Levels of Analysis in International Relations
The Systems Level of Analysis
The State Level of Analysis
The Individual Level of Analysis
The Systems Level of Analysis
The Systems level of analysis is a top-down analysis that argues that the system causes or prevents war; it examines the political environment and external events.
The Systems Level of Analysis
Characteristics to look at this level include the following:
Write a great subtitle here for providing context
The actors are important in defining the system.
The actors are important in defining the system.
The number of poles (states or groups of states with power); is the system multipolar or bipolar? Is one type of system more likely to have war than another?
The concentration of power--how is power distributed in the world system.
a. Is the system in a power transition? For example, if a great power is on the decline will it fight to maintain its capabilities? Is that why Russia attacked Ukraine; to reassert its power in the region?
The Systems Level of Analysis
Characteristics to look at this level include the following:
Norms of Behavior--what are the norms of the system?
a. International Anarchy--there is no power higher than the state; no world government.
b. War--is it a legitimate foreign policy tool? In the late 1800s into the early 1900s it was considered legitimate, but not after the Great War, and especially not after World War II.
Distribution of power assets--a possible axis would be a North-South axis where military power and money reside in the North, but important natural resources are in the South.
The Systems Level of Analysis
Characteristics to look at this level include the following:
Write a great subtitle here for providing context
The actors are important in defining the system.
The Scope and level of Interaction--in the 1800s military power was decisive. Today, economic power is important. Also, culture is being disseminated throughout the world with both positive and negative reactions to it.
Theorists such as Samuel Huntington warn of a "Clash of Civilizations," namely between the West and Islam. Perhaps we are seeing that play out today with wars in the Middle East and the rise of "radical Islamic" groups such as Boko Haram and ISIS.
The State Level of Analysis
This is the traditional level of analysis in IR. Here, you are looking at the process and structure within states. IR is the study of relations between states. The state is seen as the main actor in IR.
The State Level of Analysis
One could look at the type of political system within a state. Maybe the type of political system determines the propensity for war or for peace of a state. Democratic Peace Theory posits that democracies do not fight other democracies. If all states became democratic, would war end? On the other hand, democratic states do fight against authoritarian states; and often times the democratic state starts the war.
A Policy situation may determine how a state behaves; for example, if there is a crisis, even in a democratic society foreign policy may be determined by an elite group. During the Cuban Missile crisis President Kennedy secretly met with top advisers from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and other trusted people to determine a course of action.
If a situation were more about incremental policy such as trade negotiations, more actors would have time to get involved and offer a wider array of perspectives.
The State Level of Analysis
Policy issues--if it is purely foreign policy such as defense or security, the executive branch has the right to decide the policy. If it is intermestic--a combination of international and domestic issues--for example, a trade or finance issue, the policy making process is opened to numerous actors including cabinet members, members of the legislature, trade unions, business representatives, etc.
Political culture also impacts decision-making in states. A society's long-held, fundamental practices and attitudes affect both domestic and international situation. For example, in the US there is a strong belief in individualism, democracy and capitalism; whereas in China people hold more communitarian views and support Communism.
National historical experience effects political culture too. The US is relatively secure because it is surrounded by two oceans and friendly neighbors.
The national belief system--ideas and ideologies also impact political culture.
The State Level of Analysis
Subnational actors impact state's behavior too. The political leader such as a President, Prime Minister or Secretary-General is usually the strongest actor in deciding foreign policy. Why?
a. tradition
b. there is almost a need for a single decisive leader
c. foreign policy is usually an issue area where actors only want to participate in it if it directly impacts them. Bureaucracies, legislatures, political opposition, the people, and interest groups may have vested interests in some policies.
The Individual Level of Analysis
The nature of humankind: a general approach, where you can generally explain human beings. Hobbes thought that humans were naturally aggressive. Locke and Rousseau believed that humans wanted to cooperate; to improve their lives in societies. Psychological factors such as bounded rationality impact actions that are available to the decision maker. You can only act on what you know, but not all information is available, or we cannot sift through all of the information that is available. We also do not like to hear bad news; if information does not fit with our perceptions/beliefs we tend to ignore it.
Frustration-Aggression theory posits that when an individual or group of individuals is frustrated, they take it out through aggression.
Biological factors--Konrad Lorenz thought that humans may be naturally aggressive; it may be genetic. He found a lot of aggression in the animal world (but he was not looking at primates), based on territorial protection.
The Individual Level of Analysis
Humans in Organizations: in a group people behave differently than as an individual. What role does an individual play in a group? In organizations some people are born leaders where others are more reserved or passive, so they tend to be followers.
Irving Janis applied small-group analysis from psychology to foreign policy making. Janis came up with the hypothesis called Groupthink, which is an excessive form of concurrence-seeking among members of high-prestige, tightly knit policy-making groups. It is excessive to the extent that the group members come to value the group (and being part of it) higher than anything else. This may lead the group to strive for quick and painless unanimity on issues that the group has to confront.
The Individual Level of Analysis
Humans as Individuals--in this approach the personality of the individual policymaker is important, whether the person is active or passive, positive or negative. Ego and ambition also are thought to influence the individual. Furthermore, the person's personal history and experiences are very important. Perceptions also impact the individuals decision-making process, e.g., during the Cold War President Truman and other high level foreign policymakers had a negative view of the Soviets and believed that they could not be trusted so that colored how discussions and negotiations were conducted.
Activity completed!
