Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:32:03.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embedded authority: a relational network approach to hierarchy in world politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2017

Paul K. MacDonald
Paul K. MacDonald*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Wellesley College
*
* Correspondence to: Paul K. MacDonald, Department of Political Science, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02482, United States. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relations of sovereign inequality permeate international politics, and a growing body of literature grapples with the question of how states establish and sustain hierarchy amidst anarchy. I argue that existing literature on hierarchy, for all its diverse insights, misses what makes hierarchy unique in world politics. Hierarchy is not simply the presence of inequality or stratification among actors, but rather an authority relationship in which a dominant actor exercises some modicum of control over a subordinate one. This authority relationship, moreover, is dramatically different than ones found in domestic hierarchies. It is shaped less by written laws or formal procedures, than by subtle forms of manipulation and the development of informal practices. For this reason, hierarchy cannot simply be reduced the to the dynamics of anarchy, and must be viewed as a relational phenomenon. Ties between actors create positions that permit dominant actors to appropriate and orchestrate the sharing of authority with subordinate intermediaries. This article develops this relational network approach, highlighting how concepts such as access, brokerage, and yoking can illuminate the processes by which authority is enlisted and appropriated in world politics.

Keywords

HierarchySocial Network TheoryRelationalism
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 128 - 150
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2017 

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

1 Krisch, Nico, ‘More equal than the rest? Hierarchy, equality and US predominance in international law’, in Michael Byers and George Nolte (eds), United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 135–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simpson, Gerry J., Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 62–90 Google Scholar.

2 Murphy, Craig N., ‘Political consequences of the new inequality’, International Studies Quarterly, 45:3 (2001), pp. 347–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), pp. 81–88 Google Scholar; Buzan, Barry, Jones, Charles, and Little, Richard, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism (New York: Columbia, 1993), pp. 37–38 Google Scholar. See also Donnelly, Jack, ‘The discourse of anarchy in IR’, International Theory, 7:3 (2015), pp. 394–407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Onuf, Nicholas and Klink, Frank F., ‘Anarchy, authority, rule’, International Studies Quarterly, 33:2 (1989), pp. 166–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lake, David A., ‘Anarchy, hierarchy and the variety of international relations’, International Organization, 50:1 (1996), pp. 5–10 Google Scholar; Weber, Katja, Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: Transaction Costs and Institutional Choice (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000), p. 17 Google Scholar; Hobson, John M. and Sharman, J. C., ‘The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics: Tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change’, European Journal of International Relations, 11:1 (2005), pp. 63–98 Google Scholar; Donnelly, Jack, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:2 (2006), pp. 139–170 Google Scholar; Keene, Edward, ‘A case study in the construction of international hierarchy: British treaty-making against the slave trade in the early nineteenth century’, International Organization, 61:1 (2007), pp. 311–339 Google Scholar; Donnelly, Jack, ‘Rethinking political structures: From “ordering principles” to “vertical differentiation” and beyond’, International Theory, 1:1 (2009), pp. 49–86 Google Scholar; Butt, Ashan, ‘Anarchy and hierarchy in international relations: Explaining south America’s war prone decade, 1932–41’, International Organization, 67:3 (2013), pp. 578–580 Google Scholar; Bially Mattern, Janice and Zarakol, Ayşe, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’, International Organization, 70:3 (2016), pp 623–654 Google Scholar.

5 Cooley, Alexander, Base Politics: Democratic Change and the U.S. Military Overseas (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Cooley, Alexander, Logics of Hierarchy: the Organization of Empires, States and Military Occupations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Cooley, Alexander and Spruyt, Hendrik, Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

6 Goh, Evelyn, ‘Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing potential security strategies’, International Security, 32:3 (2007/2008), pp. 113–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kang, David C., ‘Hierarchy, balancing and empirical puzzles in Asian international relations’, International Security, 28:3 (2003/2004), pp. 165–180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter J., A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005), pp. 3–6 Google Scholar.

7 Lake, David A., Entangling Relations: American Foreign Policy in this Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1999)Google Scholar; Lake, David A., ‘Escape from the state-of-nature: Authority and hierarchy in world politics’, International Security, 32:1 (2007), pp. 47–79 Google Scholar; Lake, David A., Hierarchy in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

8 McDonald, Patrick J., ‘Great powers, hierarchy, and endogenous regimes: Rethinking the domestic causes of peace’, International Organization, 69:2 (2015), pp. 584–585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Hobson and Sharman, ‘The enduring place of hierarchy’, pp. 70–5. See also Phillips, Andrew and Sharman, J. C., ‘Explaining durable diversity in international systems: State, company, and empire in the Indian Ocean’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:3 (2015), pp. 30–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buzan, Barry and Lawson, George P., The Global Transformation: History, Modernity, and the Making of International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 171–195 Google Scholar.

10 Wendt, Alexander and Friedheim, Daniel, ‘Hierarchy under anarchy: Informal empire and the East German state’, International Organization, 49:4 (1995), pp. 689–721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lanoszka, Alexander, ‘Beyond consent and coercion: Using Republican political theory to understand international hierarchies’, International Theory, 5:3 (2013), pp. 400–408 Google Scholar.

11 Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 44–53; Lake, David A., ‘Beyond anarchy: the importance of security institutions’, International Security, 26:1 (2001), pp. 129–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lake, Hierarchy in International Politics, pp. 45–63.

12 Keene, Edward, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in International Society (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hobson and Sharman, ‘The enduring place of hierarchy’, pp. 81–92; Keene, ‘Construction of international hierarchy’, pp. 313–15.

13 On the distinction between formalist and relationalist network approaches, see Erikson, Emily, ‘Formalist and relationalist theory in social network analysis’, Sociological Theory, 31:3 (2013), pp. 220–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 88, 114.

15 Ibid. See also Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy’, pp. 141–2.

16 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 128.

17 Krasner, Stephen, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Krasner, Stephen, Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Paul, Darel E., ‘Sovereignty, survival, and the Westphalian blind alley in international relations’, Review of International Studies, 25:2 (1999), pp. 221–222 Google Scholar.

18 Tin-bor Hui, Victoria, ‘Toward a dynamic theory of international politics: Insights from comparing Ancient China and Early Modern Europe’, International Organization, 58:3 (2004), pp. 175–205 Google Scholar.

19 Nexon, Daniel H., Religious Conflict, International Change, and the Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; MacDonald, Paul K., ‘Those who forget historiography are doomed to republish it: Empire, imperialism, and contemporary debates about American Power’, Review of International Studies, 35:2 (2009), pp. 46–48 Google Scholar.

20 Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard, ‘Re-conceptualizing anarchy: Structural realism meets world history’, European Journal of International Relations, 2:4 (1996), p. 413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Hobson and Sharman, ‘The enduring place of hierarchy’, p. 64.

22 Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, ‘Introduction’, in Headley Bull and Adam Watson (eds), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 8 Google Scholar.

23 Barder, Alexander, Empire Within: International Hierarchy and its Imperial Laboratories of Governance (New York: Routledge, 2015), p. 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Mattern and Zarakol, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’, p. 627.

25 Lake, Hierarchy in International Politics, p. 51. See also Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 26–7. Weber, Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy, p. 17; Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 440 Google Scholar; Lake, ‘Escape from the state of nature’, p. 50.

26 Ikenberry, G. John, Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), p. 11 Google Scholar.

27 Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, pp. 83–5; Krasner, Problematic Sovereignty, pp. 20–1.

28 Motyl, Alexander, ‘Thinking about empire’, in Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen (eds), After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation Building (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), p. 21 Google Scholar; Abernathy, David, The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415–1980 (New Haven, CT: Yale, 2000), p. 19 Google Scholar.

29 Sandars, C. T., America’s Overseas Garrisons: the Leasehold Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 108–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Caplan, Richard, A New Trusteeship? The International Administration of War-Torn Territories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Zaum, Dominik, The Sovereignty Paradox: the Norms and Politics of International Statebuilding (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

31 Clark, Ian, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 30–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Towns, Anne E., ‘Norms and social hierarchies: Understanding international policy diffusion “from below”’, International Organization, 66:1 (2012), p. 189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Sjoberg, Laura, ‘Gender hierarchy, international structure, and the causes of war’, International Theory, 4:1 (2012), pp. 1–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, pp. 62–90.

