The Increasing Importance of Complexity in International Relations - Essay Example

?The Increasing Importance of Complexity in International Relations Introduction International relations as a field is assuming greater importance asthe world continues to globalize and the economic, political and security interests of the states become increasingly interdependent. Thus, the environment for each state is no longer limited to its internal and neighboring environment. The increasing number of factors makes it quite challenging to analyze the international environment for any country. Traditional analytical models that are based on linear relationships are no longer sufficient to explain the complex phenomena of international relations. The twentieth century approaches focused on managing order are giving way to fresher approaches (Rengger, 212) . Hence, complexity has become an increasingly important aspect of research on international relations. It offers an opportunity to apply a general systems theory to the analysis of international events. The international environment today is more complex and open than a decade ago. Factors such as globalization, climate change and terrorism have contributed much to integrate the world along several dimensions. This paper explains the increasing importance of complexity in international relations by identifying the components of complexity theory and explaining their relevance to contemporary international events as well as past events that have significantly impacted on the present state of affairs. Concepts such as interdependence, fitness, and coevolution are discussed along with other essential concepts. The paper concludes with an overall assessment of the value can understanding of complexity can provide to the study of international relations. Interdependence in International Relations Complexity theory is based on the concept of interdependence (Clemens, 13). The variables in a complex system are mutually interdependent. According to this concept, changes in one variable bring about changes in others. At times, these changes can be known beforehand but most of the time, these changes are unpredictable. The implications of such interdependence are significant for all actors participating in the complex system. The gains of one actor may lead to gains for another. Similarly, the losses accrued to one actor can also be experienced by others, regardless of their ability to identify the existence of any such relationship. Complexity theory offers an explanation for identifying and acknowledging such relationships. Its concepts and principles can be applied to analyze relationships between individual actors and the areas where mutual benefits and risks lie. The rapid pace of globalization is one of the major stimuli that have made complexity theory increasingly relevant to the study of international relations. Under the WTO agreements, the economies of individual countries have become increasingly dependent on one another. In addition, regional alliances such as ASEAN and the EU have made the economic and political systems of nation states dependent on one another. The most recent examples of such interdependence can be observed in the 2008 global financial crisis and the more recent Euro debt crisis. Events such as a sub-prime crisis in the US have affected economies around the world, mainly because the US is today the centre of the global economic system. Similarly, a debt crisis originating in Greece has raised issues for the well-being of the German economy. Complexity theory can increase our understanding of such contemporary issues by supporting existing theories and concepts. Fitness and International Relations Complexity theory aims to explain the fitness between an actor and its environment. The concept of fitness is an integral component of complexity theory and treats an actor as a member that can affect and is also affected by changes taking place in the environment (Clemens, 13). Thus, in complexity theory individual actors are assumed to act in a complex environment. A complex environment is characterized by a large number of factors and a web of interrelationships between them. An actor is deemed to possess fitness to the extent that he is able to cope with the complexity in the environment. This involves exploiting the opportunities and avoiding the threats to maintain or strengthen the level of fitness. Complexity theory identifies fitness as a state that exists midway between complete chaos and structured hierarchy. In the field of international relations, each country finds itself part of a complex open system. Barring a few isolated countries such as North Korea and Myanmar (until recently), most countries are operating in an open system where they are influenced by the events taking place in the environment. Many opportunities and threats in the twenty-first century have assumed global dimensions, including global warming, economic growth, terrorism, and so on. Because complexity theory aims to create a general systems theory, it does not offer specific recommendations on how to increase the level of fitness. It does, however, recommend that countries or states should establish communication nodules with other members of the international community. Even so, the general systems theory is an effective way to compensate for the weaknesses of theories based on political realism and pluralism based on power (Bandyopadhyaya, 32). Coevolution in International Relations Coevolution is another important concept in complexity theory that is finding greater resonance with scholars of international relations. In complexity theory, it is assumed that the evolutionary processes individuals and other organisms are not isolated. Moreover, complexity theory also believes that all individuals survive in a common environment; hence, many of the environmental factors affect all organisms. However, because of the differentiation in organisms, the same environmental stimulus does not affect all in the same way (Clemens, 13). While it may be true that all organisms evolve simultaneously and in response to common environmental triggers, it cannot be predicted which way any of them will evolve. The reason for the difficulty is that the environment is extremely complex. The existence of an increasing number of factors makes such predictability a problem for researchers. Political systems are also becoming increasingly complex. Stakeholder theory has forced people to acknowledge the power and interests of an increasingly diverse set of