determinants of international
outcomes.
impor-
policy
With broadened foreign policy agendas

and an emphasis on welfare issues, the
involvement of government administrations
in international affairs is strengthened. Direct contacts between governmental subunits responsible for specific policy sectors
are growing in magnitude and intensity.
Many aspects of a nations external relations are handled primarily through such
transgovemmental interactions. The existence
of a web of bureaucratic contacts in the
Nordic area, within the EC and in many
transatlantic relations is well documented.
The growth of transgovernmental relations has often been met by concern by the
national foreign offices. It has been pointed
out that these autonomous external activities
diminish the possibilities for central political control and consistency in foreign
policy. A slightly schizophrenic personality
seems to characterize some governments.
The U.S. government, in particular, has
been said to suffer from this tendency. Its
enormous size and decentralized structure
create many opportunities for such autonomous relations. However, also smaller,
more cohesive governments could face
similar problems when experiencing more
direct administrative involvements in international issues. The danger is that the national interest is defined differently on different issues, at different times, and by
different governmental subunits.
In response to this tendency, a resurgence
of central coordination and planning of national policy is evident in many governments. Here, the foreign ministries and at
times the prime ministers offices have
taken the lead by ensuring that fundamental
national or political objectives are not compromised in various issue areas. In particular, efforts at building transgovernmental
coalitions
of like-minded governmental
agencies on certain issues have been challenged with moderate success. Increased
central control of disperse policy sectors
involves considerable administrative costs
and tends frequently to disturb smoothly
functioning coordination processes. This
drawback must be considered in relation to
the potential damage to basic national interests caused by inconsistent and perhaps
even contradictory external commitments.
In any case, the bureaucratic, administrative
elements of government must be viewed as
increasingly important international actors.
The broader agendas and multitude of
actors in international politics enhance the
likelihood of issue linkages. Numerous
policy areas are included as legitimate
foreign policy subjects and no clear political
distinctions are made between them. The
traditional two-track system, where security
issues were separated from economic problems, has been considerably eroded. Instead, these policy issues now mingle together on the agendas. At times, international actors create explicit linkages to better use their strengths in one area to influence
outcomes in another, analytically unrelated
sector. For instance, the U.S. has increasingly tied resolution of international financial problems to American military involvements in Europe and Asia. Here, her
relatively
weak
negotiating position
on
economic questions is strengthened by linkage to her superior military capabilities.

Such linkages may facilitate trade-offs
and package deals across policy sectors,
thus making solutions easier. On the other
hand, issue linkages can also politicize lowlevel technical questions, contribute to crisis
situations, and sometimes make solutions
more difficult to accept. Manipulating interdependent relations through a strategy of
issue linkages is an important power resource available to governments. Depending
on its utilization, this strategy will enhance
international cooperation or contribute to a
more politicized, crisis-ridden international
system.
198
The effects of international interdependence on participating societies are not

identical. Because of built-in asymmetries
in relations some countries benefit more
than others from their active involvement in
interdependent relations. One suspects that
larger societies with broad but not very
intensive interactions profit most from such
links. The U.S. State Department increasingly uses the rhetoric of interdependence as
a slogan for its overseas involvement. A
brief review of major speeches and policy
statements reveals that the concept now
parallels the Cold War rhetoric as a major
foreign policy theme. The frequent message
to other governments that we are in this
together, can benefit or suffer together, and
therefore must cooperate often includes the
implicit assumption that all governments
must show restraint in their demands and
not upset the prevailing order.
This theme of interdependence can be
used to support and legitimize continued
American dominance of international politics. It is not surprising that with the growth
of international interdependence the advocates of nationalism and greater national
autonomy have also become more vocal.
The relative gains of an interdependent
system are unequally distributed and tend to
make for increased political activity of a
defensive nature. For instance the French
resistance to U.S. led international cooperation schemes, the Nixon plan for Project
Independence, and the British reluctance to
join the European Monetary System can be
noted.
Differential effects within societies are
also crucial and have contributed to a fragmentation of the support for foreign policy.
Local groups such as farmers, textile and
steel workers, see international interdependence as a threat to their livelihood and take
defensive action to protect their futures. The
demand for tariff or quota protection from
unfair foreign competition is rising in all
advanced industrial societies. In contrast,
other national groups regard continued involvement in interdependent relations as a
for growth, prosperity and influence. In particular, export oriented industries emphasize the dangers of trade restrictions while multinational corporations
and banks note the value of a free flow of
goods and capital.
Apparently, the changing character of the
international system may contribute to new
internal political divisions in many countries. The traditionally bipartisan support for
foreign policy has been replaced by political
controversy over many issues which appear
to directly affect local constituencies. Some
important examples of this trend are the EC
conflicts in Great Britain, Norway and Denmark during the 1970s. The fusion of international and domestic politics is obvious
from these cases.
requirement
VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL

