Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:32:18.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Jack Donnelly
Jack Donnelly*
Affiliation:
Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, USA
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Structure’ in the discipline of International Relations, for all the criticism of Kenneth Waltz’ work, still typically means the Waltzian triad of ordering principles, functional differentiation, and distribution of capabilities. I argue, however, that this triad not only does not in Waltz’ particular presentation but cannot provide an adequate account of political structures. In its place I sketch a five-part framework of the elements of political structures. Three types of structural differentiation are identified: vertical differentiation, which establishes hierarchical ranking; horizontal differentiation, which establishes non-hierarchical segmentation; and unit differentiation, which assigns certain types of actors a privileged status. Two dimensions of structural elaboration are also identified: norms and institutions and technology and geography. This framework highlights the central place of ranking in international political structures, developing a tripartite account of ‘ordering principles’ that identifies autarchic, single-hierarchic, and heterarchic systems. It also draws attention to the diversity of international orders and opens structural analysis to the concerns and contributions of constructivism.

Keywords

structuredifferentiationordering principleshierarchyanarchyheterarchy
Type
Original Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 49 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, M.Buzan, B. (2007), ‘Functional differentiation and sectors: between sociology and international relations’, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Archer, M.S. (1982), ‘Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action’, British Journal of Sociology 33(4): 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, M.S. (1995), Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, M.S. (2000a), Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, M.S. (2000b), ‘For structure: its reality, properties and powers. A reply to Anthony King’, Sociological Review 48(3): 464–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P.M. (1977), Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Blau, P.M. (ed.) (1975), Approaches to the Study of Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977) [1972], Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990) [1980], The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, H. (1977), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. (2004), From International Society to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, B.Little, R. (2000), International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, B. (1999), Community under Anarchy: Transnational Identity and the Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Crumley, C.L. (1987), ‘Celtic settlement before the conquest: the dialectics of landscape and power’, in C.L. Crumley and W.H. Marquardt (eds), Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective, San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Crumley, C.L. (2005), ‘Remember how to organize: heterarchy across disciplines’, in C.S. Beekman and W.W. Baden (eds), Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology: Continuing the Revolution, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Curry, D. (2006), ‘Relations revised: a nuanced approach to multilevel governance’, CEU Political Science Journal 5: 77–93 at http://www.ceeol.com.Google Scholar
Deudney, D. (1995), ‘The Philadelphian system: sovereignty, arms control, and balance of power in the American States-Union, circa 1787–1861’, International Organization 49(2): 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deudney, D. (2007), Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
DiCicco, J.M.Levy, J.S. (1999), ‘Power shifts and problem shifts: the evolution of the Power Transition Research Program’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 43(6): 675–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, E.D. (1920), The Equality of States in International Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, J. (2006), ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society’, European Journal of International Relations 12(2): 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, M.W. (1986), Empires, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1953), The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, R.M., Crumley, C.L.Levy, J.E. (eds) (1995), Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, Arlington: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1968), Empires, in D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company & The Free Press.Google Scholar
Ermacora, F. (1987), ‘Confederations and other unions of states’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume 10, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Findlay, C.S.Lumsden, C.J. (1988), ‘The creative mind: toward an evolutionary theory of discovery and innovation’, Journal of Social and Biological Structure 11(1–3): 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A.L.Bennett, A. (2004), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R. (1981), War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. (2004), ‘On the morphology of international systems: political space as structure and process in early medieval Europe,’ CFE (Center for European Studies at Lund University) Working Paper.Google Scholar
Hall, R.B. (1997), ‘Moral authority as a power resource’, International Organization 51(4): 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, W.E. (1895), A Treatise on International Law, 4th edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, N.E. (2006), ‘Thinking about the world we make’, in N.E. Harrison (ed.), Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm, Albany: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, T.P.Savage, S.H. (2003), ‘Settlement heterogeneity and multivariate craft production in the early bronze age southern levant’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16(1): 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlund, G. (1986), ‘The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?’, Human Resource Management 25(1): 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlund, G.Rolander, D. (1996), ‘Action in heterarchies: new approaches to managing the MNC’, in C.A. Bartlett and G. Hedlund (eds), Managing the Global Firm, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hobson, J.M.Sharman, J.C. (2005), ‘The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics: tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change’, European Journal of International Relations 11(1): 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D.R. (1979), Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G.J. (2001), After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G.J. (2006), Liberal Order and Imperial Ambitions: Essays on American Power and World Politics, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Jackson, R.H. (1990), Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. (1985), ‘From balance to concert: a study of international security cooperation’, World Politics 38(1): 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. (1991–1992), ‘The future of world politics: will it resemble the past?’, International Security 16(3): 39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. (1997), System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (1998), ‘The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development’, International Social Science Journal 50(155): 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (2005), ‘Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance: changes in the European Union as integral moments in the transformation and reorientation of contemporary statehood’, in