stakeholders including the press, media, NGOs, international agencies, the online community, and so on. Complexity has also increased due to the weakening of centralized decision-making (Harrison, 3). Complexity theory can help to explain the processes by which domestic as well as international political systems are adapting to their complex environments. It may be noted that since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the states of central Asia and the Baltic region evolved in a different way than Russia. Although all had been part of the same system, the distinct histories and cultures of the Central Asian and Baltic states caused them to experience prosperity much earlier than Russia (Clemens, 230). In fact, the resolution of the threatening nuclear arms crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union was resolved when the nuclear rivals decided to collaborate for their national as well as common international interests (Adler, 142). Emergence in International Relations In international relations, it is observed that certain patterns emerge without any explicit direction or planning. This property of complex systems to create emergent phenomena is termed as emergence. Emergence is an important concept in complexity theory and attempts to explain the emergence of such behaviours in complex systems. In contrast to changes or behaviours that are imposed from top authority levels, emergent properties appear from the actions of individual actors in the system (Clemens, 14). While the actors adjust to one another while coevolving, such trends or behaviours can emerge as regular patterns. Over time, they become established behaviours and become explicit. The property of emergence points to the fact that in complex social and political systems, it is difficult to state predictable outcomes of certain actions. Recent examples of emergence in international relations can be observed in the Arab Spring that began in December of 2010 with the self-immolation of a street vendor in Tunisia. Without any top leadership, the people across Tunisia took to the streets in protest against the government. This resulted in the toppling of the Tunisian government. After this success, similar protests were seen in neighboring Arab countries such as Libya and Egypt, even in relatively distant countries such as Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. These protests can be described by the concept of emergence as they are not directed by a specific plan. More so, the outcomes in each case have varied with some successes in Libya and Egypt. The situation in Bahrain and Syria is quite different as the regimes are still intact. That these protests were organized at the grassroots level and driven by individuals acting in cooperation led to the emergence of a distinct pattern of protests across the Arab world. Self-Organization in International Relations Self-organization is a property of complex social systems that contributes positively towards better fitness. Self-organization contributes to the property of emergence discussed in the previous section. Complexity theory assumes that individuals in a complex system are capable of organizing into structures even in the absence of explicit guidance from the top (Clemens, 14). As such, formal authority and government has little to contribute to the fitness of a system. Instead, it is the actions of individual actors that create self-organization as actors adapt to each other. Self-organization is based on society’s appreciation of collective gain rather than individual gain. This has been termed as social capital. Where social capital and collective gain are recognized, people are able to create values and norms to promote fitness in society. Self-organization in international relations can be understood in the form of critical mass and herd behaviour concepts. In self-organized systems, it is seldom that the individual actors know how the overall system works. The same may be said of international relations where the actions of various actors in pursuit of common interests lead to an international order. Movements such as the Wall Street Movement and the protests in the Arab world can be described as self-organized. As long as the individual actors do not compromise on the collective good, the movements can be sustained through self-organization. The political systems are being characterized as self-organized systems that are reflexive and can result in the creation of sound political structures for political action. Agent-Based Systems in International Relations Complex systems are also described as agent-based systems. The concept of agency is closely related to self-organization and emergence discussed earlier. In complexity theories, the changes and actions that lead to emergent phenomena are carried out by individual actors termed as agents. The role of the agent is crucial in a complex system because the actions of the agent drive the creation of the structure and values of the system (Clemens, 14). As the complex system is agent-based, there is little role for central authority. The agent-based system can be compared to a complex system such as the human brain. Various parts of the brain perform their own functions to produce a coordinated response from the individual. There is no central controlling part in the brain that controls all the other parts. Similarly, a complex system works when individual actors or agents perform their own role in the system. The main drive for working a complex system comes from the need to cooperate for mutual benefit. This need overcomes the absence of central planning. In international political systems, the actions of individual agents such as politicians and leaders can lead to an emergent trend in international affairs. Agent-based modeling has been gaining popularity in research on international relations, ranging from conflict studies to international cooperation. The development of statistical methods has allowed researchers to analyze how states can cooperate with one another and resolve international dilemmas. It can be used along with game theory and other approaches to simulate problems in international relations and the effects of changes in each variable. However, it is important to note that agent-based modeling allows insight into basic processes rather than an accurate picture of a specific situation (Axelrod, 5). Self-Organized Criticality in International Relations Self-organized criticality is an integral concept of complexity theory. Self-organized