POLS 232 M1 Levels of Analysis in International Relations
Melissa Kreider
Created on March 13, 2025
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Customer Service Course
View
Dynamic Visual Course
View
Dynamic Learning Course
View
Akihabara Course
Explore all templates
Transcript
Levels of Analysis in International Relations
The Systems Level of Analysis
The State Level of Analysis
The Individual Level of Analysis
The Systems Level of Analysis
The Systems level of analysis is a top-down analysis that argues that the system causes or prevents war; it examines the political environment and external events.
The Systems Level of Analysis
Characteristics to look at this level include the following:
Write a great subtitle here for providing context
The actors are important in defining the system.
The actors are important in defining the system.
The number of poles (states or groups of states with power); is the system multipolar or bipolar? Is one type of system more likely to have war than another?
The concentration of power--how is power distributed in the world system. a. Is the system in a power transition? For example, if a great power is on the decline will it fight to maintain its capabilities? Is that why Russia attacked Ukraine; to reassert its power in the region?
The Systems Level of Analysis
Characteristics to look at this level include the following:
Norms of Behavior--what are the norms of the system? a. International Anarchy--there is no power higher than the state; no world government. b. War--is it a legitimate foreign policy tool? In the late 1800s into the early 1900s it was considered legitimate, but not after the Great War, and especially not after World War II.
Distribution of power assets--a possible axis would be a North-South axis where military power and money reside in the North, but important natural resources are in the South.
The Systems Level of Analysis
Characteristics to look at this level include the following:
Write a great subtitle here for providing context
The actors are important in defining the system.
The Scope and level of Interaction--in the 1800s military power was decisive. Today, economic power is important. Also, culture is being disseminated throughout the world with both positive and negative reactions to it. Theorists such as Samuel Huntington warn of a "Clash of Civilizations," namely between the West and Islam. Perhaps we are seeing that play out today with wars in the Middle East and the rise of "radical Islamic" groups such as Boko Haram and ISIS.
The State Level of Analysis
This is the traditional level of analysis in IR. Here, you are looking at the process and structure within states. IR is the study of relations between states. The state is seen as the main actor in IR.
The State Level of Analysis
One could look at the type of political system within a state. Maybe the type of political system determines the propensity for war or for peace of a state. Democratic Peace Theory posits that democracies do not fight other democracies. If all states became democratic, would war end? On the other hand, democratic states do fight against authoritarian states; and often times the democratic state starts the war.
A Policy situation may determine how a state behaves; for example, if there is a crisis, even in a democratic society foreign policy may be determined by an elite group. During the Cuban Missile crisis President Kennedy secretly met with top advisers from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and other trusted people to determine a course of action.
If a situation were more about incremental policy such as trade negotiations, more actors would have time to get involved and offer a wider array of perspectives.
The State Level of Analysis
Policy issues--if it is purely foreign policy such as defense or security, the executive branch has the right to decide the policy. If it is intermestic--a combination of international and domestic issues--for example, a trade or finance issue, the policy making process is opened to numerous actors including cabinet members, members of the legislature, trade unions, business representatives, etc.
Political culture also impacts decision-making in states. A society's long-held, fundamental practices and attitudes affect both domestic and international situation. For example, in the US there is a strong belief in individualism, democracy and capitalism; whereas in China people hold more communitarian views and support Communism. National historical experience effects political culture too. The US is relatively secure because it is surrounded by two oceans and friendly neighbors. The national belief system--ideas and ideologies also impact political culture.
The State Level of Analysis
Subnational actors impact state's behavior too. The political leader such as a President, Prime Minister or Secretary-General is usually the strongest actor in deciding foreign policy. Why? a. tradition b. there is almost a need for a single decisive leader c. foreign policy is usually an issue area where actors only want to participate in it if it directly impacts them. Bureaucracies, legislatures, political opposition, the people, and interest groups may have vested interests in some policies.
The Individual Level of Analysis
The nature of humankind: a general approach, where you can generally explain human beings. Hobbes thought that humans were naturally aggressive. Locke and Rousseau believed that humans wanted to cooperate; to improve their lives in societies. Psychological factors such as bounded rationality impact actions that are available to the decision maker. You can only act on what you know, but not all information is available, or we cannot sift through all of the information that is available. We also do not like to hear bad news; if information does not fit with our perceptions/beliefs we tend to ignore it. Frustration-Aggression theory posits that when an individual or group of individuals is frustrated, they take it out through aggression. Biological factors--Konrad Lorenz thought that humans may be naturally aggressive; it may be genetic. He found a lot of aggression in the animal world (but he was not looking at primates), based on territorial protection.
The Individual Level of Analysis
Humans in Organizations: in a group people behave differently than as an individual. What role does an individual play in a group? In organizations some people are born leaders where others are more reserved or passive, so they tend to be followers. Irving Janis applied small-group analysis from psychology to foreign policy making. Janis came up with the hypothesis called Groupthink, which is an excessive form of concurrence-seeking among members of high-prestige, tightly knit policy-making groups. It is excessive to the extent that the group members come to value the group (and being part of it) higher than anything else. This may lead the group to strive for quick and painless unanimity on issues that the group has to confront.
The Individual Level of Analysis
Humans as Individuals--in this approach the personality of the individual policymaker is important, whether the person is active or passive, positive or negative. Ego and ambition also are thought to influence the individual. Furthermore, the person's personal history and experiences are very important. Perceptions also impact the individuals decision-making process, e.g., during the Cold War President Truman and other high level foreign policymakers had a negative view of the Soviets and believed that they could not be trusted so that colored how discussions and negotiations were conducted.
Activity completed!