I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), Multi-level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, A.G. (2000), The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, 2nd edn., Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P.J., Keohane, R.O.Krasner, S.D. (1999), ‘International organization and the study of world politics’, International Organization 52(4): 645–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S., Little, R.Wohlforth, W. (eds) (2007), The Balance of Power in World History , Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R.O.Nye, J.S. (1977), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kontopoulos, K.M. (1993), The Logics of Social Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, S.D. (1992), ‘Realism, imperialism, and democracy: a response to Gilbert’, Political Theory 20(1): 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurki, M. (2008), Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipschutz, R.D. (1998), ‘Bioregionalism, civil society, and global environmental governance’, in M.V. McGinnis (ed.), Bioregionalism, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lowenheim, O. (2007), Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm and Great Power Authority, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995) [1984], Social Systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Maccoby, M. (1991), ‘Move from hierarchy to heterarchy’, Research Technology Management 34(5): 46–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H.R.Varela, F.J. (1980), Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNair, A.D. (1927), ‘Equality in international law’, Michigan Law Review 26(2): 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Merton, R.K. (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure. 1968 Enlarged ed., New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Michael, D.N. (1983), ‘Neither hierarchy nor anarchy: notes for norms on governance in a systemic world’, in W.T. Anderson (ed.), Rethinking Liberalism, New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
Milner, H.V. (1998), ‘Reconceptualizing politics: the emerging synthesis of international, American, and comparative politics’, International Organization 52(4): 759–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, S. (2004), Heterarchy in world politics: circularity, distributed authority, and networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association.Google Scholar
Motyl, A.J. (2001), Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nadel, S.F. (1957), The Theory of Social Structure, Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Nexon, D.H.Wright, T. (2007), ‘What’s at stake in the American Empire debate’, American Political Science Review 101(2): 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyer, J. (2003), ‘Discourse and order in the EU: a deliberative approach to multi-level governance’, in E.O. Eriksen, C. Joerges and J. Neyer (eds), European Governance, Deliberation and the Quest for Democratisation, Oslo: ARENA and European University Institute.Google Scholar
Onuf, N.Klink, F.F. (1989), ‘Anarchy, authority, rule’, International Studies Quarterly 33(2): 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, L. (1955), International Law: A Treatise, 8th edn., 2 vols., New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
Penttila, R.E.J. (2003), ‘The G8 as a concert of powers’, Adelphi Papers 43(355): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertulla, T.K. (1992), The Caddo Nation: Archaeological and Ethnohistoric Perspectives, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Rautman, A.E. (1998), ‘Hierarchy and heterarchy in the American Southwest: a comment on McGuire and Saitta’, American Antiquity 63(2): 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, F.W. (1961), ‘International relations as a prismatic system’, in K. Knorr and S. Verba (eds), The International System: Theoretical Essays, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rittberger, V. (2008), Global governance: from ‘exclusive’ executive multilateralism to inclusive, multipartite institutions. Paper prepared for the 49th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, J. (2006), ‘Why is there no international historical sociology?’, European Journal of International Relations 12(3): 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. (1983), ‘Continuity and transformation in the world polity: toward a neorealist synthesis’, World Politics 35(2): 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. (1993), ‘Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations’, International Organization 47(1): 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R.K. (2005), Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwaninger, M. (2000), ‘Distributed control in social systems’, in F. Parra Luna (ed.), The Performance of Social Systems: Perspectives and Problems, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, G. (1951), Power Politics: A Study of International Society, 2nd edn., London/New York: Stevens/F.A. Praeger.Google Scholar
Sinopoli, C.M. (1991), Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004), A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, G.H. (1996), ‘Process variables in neorealist theory’, Security Studies 5(3): 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spickard, J.V. (2004), ‘Globalization and religious organizations: rethinking the relationship between church, culture, and market’, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 18(1): 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, D. (1999), ‘Heterarchy: distributing authority and organizing diversity’, in J.H.I. Clippinger (ed.), The Biology of Business: Decoding the Natural Laws of Enterprise, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Stein, G.J. (1998), ‘Heterogeneity, power, and political economy: some current research issues in the archaeology of old world complex societies’, Journal of Archaeological Research 6(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokoro, M.Mogi, K. (2007), Creativity and the Brain, Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1979), Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1986), ‘Reflections on Theory of International Politics: a response to my critics’, in R.O. Keohane (ed.), Neo-Realism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1988), ‘The origins of war in neorealist theory’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18(4): 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1990), ‘Realist thought and neo-realist theory’, Journal of International Affairs 44(1): 21–37.Google Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1993), ‘The emerging structure of international politics’, International Security 18(2): 44–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1997), ‘Evaluating theories’, American Political Science Review 91(4): 913–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (2000), ‘Structural realism after the cold war’, International Security 25(1): 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. (1992), The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weber, K. (2000), Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: Transaction Costs and Institutional Choice, Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Weber, S. (1990), ‘Realism, detente, and nuclear weapons’, International Organization 44(1): 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, A.Friedheim, D. (1995), ‘Hierarchy under anarchy: informal empire and the East German state’, International Organization 49(4): 689–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheaton, H. (1866), Elements of International Law, 8th edn., Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Wight, C. (2006), Agents, Structures and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoffee, N. (1979), ‘The decline and rise of mesopotamian civilization: an ethnoarchaeological perspective on the evolution of social complexity’, American Antiquity 44(1): 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoffee, N. (2005), Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar