By Araya Kebede Araya * 2009-10-21
HIERARCHY and INTERNATIONAL ORDER: from regional and global perspectives
[Review of articles by David Lake and David Kang]
Basic finding: the way hierarchy is employed to explain international (or more exactly regional) order viewed from both authors is strikingly different. It even goes down to different understanding of the concept itself.
A. SIMILARITIES OF THEIR APPROACHES
I found more of differences than similarities. However, while discussing their differences in their approaches in a reasonably detailed manner, I have also pinpointed some similarities but within their differences. So some similarities are not irrelevantly discussed below in section ‘C’ of this essay.
a) Totally new approaches? Both scholars admit their heavy reliance upon existing approaches of international relation but still with variations or/and additions. While Lake sprints from the early literature of alliances and empires; Kang confesses that his hierarchical model grows out of realism.
b) Base of hierarchy: Although other factors matter, both premise that material power is at the base of the hierarchy.
c) Balance of power: Both do not think subordinate states will come together to challenge the powerful state. For Lake the reason seems that the dominant state is in constant interference of the internal affairs of each state. There is no room the states can discuss to go against the big one. Kang even takes ‘bandwagoning’ as a trait of hierarchy.
d) Mistrust is high in the international system: Both agree on some basic assumptions and facts. Kang accedes to what Lake has already assumed: nations are primarily concerned with survival while threats and instability are accepted as a fact of life in international order. Countries are concerned about power. All think survival first. The use of force is always a possibility.
B. DISSIMILARITIES OF THEIR APPROACHES
a) Approach difference: The first underlying difference is the very approach they employ to explain international order. D. Lake metaphorically relies upon the relational contracting approach (primarily economics theory) using expected costs of opportunism and governance costs, of creating and maintaining the relationship, as the basic elements that, respectively, descend and ascend with relational hierarchy. He thoroughly compares and contrasts alliances (anarchy) vis-à-vis empires (hierarchy) taking the above two variables as controlling elements. Whether hierarchy or anarchy brings order depends on the subsets of the aforementioned elements. D. Kang’s discussion is relatively straight forward. The way he discusses, appreciates, analysis and designs hierarchy in East Asia states is by citing historical incidents, specially established norms like “same shared cultural understanding” and existing circumstances of states’ of the region.
b) Difference in concept understanding: While Kang differentiates hierarchy from empire; the terms designate the same idea for Lake . Lake ’s conception of hierarchy as empire or hegemony is not accepted by Kang who does not think hierarchy as hegemony – as the latter, for him, is more overarching and more intrusive. Kang adds that hegemony focuses the bulk of its attention to the largest power while hierarchy is more concerned with the interaction of states up and down the hierarchy. Similarly, while Lake contrasts anarchy against hierarchy, Kang puts rather hierarchy not against anarchy but equality. This point means a lot to their varying approaches.
c) The role and relationship of states: Hierarchy, for Kang, accords all states within the system a place and a means of interacting with each other. It also allows for substantial autonomy and freedom among the lesser states. As to Lake ’s analysis, in hierarchical relationship of states the dominant member possesses the right to make residual decisions while the subordinate member lacks this right. Thus, the dominant state possesses control over all resources and assets of the subordinate actor that have not been specifically reserved to the latter in the relationship – he says contract. It seems that the scenario is not understood and discussed from both sides in the same way.
d) Top-down relationship of states: In hierarchical relationship of states, Lake thinks the state at the top intrudes in the internal affairs of the other states down the ladder. Kang argues there is little, if any, interference by the central power in the affairs of the lesser states in hierarchy. This is another key point we need to focus while assessing their approaches’ differences.
e) Cost v. hierarchical relationships: As to Kang, hierarchy serves to lower transaction costs between actors. Lake quite cautiously analyzes the issue. He thinks it depends the way we see it. Although hierarchical relations could serve to economize states’ limited resources, sometimes even to maintain the relationship itself could be costly. Nevertheless, he maintains that it could be cost-effective if the central power lets the system work by itself – reducing governance cost.
f) On Hierarchy and informal empire: Lake takes hierarchy as the next step or the strongest form of informal empire. For him they are nearly the same. Kang cites some authorities to buttress his claim that informal empire is different from hierarchy. In hierarchy, independent sovereign nations accept the central position of the largest power in the system but are fully functional on their own terms. (Note: This is contested by Lake .) For Kang in informal empire, the puppet governments collaborate with the imperial power against the wishes of their people.
g) Hierarchy stable? Kang argues hierarchy as more stable form of relationship (but in ‘in good times’). He, even, says the absence of hierarchy leads to conflict. For Lake it is not necessarily so. It depends on factors like degree of opportunism and governance cost.
C. THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE CONTEMPORARY INT’L RELATIONS (esp. post-cold war) :DISCUSSION
While David Kang’s approach can define regional order, I doubt if it can hold water if it is to mean all along the globe. His approach requires a more or less homogenous international or regional community. (Please see below for explanation) David Lake’s ‘theory’ can, on the other hand, be used to explain the relationship of the USA and majority states of the rest of the world esp. the Middle East, Africa and the South America after the cold war especially from the point of view of the dominant power’s intrusion in the internal affairs of states. That is what is going on in quite many parts of the world. Example: many states are singing ‘human rights and democracy’: the work of the USA – central power – as a hierarchical relationship with the US
Kang’s discussion of hierarchy seems plausible even for the future of the East Asia. To a larger extent, Kang’s perspective of hierarchy has been working and can work in the relatively homogenous community of the East Asia even in the contemporary international relations for his premises seem to continue existing. On the contrary, the fundamental characteristics of the East Asia states (well established common norms, existence of central or, at least potentially, central power, etc) seem to lack in other regions of the world even in Europe where there is no dominant power – in the sense the authors discussed and not an institution like the EU.
Partly, Lake ’s analysis shows us that anarchy is more prevalent than hierarchy in the contemporary world. Even from his examples, the less-cost incurring and institutionalized anarchy when compared to hierarchy helped states live in relative peace and secured in this modern world. Anarchic relations seem to have long lasting relations while hierarchic ones are based on unwarranted ground: so insecure. This is not the full story, though. This being from the European world, Kang’s view in the East Asia gives us a different account of, but, a similar situation. The reverse seems to hold good here – hierarchy in East Asia .
How about in other regions? Not tested. One can simply opine but cannot tell based on some factors. Moreover, it’s hard to find an existing regional superpower or potential one esp. in Europe, Africa, Middle East and South America . However, arguably the case can be seen from the point of view of roles of the US and China playing in all these regions in general and China-Africa , US -the Middle East , in particular. Would geographical proximity matter? Unlike the relations of the East Asian countries, I don’t think it matters for the relations of US-Middle east, China-Africa. However, I beg not to be misunderstood that I am not saying China
Therefore, the implication to the existing world is that if hierarchy or anarchy works in countries’ relations, one needs to see the question from regional perspective rather than global perspective.
Araya Kebede Araya, LL B., MA, LL. M (PROLAW)
Lecturer in Law, Mekelle University, College of Law and Governance
Ethiopia, Mekelle - Adi Haqi Campus
Cell phone: +39 3896872473 (Rome, Italy), +251 923 771883 (Ethiopia)
E-mail: araya57k@gmail.com, aaraya@luc.edu
======
No comments:
Post a Comment