PROCESSES AND STRATEGIES
Both benefits and costs are generated from
participation in an international system
characterized by interdependence relations.
However, it is difficult to convincingly determine whether such relations offer a net
gain or loss to the nation. For instance, a
distinction must be made between shortterm and long-term effects. It is possible
that a relationship which offers substantial
immediate benefits could also involve a
long-term autonomy loss and increased
societal vulnerability. For example, the
Swedish energy orientation toward inexpensive, plentiful, imported oil in the 1950s
and early 1960s could have been seen as a
strategy with at least major immediate benefits to a growing economy. The less positive long-range effects were not fully appreciated until several years later.
In addition, analysts are seldom fully
aware of the full potential effects of inter-
dependence. Because of limited information

and deficiencies in human analysis, many
future risks are not easily recognized. Several recent examples of intelligence failures
related to insufficient foresight can be
noted. This cognitive problem limits the
capacity to accurately estimate the conse-
199
interdependent
they may be able to adopt more effective

policy instruments. However, this strategy
Furthermore, different types of gains and
also involves a form of autonomy loss.

Successful international policy coordination
necessitates political accommodation and a
reduction of possible alternatives for national action. Through involvement in international collaboration of this type, governments face external restrictions on the
policy instruments available. Coordination
may lead to greater policy effect but this
also means a limitation on the freedom to
choose among instruments.
It appears that participation in interdependent relations may result in two forms of
restrictions on governmental autonomy: a
reduced policy effectiveness and/or a more
limited scope of acceptable policy alternatives may be experienced. In all, the result
would be a loss of control of policy out-
quences of
relations.
participation
in
be considered and somehow

weighted together. Also, the empirical
measurements necessary for a reliable investigation are often not available. Finally,
the effects of interdependence tend to vary
among groups within society. It is likely
that different evaluations of costs and benefits will be made, resulting in political
controversy over the results of the analysis
itself. In sum, one can claim that the type of
analytical effort required in this area is extremely complex and difficult to obtain
After noting this problem, some possible
effects can be discussed.
It is widely alleged that participation in
interdependent relations involves a loss of
governmental autonomy. Bertil Dun6r has
discussed the complexities and multidimensionality of this concept.36 He has also
indicated its operational difficulties and
questioned the general assumption that rising interdependence is directly related to
reduced autonomy. Bearing his theoretical
analysis in mind, one can still claim that the
freedom to shape domestic developments
and pursue independent foreign policy goals
is somehow restricted by the factors of inlosses
must
terdependence.
Because of societal sensitivities related to
the existence of a broad range of
socioeconomic transmission belts, the effectiveness of policy instruments may be considerably reduced. Governments have lost
some control of policy outcomes since these
are also strongly affected by developments
in the international environment. The public
authorities can seldom hope to act quickly
and effectively in response to domestic demand. Unilateral governmental policy often
proves to be an ineffective means for shaping the internal and external conditions of
the nation.
To overcome their apparent inability to
control policy outcomes, governments may
engage in international policy coordination.
The hope is that through collective action
comes.
A reorientation of policy priorities in the

external area may be an important result of
the general loss of control of policy outcomes. If governmental leaders feel -they
can only achieve very limited results in
tangible foreign policy sectors, they may
devote more effort to elusive objectives. For
example, a government might perceive its
ability to shape the immediate environment
as
very limited. Neighboring military
capabilities cannot be altered, important
trading and financial partners cannot be influenced. In contrast, the government feels
that a significant role can be played in the
attainment of more general foreign policy
objectives. Here, direct tangible results are
not expected but the success of the effort is
mainly measured in terms of the existence
of the activity itself. Examples could include global arms limitation efforts, the
pursuit of a more equitable international
economic order, the adoption of more
humane international norms, the spread of
national goodwill, and engagement in symbolically important international and regional cooperation processes. If such activities were emphasized too strongly, there
would be a danger that one might lose sight
200
of where the immediate, vital interests were

at stake. Although such broadly conceived
efforts can have a significant long-term effect by creating a more stable, less conflictprone world, short-term concerns may be
overlooked. Governments must be clearly
aware of the pattern for, and the rationale
behind, their allocation of scarce administrative resources.
The limited governmental control of
policy outcomes may also affect domestic
political stability. If adopted policy seems
ineffective, and if political leaders are unable to respond to domestic concerns, public perceptions of governmental performance and leadership are likely to become
increasingly negative. Voters may turn
away from the established parties, with their
tarnished images, and instead support more
radical, left or right-wing parties promising
grand reform. The ensuing polarization of
the political system may involve reduced
political stability and possibly also result in
a real decline in governmental performance.
Naturally, such changes in the domestic
political system would have some impact on
foreign policy. One impact could be the
undermining of traditional multiparty support of established external goals and measures. In addition, foreign perceptions of the
reliability and future stability of a nations
external and internal policies could be altered. In sum, participation in interdependent relations may indirectly upset the prevailing domestic political order, and this
may affect the foreign policy situation.
Participation in interdependent relations
can also result in the undermining of the
solidity of government. The growth of transgovernmental relations was discussed earlier
as one of the features of the international
politics of interdependence. The great scope
of such interactions in combination with the
difficulties in controlling them at the center,
involves a potential loss of governmental
unity. It is increasingly difficult to set
priorities, determine a clear direction of
policy, and even to define the national interest. Administrative units may unwittingly
commit the government to unfavorable dependency relations. Transgovernmental coalitions among like-minded units may undermine the best interests of the governments
concerned. The existence of direct access
channels can also make it easier for others
to influence national policy by gaining the
support of crucial subunits.
In some respects, the application of international influence at present involves
exploiting differences of perspectives within
foreign governmental structures. Similarly,

major security concern must be to present
solid front to the international environThe stricter the centralization of all

governmental activity, the harder it will be
for others to penetrate and inadvertently
influence policy. However, the relatively
unchecked flows of transgovernmental activities also involve some benefits which
would be lost through tight, central direction. International policy coordination may
be enhanced through direct administrative
contacts. Such relations are also relatively
inexpensive in terms of administrative costs
compared to the costs of centralized activities. In addition, efforts at influencing
the international environment can be facilitated by the use of such direct but discreet
interactions. In sum, the maintenance of
government solidity is important to national
security in one respect but may also inhibit
the accomplishment of other national goals.
One of the hallmarks of interdependence
is societal sensitivity. Socioeconomic developments in one nation affect, and are
affected by, related changes in other
societies. Where stable, long-term interdependence relations exist, societal vulnerabilities to outside forces may also be
important. The opportunities for governments to harm or to threaten others with
socioeconomic interruptions are great in an
interdependent system. Deliberate acts of
interference in the domestic conditions of
other societies can be used as a means of
influence. This can be accomplished by a
wide variety of externally directed activities
bordering on economic warfare.
a
ment.
I
Downloaded from cac.sagepub.com
at Universite du Quebec a Montreal - UQAM on January 18, 2012
201
Governments can also intervene in other

societies by simply shifting their own
domestic policies. In addition, the ability of
nations to withstand such external interferences has declined with the emergence of
international interdependence. However,
their relative resistance, or negative power,
has not been equalized sufficiently to make
such efforts counterproductive. Instead,
are increasingly eager to reduce their own societies vulnerabilities
while trying to increase those of other nations. The relative degree of stress sensitivity of nations can be seen as an increasingly important part of their power
base .37 A subtle, indirect form of international power politics seems to result from
this preoccupation with the manipulation of
interdependent relations.
It is widely claimed that in an interdependent system the relative power of the
participants tends to equalize. This is not to
say that all states possess equal power, but
merely that their relative capacity to determine outcomes is more equal than is often
assumed. States which are traditionally considered weak powers have found ways to
strengthen their influence on changes in the
international system, while traditionally
strong powers have noted a relative loss of
control.38 Increasingly, power is viewed as
a relational resource derived from more or
governments
less symmetrical interdependence patterns.