34 Zarakol, Ayşe, After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 57 Google Scholar, 62.

35 Renshon, Jonathan, ‘Status deficits and war’, International Organization, 70:2 (2016), pp. 519–520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Watson, Adam, The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 13–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Buzan, Jones, and Little, The Logic of Anarchy, p. 38; Buzan and Little, International Systems in World History, pp. 373–5.

37 Kang, David C., ‘Why China’s rise will be peaceful: Hierarchy and stability in the East Asia region’, Perspectives on Politics, 3:3 (2005), p. 552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Hui, ‘Toward a dynamic theory of international politics’, pp. 179, 194. See also Tin-bor Hui, Victoria, ‘The triumph of domination in the Ancient Chinese system’, in Stuart J. Kaufman, Richard Little, and William C. Wohlforth (eds), The Balance of Power in World History (New York: Palgrave, 2007), pp. 122–146 Google Scholar; Zhang, Yongjin and Buzan, Barry, ‘The tributary system as international society in theory and practice’, Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5:1 (2012), pp. 3–36 Google Scholar.

39 Deudney, Daniel, ‘“A republic for expansion”: the Roman Constitution and Empire and balance-of-power theory’, in Kaufman, Little, and Wohlforth (eds), Balance of Power in World History, pp. 175–176 Google Scholar.

40 Wohlforth, William C., Kaufman, Stuart J., and Little, Richard, ‘Introduction: Balance and hierarchy in international systems’, in Kaufman, Little, and Wohlforth (eds), Balance of Power in World History, p. 6 Google Scholar.

41 Mattern and Zarakol, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’, p. 625.

42 Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy’, pp. 141–2.

43 Heather, Peter J., ‘Holding the line: Frontier defense and the later Roman Empire’, in Victor David Hanson (ed.), Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), pp. 227–246 Google Scholar.

44 Deudney, ‘A republic for expansion’, p. 176.

45 Wendt, Alexander, ‘Why a world state is inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4 (2003), pp. 525–528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Buzan and Little, International Systems in World History, p. 21.

47 Sindanius, Jim and Pratto, Felicia, Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 38–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bottero, Wendy, Stratification: Social Division and Inequality (New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 239–240 Google Scholar.

48 Gong, Gerrit W., The Standard of Civilization in International Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Hobson, John M., The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Relations Theory, 1760–2010 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Sjoberg, Laura, Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Vitalis, Robert, White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

49 Mattern and Zarakol, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’, pp. 642–3.

50 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 94, 97, 142–4.

51 Ibid., pp. 88, 115–16.

52 Keene, ‘Construction of international hierarchy’, pp. 312–13.

53 Florig, Dennis, ‘Hegemonic overreach vs. imperial overstretch’, Review of International Studies, 36:4 (2010), pp. 1103–1119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Kingsbury, Benedict, ‘Sovereignty and inequality’, in Andrew Hurrell and Ngaire Woods (eds), Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 92 Google Scholar.

55 Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 15–20; Lake, ‘Beyond anarchy’, pp. 129–60.

56 MacDonald, Paul K. and Lake, David A., ‘Correspondence: the role of hierarchy in international politics’, International Security, 32:4 (2008), pp. 172–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Free Press, 1947), pp. 329–358 Google Scholar. See also Cassinelli, C. W., ‘Political authority: its exercise and possession’, Western Political Quarterly, 14:3 (1961), pp. 632–644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Easton, David, ‘The perception of authority and political change’, in Carl Friedrich (ed.), Authority (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), pp. 180–185 Google Scholar.

58 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 88. See also Hurd, Ian, ‘Legitimacy and authority in international politics’, International Organization, 53:2 (1999), pp. 383–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donnelly, Jack, Realism and International Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 81–106 Google Scholar.

59 Mearsheimer, John J., Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001), pp. 39–40 Google Scholar.

60 Liberman, Peter, Does Conquest Pay? The Exploitation of Occupied Industrial Societies (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), pp. 3–17 Google Scholar.