criticality describes the tendency of complex systems to undergo dramatically shifts in response to minor stimuli. This concept is used to describe the fragility and susceptibility of apparently large systems to collapse or large-scale change (Clemens, 16). Social systems are characterized by a critical threshold that determines the point up to which the structure and working of the system can be sustained. Beyond the threshold level, however, the system in its current form cannot be sustained and may even collapse. In other words, the changes may be occurring in an incremental way, but we only come to realize them when the threshold has been reached (Kawaguchi, 33). This occurs when a triggering event results in a rapid change to which the complex system cannot adapt. These changes usually occur because the individual parts and agents of a complex system have become so interdependent that there is insufficient time to devise a coordinated response. The self-organized criticality is often explained with the metaphor of the single grain of sand that causes an entire mound of sand to collapse. The concept of self-organized criticality can be used to explain the collapse of the USSR. Although the Soviet Union was undergoing degeneration in economic and social spheres relative to the United States, it took just a single defeat in Afghanistan to cause the entire system to collapse. This example illustrates that certain triggering events can have system-wide consequences even leading to collapse. It can be used to appreciate that even states that appear large and powerful can be extremely vulnerable to apparently small changes in the environment. Punctuated Equilibrium in International Relations Complex systems are characterized by non-linearity. Hence, change and evolution does not proceed in a linear fashion but occurs in unpredictable ways. Gould (2000) describes punctuated equilibrium by “surges of speciation and avalanches of extinction.” Thus, the fitness of a complex system may not necessarily move towards one end of the chaos-hierarchy continuum; but may oscillate between the two. Furthermore, the pace of evolution can also not be predicted in a complex system. Periods of slow change may be followed by dramatic changes. Meanwhile, the system has to adapt to its environment in order to maintain equilibrium. Complexity theory explains that the systems need to adapt whenever environmental factors change to arrive at a new equilibrium level. Change and stability in the international political environment too cannot be predicted with certainty. At times, a system evolves with a relatively constant pace of change to be followed by a period of stability. Krasner (2009) states how punctuated equilibrium can be used to explain the effects of Western imperialism on various societies. After a long period of stasis, the Inca and Aztec empires were effaced in the face of Western imperialism. However, other cultures were more resistant and survived by adapting to the dramatic change. The Japanese and Indian civilizations are examples of such adaptation. Similarly, Clemens (2001) describes the evolution of the Baltic states after their independence from the Soviet Union as a pattern of punctuated equilibrium. Fitness Landscapes and International Relations In complexity theory, the fitness of an individual or organism can be traced in the form of a fitness peaks and valleys. When the organism is at a high level of fitness, this is indicated by a peak in the organism’s fitness map. On the other hand, a poor level of fitness can be illustrated in the form of a valley. This creates a terrain map that shows the points of time where the organism demonstrates a good level of fitness with the environment (Clemens, 15). When the fitness levels of several organisms in an ecosystem are mapped in this way, it gives rise to a fitness landscape. This fitness landscape allows the fitness levels of various interdependent organisms to be compared with one another. This allows judgments and predictions about their long-term survival to be made with reasonable accuracy. Fitness landscapes can find much practical application in the field of international relations. Countries can be substituted for biological organisms and their fitness levels can be mapped according to their fitness with the complex environment. In addition to military power, other factors such as the wealth of natural resources, the level of human development and other relevant indicators can be used to determine the fitness landscapes of various states. It may also be useful to compare the fitness level of a state with its internal environment as well as its external environment. It may be argued that the use of fitness landscapes prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion would have prevented the United States from relying too heavily on its unilateral power and underestimating the resistance of the Iraqi people. In comparison, the multilateral approach adopted by the US in the 1991 Gulf War was more successful (Honig, 91). How Complexity Contributes to International Relations Complexity theory has great potential to aid in the study of international relations. The concepts of complexity theory are quite relevant to the changes taking place in the international political environment. The major events taking place in today’s world, including the integration of national economies, the development of the European Union and the global war on terror can be explained with the help of complexity theory. Most importantly, our understanding of the dynamics of the globalized world can be understood with complexity theory. As globalization continues, each country will adapt its political, economic and social systems to retain its power and influence in the international environment. While globalization creates opportunities, it also presents threats such as managing international crime, disease control, and illegal migration, thus requiring international cooperation (D’Anieri, 392) Complexity theory concepts such as fitness, coevolution and self-organization can aid in the understanding of how individual states can adapt to the complex environment. Complexity theory can be used to explain the phenomenon of European integration, for example (Clemens, 233). The process began in the aftermath of the Second World War and has continued to the present at a varying pace. The opposing forces of integration and national sovereignty have shaped the pattern of European integration over the decades. This trend can be explained using the concept