In this context, the ability to interfere in
other issues. This way, most participants

find greater opportunities for exerting their
interests internationally. The result is greater
power equality but also less process efficiency as many potential vetoers of outcomes
are
involved. For traditionally
weaker states such an effect might not be
unwelcome. The chances that international
decisions will be made quickly and without
due concern for the interests of smaller
European states would seem small in this
system.
Another effect of participation in an interdependent system is that the usefulness of
noncoercive strategies of influence is enhanced. To Klaus Knorr this is the ability to
affect the behavior of another international
without adversary resort to superior
strength, military or economic.4 Here conactor
siderable influence on international developments can be yielded through the application of noncoercive means. Such instruments are neither explicitly threatening
nor involve an implicit adversary relation.
Some examples of altruistically oriented
means which can also generate international
influence are: material and political no
strings attached support, participation in
cooperative humanitarian, welfare and relief
efforts, international mediation, the sharing
of information and know-how, giving advice, and setting examples. According to
Knorr, in order to be successful in this
respect a nation needs an outward-looking
domestic developments and to control ones own society, while being relatively immune to similar strategies by
others, is a major base for influence.39 Such
a resource can be utilized by most nations,
large or small, to the extent that they reduce
their vulnerabilities and strengthen their
dominance of some crucial interdependence
cross-cultural
orientation,
empathy,
diplomatic skill, congruence between verbal
projections and actual conduct, capacity to
welcome mutuality of noncoercive influ-
patterns.
Because of the great scope of
other forms of influence by states adhering

to the listed qualifications appear to have
been strengthened
It was earlier emphasized that international organizations are crucial centers of
interaction and decision-making in the interdependent system. Many aspects of the
foreign
interdepen-
dent relations among the advanced industrial states, many nations can find at least
one sector where the asymmetry is in its
favor. Relative advantages in some areas
can then be linked to offset weaknesses on
ence .41 While the conditions for useful

application of superior military or economic
strength have been weakening in the

terdependent system, the opportunities
infor
202
future international order are shaped within

a multilateral diplomatic context. In particular, the international secretariats were
pointed to as actors channelling informa-
tion, building coalitions, promoting ideas,

and mediating different national views. Unusual opportunities exist through active involvement in these multilateral activities to
ensure that the future order will more
adequately reflect national needs. Several
studies have indicated that in such organizational settings, bargaining skills, superior
training and information, and greater relative resource-commitment may be more beneficial than national size, wealth, or
strength.43 Willingness to offer uniquely
qualified individuals to international service
can also contribute to greater relative influence on
negotiation
outcomes.
In addition, participation in international

forums gives valuable insights into the internal structures and processes of other states.
Here, major opportunities exist for intelligence on internal differences and on possible
strategies to influence the government.
Also, the possibilities for intervention in the
domestic arena of other nations are enhanced in this context. Such domestic interferences through international organizations are generally perceived as more
legitimate and less offensive than similar
national activities. In many cases, governmental officials feel no conflict of loyalties from adhering to values or proposals
originating in international secretariats. In
contrast, such activities are often viewed as
legitimate means to promote sectorial interests within the government administration. In all, greater opportunities to affect
the external and internal policies of major
states are offered through involvement in
many international organizations. They thus
provide an excellent vehicle for smaller nations to influence their international environments.
common
across
many
to avoid unfavorable
relations is to spread these
strategy
interdependence
partners. Export markets,
suppliers of resources,
and financial backers
be found throughout the international

This technique makes for a
minimum degree of interdependence with
any one partner or area. Subsequently, no
foreign entity could successfully use the
potential dependence relationship to its
political advantage. If such an effort were
made, the diffusion of ties would make it
easy to shift the relationship to another
partner. It follows from this that one benefit
of this strategy is a strengthening of the
capacity to resist deliberate interruption efforts.
However, the price for this positive effect
is greater interdependence with the international system as a whole. While bilateral
relations may be controlled, the diffusion of
ties
involves
broader sensitivity
to
worldwide developments. Thus, the possibilities for unintentional societal disturbances may be increased. The use of many
partners may reduce the risk of being manipulated by other governments but may also
increase the overall threat to social and
economic stability and prosperity. Hence,
the structural effects are becoming more
important while the control of relations at
the actor level is increased. Such structural
impacts are less well understood and more
difficult to prepare for.
An alternative strategy is to take the opposite course. The domain of interdependence can be reduced to a few, close
partners. Within this group the intensity of
relations is heightened to allow for a truly
are
to
system.
interdependent pattern. Here, the sensitivity

to global occurrences is minimized resulting
in a fairly insulated socioeconomic regional
setting. In contrast, governmental efforts at
influencing the domestic conditions of the
other nations would be enhanced within the
group. However, such attempts at interference would not be made in an adversary
perspective since the opportunities for retaliation would be numerous. Rather,
mutual interventions in domestic concerns
would be undertaken in the context of
policy coordination and harmonization. This
reasoning can be said to form a base for the
203
development
Community .
To
ensure
and
the
operation
use
of the
European
of noncoercive bar-
gaining techniques and to foster reciprocal