61 Examples of opportunism include abandonment, entrapment, and exploitation. See Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 44–53; Lake, ‘Beyond anarchy’, pp. 129–31.

62 Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 58–65, 67–71.

63 Lake notes: ‘the cost of voluntarily negotiated hierarchies may be nearly prohibitive for dominant states’. He ends up emphasising the ‘coercion by technologically superior polities’ in these cases. Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 54–5, 61.

64 Acharya, Amitav, ‘Will Asia’s past be its future?’, International Security, 28:3 (2003/2004), p. 156 Google Scholar; Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy’, pp. 139–41; Lanoszka, ‘Beyond consent and coercion’, pp. 382–3.

65 Onuf and Klink, ‘Anarchy, authority, rule’, pp. 149–73; Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and authority’, pp. 379–408; Ikenberry, G. John and Kupchan, Charles A., ‘Socialization and hegemonic pewer’, International Organization, 44:3 (1990), pp. 283–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Barnett, Michael and Duvall, Raymond, ‘Power in international politics’, International Organization, 59:4 (2005), pp. 42–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

See also Lanoszka, ‘Beyond consent and coercion’, pp. 398–400.

67 Butt, ‘Anarchy and hierarchy’, pp. 581–2; Kupchan, Charles, ‘Unpacking hegemony: the social foundations of hierarchical order’, in G. John Ikenberry (ed.), Power, Order, and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 24–26 Google Scholar. See also Donnelly, ‘Discourse of anarchy’, p. 408.

68 Yet as Donnelly emphasises, domestic authority can also be incomplete, divided between competing institutions or regions. Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy’, p. 142. See also Milner, Helen, ‘The assumption of anarchy in International Relations theory: a critique’, Review of International Studies, 17:1 (1991), pp. 80–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Sharman, J. C., ‘International hierarchies and contemporary imperial governance: a tale of three kingdoms’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:2 (2013), pp. 198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 203–4.

70 Cooley and Spruyt, Contracting States, pp. 10–12.

71 Abbott, Kenneth W., Genschel, Philipp, Snidal, Duncan, and Zangl, Bernhard, ‘Two logics of indirect governance: Delegation and orchestration’, British Journal of Political Science, 46:1 (2016), pp. 721–722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Ibid., p. 722.

73 Fisher, Michael H., Indirect Rule in India: Residents and the Residency System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 30–35 Google Scholar, 96–7; Ramusack, Barbara, The Indian Princes and their States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 56–58 Google Scholar.

74 Lake, Entangling Relations, pp. 58–65; Lake, Hierarchy in International Politics, pp. 112–15.

75 Cooley and Spruyt, Contracting States, pp. 36–9.

76 Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alexander H., ‘Network analysis for international relations’, International Organization, 63:3 (2009), pp. 559–592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Tilly, Charles, ‘Social movements and (all sorts of) other political interactions’, Theory and Society, 27:4 (1998), p. 456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tilly, Charles, Durable Inequality (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 41–73 Google Scholar.

78 Granovetter, Mark, ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78:6 (1973), p. 1361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Nexon, Religious Conflict, International Change, pp. 43–4.

80 Goddard, Stacie E., ‘Brokering change: Networks and entrepreneurs in international politics’, International Theory, 1:2 (2009), pp. 249–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. and Montgomery, Alexander H., ‘Globalization and the social power politics of international economic networks’, in Miles Khaler (ed.), Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009), pp. 23–42 Google Scholar; Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. and Montgomery, Alexander H., ‘Power or plenty: How do international trade institutions affect economic sanctions?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52:2 (2008), pp. 213–242 Google Scholar.

82 Nexon, Daniel H. and Wright, Thomas, ‘What’s at stake in the American empire debate’, American Political Science Review, 101:2 (2007), pp. 253–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 MacDonald, Paul K., Networks of Domination: The Social Foundations of Peripheral Conquest in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 46–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Jung, Danielle and Lake, David A., ‘Markets, hierarchies and networks: an agent-based organizational ecology’, American Journal of Political Science, 55:4 (2011), pp. 972–990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Knoke, David, Political Networks: The Structural Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 9 Google Scholar; Willer, David, Network Exchange Theory (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999), pp. 8–19 Google Scholar.