perceptions of mutual advantages, symmetric relations should be present. If strongly
asymmetric interdependence relations are
avoided and if interdependence is not
viewed as a hierarchical arrangement, the
utility of one-sided political manipulations
of interdependence would seem less. This
way, the opportunities for unacceptable intentional external interrupttons would be limited. Similarly, many dimensions of society would be fairly well protected from
damaging international disturbances. The
mixed EC success record can be partly attributed to the existence of asymmetric interdependencies within the group and to
continued strong links with the external
world. At least in the areas of energy and
defense, the European Community is still
tightly knit to the larger international environment.
ditions. In the literature, distinctions are

primarily made with regard to functional
areas, geography and salience. Any empirical investigation of the many assertions
found in the interdependence literature
should at least consider these qualifying
aspects.
One could argue that although the interdependence pattern may be relevant to
economic-political issues it does not typify
security-political matters. Indivisible issues
concerning national survival and defense are
handled very much according to traditional
thought on international politics. In contrast, it is possible that welfare-oriented issues are more adequately analyzed within
this perspective. The question is whether
the involved policy area has any bearing on
what pattern dominates. To indicate the extent of variation one would need to include
both sectors separately in an empirical
analysis. One would be a weak test and the
other a strong test of the relevance of international interdependence for national processes.
VIII. ANALYTICAL RESTRICTIONS

Few scholars claim that the
interdependence
pattern outlined above is equally relevant in

all
of international politics. States are

in several types of international
environments simultaneously. Each such
external setting may involve different
ramifications for national foreign policy
processes and strategies. One of the
paradoxes of the contemporary, complex
international system is its multidimensionality. While notions about international interdependence may be important factors in
some areas more traditional conceptualizations of international politics are quite appropriate in other areas. The issue is not
which paradigm dominates world politics
but in what areas each is an adequate conceptualization of reality. 44
It seems important to identify those dimensions where the interdependence pattern
is most or least likely to be a close approximation of national foreign policy conareas
engaged
Most studies outlining the structure of the

international politics of interdependence
have dealt with West-West and, in some
cases, West-South relations. Could it be
that the interdependence pattern is limited to
these geographical areas? Or are also EastWest relations characterized by similar processes ? Frequently, it is alleged that EastWest relations are qualitatively different
from West-West interactions. Again, one
must indicate the possible limit to the scope
of applicability of this pattern of international relations. This time, the question is
tied to a geographical rather than a functional division.
One could wonder if the national handling of international issues can best be attributed to what functional type or what
geographical partner is involved. However,
it could also be the case that one particular
functional policy area tends to dominate a
geographical relation and thus helps determine 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 certain

countries. To clarify this problem one needs
to separate both between policy areas and
between geographical direction of relations.
The question of salience is also important. One could claim that the interdependence pattern is only relevant to low-level
issues of a technical nature. For example,
educational, social, cultural, industrial, and
environmental issues may be handled this
way. These sectors are mainly domestic in
character but have increasingly gained an
international dimension. Thus, they are the
newest on the foreign policy agendas and
presumably deviate the most from the traditional patterns of foreign policy-making. In
contrast, where the great stakes are involved
the traditional pattern prevails. The more
vital sectors of international policy such as
security, diplomacy and financial matters
may not fit the interdependence pattern.
The three reviewed limitations lead to a
matrix where one can in a very general
fashion indicate the areas where the interdependence pattern is most or least likely to
be found.
To provide a weak test of the appropriateness of the interdependence literature
for understanding national foreign policymaking 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, economicpolitical, West-West issues; low salient,
economic-political, East-West issues; and
low salient, security-political, West-West
issues. Even stronger tests would be made

in those areas which may fall outside the
scope of the paradigm. The issues would be
high salient, economic-political, East-West
issues; high salient, security-political, WestWest issues; and low salient, securitypolitical, East-West issues. Finally, the extreme case of high salient, security-political, 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 or
geographical sectors, and if the salience
dimension is a major limiting factor. An
empirical study along these lines would be a
first step toward a greater understanding of
the relationship between the structure of the
international, interdependent system and
national foreign policy-making.
When outlining this model of the international system and drawing some implications for the national level, some fairly
specific propositions could be formulated
and tested. In addition, the limits within
which these propositions would be operative
could be spelled out. Similarly, a drastically
different model of international politics with
its own national ramifications could be conceived for those areas which fall outside the
realm of this paradigm. Possibly, inspiration for such a system could be found in the
realist tradition of intemational politics.45 To
many, the interdependence school represents the extreme opposite of traditional
thought in the field. Thus, where the interdependence pattern is assumed to be least
205
be found, the realist tradition could

adequately reflect reality. Two radically different paradigms could be used to
cover the whole spectrum of the matrix.
Both schools of thought present extreme
versions of the nature of international politics. By focusing on the analytically most
distant areas in the matrix (economic-political, low salient, West-West issues and security-political, high salient, East-West issues) one would most likely find a good fit
between theory and reality. In addition, the
possible relevance of either model in the
middle range area could be of considerable
interest. It would be valuable to know how
far each paradigm extends into this broad
range of issues. h is also possible that the
two versions combine and form a new pattern not resembling any of the extreme
likely
to
most
Relations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs,

1978, Ch. 19.
(5) Karl Deutsch & Alexander Eckstein, Na-
(6)
This paper concludes with many unanswered questions. It is a strength of the

rich interdependence literature that it forces
us to raise a number of fundamental issues
about international politics and foreign
policy. The difficult task of formulating
specific hypotheses, finding adequate

operationalizations, and undertaking empirical testing still remains.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This review essay draws heavily on the
works listed below. The objective was to
pool observations made throughout the literature covered. Attributions to specific
pieces were not always possible, so the
whole set should be regarded as the reference base for the ideas presented.
(1) James Caporaso, Dependence,

and Power in the Global
Depen-
System:
84-97.
Affairs, Stockholm 1977.
(8) Bertil Dunér, Ekonomiska
Förbindelser och
Research Report UI78-1, Swedish Institute of International
Bertil Dunér, Autonomy: What Do We
Mean and What Do We Know? in Kjell
Goldmann and Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds.), op.
cit.
Morten Egeberg, The Fourth Level of
Government: On the Standardization of
Public Policy Within International Regions, University of Oslo, Oslo 1979
Säkerhetspolitisk Risk,
(10)
(mimeo.).
(11) Werner Feld &
Werner Link Eds.), The

New Nationalism, Pergamon Press, New
York 1979.
(12) Robert Gilpin, The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations, International
, Vol. 25 (1971), No. 2.
Organization
(13) Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds),
Power, Capabilities, Interdependence, Sage, London 1979.
(14) Ernst Haas, Is there a Hole in the Whole?
Knowledge, Technology, Interdependence
and the Construction of International ReVol.

29 (1975), pp. 827-876.
Wolfram Hanrieder, Dissolving Intemational Politics: Reflections on the Nation-State, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72 (1978), pp. 1276-1287.
Barbara Haskel, Access to Society: a
Neglected Dimension of Power, International Organization, Vol. 34 (1980), pp.
gimes, International Organization,
(15)
Structural and Behavioral Analysis , International Organization, Vol. 32 (1978), pp.

13-44.
(2) Richard Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence, McGraw-Hill, New York
1968.
(3) Richard Cooper, Economic Interdependence and Foreign Policy in the Seventies ,
tional Industrialization and the Declining

Share of the International Economic Sector,
1890-1959, World Politics, Vol. 13
(1961), pp. 267-299.
Karl Deutsch & Richard Merritt, Transnational Communication and the International
System, Annals, Vol. 442 (1979), pp.
(7) Bertil Dunér, Autonomi, Research Report

UI-77-3, Swedish Institute of International
(9)
types.
dency,
World Politics, Vol. 24 (1972), pp. 159181.

(4) Karl Deutsch, The Analysis of International
(16)
89-120.
(17) Kalevi Holsti, A New International Politics ? Diplomacy in Complex Interdepen-
206
dence, International Organization, Vol.

32 (1978), pp. 513-530.
(32) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, Power and