86 Hafner-Burton and Montgomery, ‘Social power politics’, p. 11.

87 Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery, ‘Network analysis’, p. 570.

88 Beckfield, Jason, ‘Inequality in the world polity: the structure of international organization’, American Sociology Review, 68:3 (2003), p. 404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Ikenberry and Kupchan, ‘Socialization and hegemonic power’, pp. 291–3.

90 Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery, ‘Network analysis’, p. 573.

91 MacDonald, Networks of Domination, pp. 83–9.

92 Marshall, P. J., ‘Western arms in Maritime Asia in the early phases of expansion’, Modern Asian Studies, 14:1 (1980), pp. 25–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kolff, D. H. A., Nakur, Rajput, and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 174–176 Google Scholar; Alavi, Seema, Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and Transition in Northern India (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 39–41 Google Scholar; Heathcote, T. A., Military in British India: The Development of British Land Forces in South Asia 1600–1947 (New York: Manchester, 1995), pp. 30–31 Google Scholar.

93 Leonard, Karen, ‘The “great firm” theory of the decline of the Mughal Empire’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 21:2 (1979), p. 165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bayly, C. A., Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 9–11 Google Scholar; Newbury, Colin, Patrons, Clients, and Empire: Chieftaincy and Over-Rule in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 233–235 Google Scholar.

94 Marshall, P. J., ‘Masters and Banians in eighteenth-century Calcutta’, in Blair B. Kling and M. N. Pearson (eds), The Age of Partnership: Europeans in Asia Before Dominion (Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii, 1979), pp. 193–195 Google Scholar; Neild-Basu, Susan, ‘The Dubashes of Madras’, Modern Asian Studies, 18:1 (1984), pp. 9–11 Google Scholar; Bayly, C. A., Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 4–5 Google Scholar.

95 Shore to Speke (21 January 1798), British Library Add. Ms. 13523, 62.

96 Burt, Ronald S., Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 38–44 Google Scholar; Burt, Ronald S., Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

97 Goddard, ‘Brokering change’, p. 263.

98 Nexon, Religious Conflict, International Change, p. 47.

99 Padgett, John F. and Ansell, Christopher K., ‘Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434’, American Journal of Sociology, 98:6 (1993), p. 1263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Goddard, ‘Brokering change’, p. 276.

101 Robinson, Ronald, ‘Non-European foundations of European imperialism’, in Roger Owen and Robert Sutcliffe (eds), Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (London: Longman, 1972), pp. 117–118 Google Scholar. See also Darwin, John, ‘Imperialism and the Victorians: the dynamics of territorial expansion’, English Historical Review, 112:447 (1997), pp. 629–630 Google Scholar; Newbury, Colin, ‘Patrons, clients, and empire: the subordination of indigenous hierarchies in Asia and Africa’, Journal of World History, 11:2 (2000), pp. 227–228 Google Scholar.

102 Cherry to Shore (29 July 1795), British Library Add. Ms. 13522, 24–26. See also Fisher, Michael H., A Clash of Cultures: Awadh, the British, and the Mughals (New Delhi: Manohar, 1987), p. 68 Google Scholar.

103 Marshall, P. J., ‘Economic and political expansion: the case of Oudh’, Modern Asian Studies, 9:4 (1975), p. 479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Mornington to Kirkpatrick (9 November 1798), in Martin, Montgomery, The Despatches, Minutes, and Correspondence of the Marquess Wellesley, K. G., during his Administration in India (London: Allen, 1836), vol. 1, pp. 328–337 Google Scholar.

105 Scott to Mornington (29 November 1799) and Scott to Mornington (28 January 1800), Parliamentary Papers (1806), vol. 15, pp. 44–55, 90–1.

106 Emirbayer, Mustafa, ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103:2 (1997), pp. 282–284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mische, Ann, ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, 103:4 (1998), pp. 963–964 Google Scholar.