Interdependence, Little Brown, Boston
(18) Samuel Huntington, Transnational Organization 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 Structure of the World, World Politics, Vol. 27
( 1975), pp. 467-495.
(21) Interfutures, Facing the Future: Mastering
the Probable and Managing the Unpredictable, OECD, Paris 1979.
(22) Christer Jönsson, The Paradoxes of Superpower : Omnipotence or Impotence? in
Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar Sjöstedt (Eds),
op. cit.
(23) Karl Kaiser, Transnational Politics: Toward a Theory of Multinational Politics,
International
Organization, Vol. 25
(1971), pp. 790-817.
(24) Lauri Karvonen, Diffusionsfenomenet mellan stater, Åbo Akademi, Åbo 1977.
(25) Lauri Karvonen, Med beaktande även av
förhållandena i Sverige, Åbo Akademi,
Åbo 1979.
(26) Peter Katzenstein, International Interdependence : Some Long Term Trends and
Recent Changes, International Organization, Vol. 28 (1975), pp. 1021-1034.
(27) Peter Katzenstein, International Relations
and
Domestic
Structures:
Foreign
Economic Politics of Advanced Industrial
States, International Organization, Vol.
30 (1976), pp. 1-46
(28) Robert Keohane, The Big Influence of
Small Allies, Foreign Policy, Vol. 2
(1971), pp. 161-182.
(29) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, World
Politics and the International Economic
System, in Fred Bergsten (Ed), The Future
of the International Economic Order,
Heath, Lexington 1973.
(30) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, Transgovernmental Relations and International Organization, World Politics, Vol. 27
(1974), pp. 39-62.
(31) Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, International Interdependence and Integration , in
Fred Greenstein & Nelson Polsby (Eds),
Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8,
Addison-Wesley, Reading 1975.
1977.
(33) Klaus Knorr, The Power of Nations, Basic

Books, New York 1975, Ch. 8.
(34) Klaus Knorr, National Power in an
Economically Interdependent World, in
op. cit.
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 Perspectives
For Understanding International Interdependence, World Politics, Vol. 32
(1979), pp. 136-150.
(38) Edward Morse, The Politics of Interdependence, International Organization, Vol.
23 (1969), pp. 311-326.
(39) Edward Morse, Transnational Economic
Processes, International Organization,
Vol. 25 (1971), pp. 373-397.
(40) Edward Morse, Foreign Policy and Interdependence 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 and
(35)
Foreign
Policy
Goldmann &
in
Kjell
Sjöstedt (Eds.), op.
Behavior,
Gunnar
cit.
Donald Puchala & Stuart Fagen, International Politics in the 1970s: The Search for
a Perspective, International Organization,
Vol. 28 (1974), No. 2.
(44) Philip Reynolds & Robert McKinlay, The
Concept of Interdependence: Its Uses and
Misuses, in Kjell Goldmann & Gunnar
Sjöstedt (Eds), op. cit.
(45) Richard Rosecrance & Arthur Stein, Interdependence : Myth or Reality? World Poli, Vol. 26 (1973), pp. 1-27
tics
(46) Richard Rosencrance et al., Whither Interdependence?, International Organization,
Vol. 31 ( 1977), pp. 425-472.
(47) Andrew Scott, The Logic of International
Interaction, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1977), pp. 429-460.
(48) Gunnar Sjöstedt, Concluding Remarks, in
op. cit.
(43)
207
(49) Gunnar
(50)
Sjöstedt,
Förutsättningar
för
ickemilitär makt, Research

Note, Swedish Institute of International
William Wallace, Old States and New Circumstances : The International Predicament
of Britain, France and Germany, in William Wallace & W. E. Paterson (Eds),
Foreign Policy-Making in Western Europe,
Saxon House, Farnborough 1978, pp.
utövande
av
31-55.
Inkeles (20); Keohane &

10
Waltz (51); Morse
11
Deutsch (4).
12
13
Young (52).
Young (52);
Haas
Nye (31).
(41).
(14); Scott (47); Inkeles
(20).
14
Keohane & Nye (32).

15
Caporaso
(1), p. 22.
16
& McKinlay (44); Michalak (37).

Deutsch & Eckstein (5); Deutsch & Russett
Reynolds
17
(6).
18
(51) Kenneth Waltz, The Myth of National Inin Charles Kindleberger

(Ed), The International Corporation
, MIT
Press, Cambridge 1970.
(52) Oran Young, Interdependence in World
. Vol. 24
Politics, International Journal
(1969), pp. 726-750.
terdependence,
Young (52);
Rosecrance (45).
19 Katzenstein
20
21
Morse
(39); Cooper (3);
(26).
Young (52).
Cooper (3).
22
Morse
23
Kaiser (23).
(39).
24
Hanrieder (15).
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 Impact
of Interdependence on Foreign Policy-Making:
The Case of Norway, Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, Vol. VI, Charles
Kegley & Patrick McGowan (Eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills 1980. It is also recognized in an early
contribution by Gunnar Sjöstedt, who in 1976
pointed to the need for such studies. See his
Decentralisering av Utrikesförvaltningen? Internationella Studier, 6/1976.
31 Keohane
& Nye (32); Morse (40); Wallace
25
NOTES
Works included in the
by their numbers.
bibliography
are
indicated
*
This paper was concluded while I was in
residence at the Swedish Institute of International
Affairs, Stockholm. It presents some tentative
thoughts in the early stages of an ongoing research project. Some of the points covered here
are discussed at greater length in my National
Security in an Interdependent Environment
(FOA, Stockholm
1980).
Young (52), p. 720.

Among others, note Cooper (2); Rosecrance
(46); Keohane & Nye (29); Deutsch (4).
3
Inkeles (20), p. 483.
4
Goldmann & Sjöstedt (13); Keohane (28);
2
Knorr (33 ); Waltz (51); Iger (19).

5
Young (52);
Morse (39); Cooper (3);

(4); Katzenstein (26).
Keohane & Nye (31); Morse (41).
Karvonen (24), (25); Egeberg (10).
Kaiser (23).
Cooper (3); Morse (40); Rosecrance (46);
Deutsch
6
7
8
9
(50).
32
A comprehensive review of the literature

the foreign policy problems of small states is
found in Niels Amstrup The Perennial Problem
of 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 truly
expansionist policy during the last twenty years
have generated some disputes. In many cases,
the territorial question is closely intertwined with
issues of economic survival and prosperity for
certain domestic groups. Possibly, government
policy in this area may be more a manifestation
of the salience of domestic economic issues than
an expression of territorial ambitions.
on
208
35
36
37
38
Feld & Link (11).

Dunér (7), (8).
Petersen (42).
Jönsson (22).
39
Haskel (16).
Knorr (33), p.
40
311.
41
Ibid., p. 316.
42
Knorr (34);
Sjöstedt (49).
43
Knudsen (35); Sjöstedt (48).

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 Kjell
Goldmann, Det Internationella Systemet
, Aldus,
Stockholm 1978. It is also discussed in Keohane
& Nye (32) and Michalak (37).
44

Interdependence and Foreign Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interdependence and Foreign Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cooperation

Interdependence and Foreign Policy

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1980

rather vague and multifaceted

will assist in giving a clearer comprehension

SOME DIMENSIONS OF INTERDEPENDENCE

Several dimensions of the concept of interdependence can be explored. One of the

sensitivity interdependence and vulnerability

sensitivity aspect, often referred to as

international interdependence. They argue

goods.3 Vulnerability interdependence

lates to more permanent relations, ones

vulnerable to conditions in other societies.

societal sector operated more independently

has also been measured

phenomena of international interdependence

view the concept as a systemic property

the wisdom of using the concept in its

III. FORCES OF CHANGE

sensitivity to international factors regardless

from these rapid changes. Indeed, Scott

Much of the literature on interdependence

various forces contributing to such changes

particular, a more systematic, explicit

Britain, West Germany

previously noted contradictions, limitations, and ambiguities in the

in this type of international sys-

IV. STATE OBJECTIVES AND

objectives. Instead, governments use a

foreign policy are available in this

growth and prosperity.

politically unbearable economic an social costs of conventional weapons. The

destroying the fabrics of interdependence through the use of force acts

threatened. Likewise, the physical security

public international law has reached

The growth of more humanitarian values is

government, foreign policy agendas

A weakness with this pattern of broad

foreign policy agendas

of cohesion and consistency. Here, the reliance on national doctrines or myths as

stresses exclusiveness. Priority is given to

VI. PREVALENT INTERNATIONAL

bureaucratic bargaining pattern than a diplomatic negotiation game. Conflicts are

for solutions to international distributive

is directed at multilateral interactions. Particularly, this is the case on the European

entities. Several cases have been noted in

Thus, the relative weights of these

specific issue areas,

nonstate actors must be considered

With broadened foreign policy agendas

economic questions is strengthened by linkage to her superior military capabilities.

The effects of international interdependence on participating societies are not

VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL

dependence. Because of limited information

they may be able to adopt more effective

Furthermore, different types of gains and

also involves a form of autonomy loss.

be considered and somehow

A reorientation of policy priorities in the

of where the immediate, vital interests were

foreign governmental structures. Similarly,

solid front to the international environThe stricter the centralization of all

Governments can also intervene in other

less symmetrical interdependence patterns.

(8) Bertil Dunér, Ekonomiska

(7) Bertil Dunér, Autonomi, Research Report

ickemilitär makt, Research

Knudsen (35); Sjöstedt (48).