107 Emirbayer, Mustafa and Goodwin, Jeff, ‘Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency’, American Journal of Sociology, 99:6 (1994), pp. 1414–1415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Thaddeus Jackson, Patrick and Nexon, Daniel H., ‘Relations before states: Substance, process and the study of world politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:1 (1999), p. 315 Google Scholar; Nexon, Daniel H., ‘Relationalism and new systems theory’, in Mathias Albert, Lars-Erik Cederman, and Alexander Wendt (eds), New Systems Theory of World Politics (New York: Palgrave, 2010), pp. 101–102 Google Scholar.

108 Abbott, Andrew, ‘Things of boundaries’, Social Research, 62:4 (1995), p. 868 Google Scholar. See also Jackson and Nexon, ‘Relations before states’, pp. 315–16; Nexon, Religious Conflict, International Change, pp. 46–7.

109 Goddard, Stacie E., Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy: Jerusalem and Northern Ireland (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 36 Google Scholar; Goddard, Stacie E., ‘Uncommon ground: Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimacy’, International Organization, 60:1 (2006), p. 48 Google Scholar.

110 Padgett, John F., ‘The emergence of organizations and states’, in Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Alexander H. Montgomery, and Mark Lubell (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 6 Google Scholar, 8. See also Padgett, John F. and Powell, Walter W., The Emergence of Organizations and Markets (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

111 Bayly, Indian Society, pp. 4–15; Alam, Mir, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India, Awadh and the Punjab, 1707–1748 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 1–9 Google Scholar.

112 Stein, Burton, ‘State formation and economy reconsidered: Part One’, Modern Asian Studies, 19:3 (1985), pp. 387–413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Bayly, C. A., Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 52–57 Google Scholar; Washbrook, D. A., ‘Progress and problems: South Asian economic and social history, c. 1720–1860’, Modern Asian Studies, 22:1 (1988), pp. 70–72 Google Scholar.

114 Washbrook, D. A., ‘Law, state and agrarian society in Colonial India’, Modern Asian Studies, 15:3 (1981), pp. 711–713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perlin, Frank, ‘State formation reconsidered’, Modern Asian Studies, 19:3 (1985), pp. 476–479 Google Scholar.

115 MacDonald, Networks of Domination, p. 92.

116 Gordon, Stewart, The Marathas, 1600–1818 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 167–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 Cooper, Randolf G. S., The Anglo-Maratha Campaigns and the Contest for India (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 282 Google Scholar.

118 Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1948), p. 250 Google Scholar.

119 Lake, Hierarchy in International Politics, p. 178.

120 Renshon, ‘Status deficits and war’, pp. 528–32; Marina Duque, ‘Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach’, paper presented at the 57th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association (2016).

121 Maoz, Zeev, ‘Network polarization, Network interdependence, and international conflict, 1816–2002’, Journal of Peace Research, 43:4 (2006), pp. 391–392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beckfield, Jason, ‘The dual world polity: Fragmentation and integration in the network of intergovernmental organizations’, Social Problems, 55:3 (2008), pp. 423–424 Google Scholar.

122 I want to thank Reviewer 2 for this important insight.

123 MacDonald, Paul K., ‘Is imperial rule obsolete? Assessing the barriers to overseas adventurism’, Security Studies, 18:1 (2009), pp. 96–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124 Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Liberalism and empire: Logics of order in the American unipolar era’, Review of International Studies, 30:4 (2004), pp. 611–613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, pp. 55–61, 76–7.

125 Ikenberry, G. John, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 29–36 Google Scholar, 250–8.

126 Hunter Wade, Robert, ‘The invisible hand of the American empire’, Ethics & International Affairs, 17:2 (2003), pp. 82–83 Google Scholar.

127 Mastanduno, Michael, ‘U.S. foreign policy and the pragmatic use of international institutions’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 59:3 (2005), pp. 318–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 Hunter Wade, Robert, ‘US hegemony and the World Bank: the fight over people and ideas’, Review of International Political Economy, 9:2 (2002), pp. 201–202 Google Scholar.

129 Cooley, Alexander and Nexon, Daniel, ‘The empire will compensate you: the structural dynamics of the U.S. overseas basing network’, Perspectives on Politics, 11:4 (2013), pp. 240–243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.