of punctuated equilibrium. While a decade ago, the adoption of the Euro currency was a big milestone for European integration, the process is currently facing some serious challenges such as the Euro debt crisis and Britain’s likely referendum about remaining part of the EU after 2017. Complexity theory can complement other theories to provide a well-rounded explanation of this and similar issues. It can also be used to frame the Kosovo conflict and how it was resolved to highlight “modernity-caused reflexes” (Popolo, 213). While complexity theory can greatly assist our understanding of international relations, it lacks predictive power (Clemens, 234). The concepts of complexity theory cannot be used to foretell what the course of events is going to be. However, as stated above, they can be used to offer a coherent explanation of how past events have unfolded. Thus, there is a limitation to how far complexity theory can be useful in international relations. Nonetheless, its use has increased in recent times, partly because of its ability to explain nonlinear systems. Furthermore, complexity theory offers a decent general systems view of international relations. The main use of complexity theory is in analyzing past events as well as present developments. It can be used to place present developments and opportunities in perspective. However, the outcomes of any action cannot be predicted with certainty, primarily because of an increasingly complex environment. While complexity theory has been able to identify many variables in the complex environment, the tools developed by it have not been able to predict the outcomes of social events. Thus, while the theory has great applicability in the field of mathematics and computational sciences, its appeal to the social sciences is limited to its analytical strengths. An example of a complexity theory concept is punctuated equilibrium. Analyzing the process of European integration with complexity theory helps us understand that the process may take place at a varying pace. But, we cannot use it to foresee how long the process would continue before arriving at a rough patch such as the present one. In short, complexity theory could not have helped us foresee the Euro debt crisis. The role of complexity theory is also limited in a digital environment where it can only identify conditions that shape security threats rather than the threats themselves (Dunn, 87). Closely associated with the difficulty of complexity theory to enable scholars to foresee future events in international relations is its limited application to policy development (Clemens, 235). Policy development requires the identification of strategic interests and priorities. Accordingly, plans and policies are made to allocate resources to organize effective responses that can protect those interests. Complexity theory can afford a reasonable explanation of changes taking place in the environment, but its utility goes little beyond. Complexity theory can help researchers to explain the current international environment and identify security threats; but it can offer little guidance on which security threats are most critical and require urgent attention. In that regard, other theories and analytical techniques may be more fruitful. Another aspect of international relations is the organization of resources to tackle emerging opportunities and threats. The invasion of one country by another is a viable threat. However, complexity theory can offer little in the way of ascertaining when the invasion is most likely to take place and what measures can be taken to prevent it. Complexity theory can enable us to make short-term predictions at most, which has little relevance at the strategic level of international relations. This, there is a need to use complexity theory as a complementary approach rather than use it as the basis of all strategic analysis. However, given the incapacity of realism to offer a coherent framework and neorealism’s failure at predicting international events (Diez et al, 186), complexity can find a role to play in international relations. Conclusion On the basis of the above discussion, it can be concluded that complexity is an increasingly important addition to the study of international relations because of its ability to capture the nature of dynamics in the international environment. The concept of fitness in complexity theory encapsulates the direction in which nation states are trying to align themselves to avoid rigidity and chaos. In addition, states are also recognizing that their interests have become increasingly interdependent—a fact that is acknowledged in complexity theory. The process of coevolution and punctuated equilibrium explains the manner in which states move towards their desired fitness levels. Our analysis also reveals that complexity is important when it helps us analyze past and contemporary events. However, its usefulness in helping us project future outcomes and recommend policy directions is limited. Therefore, understanding complexity can help us greatly in explaining the current factors and their mutual relationships in the international environment. It can help us overcome the shortsighted approach of linear models and theories of international relations. Bibliography Adler, E Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations. Routledge Publishing, 2005. Axelrod, R The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1997. Bandyopadhyaya, J A General Theory of International Relations. Allied Publishers Limited, Bombay, 1993. Clemens, W C The Baltic Transformed: Complexity Theory and European Security. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 2001. D’Anieri, P International Relations: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Cengage Learning, 2010. Diez, T, Bode, I & Da Costa, A F Key CConcepts in International Relations. Sage Publications, London, 2011. Erikson, J & Giacomello, G International Relations and Security in the Digital Age. Routledge Publishing, New York, 2007. Gartner, H, Hyde-Price, A & Reiter, E Europe’s New Security Challenges. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 2001. Harrison, N E Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2006. Kawaguchi, K H A Social Theory of International Law: International Relations as a Complex System. Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, 2003. Popolo, D A New Science of International Relations: Modernity, Complexity and the Kosovo Conflict. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, 2011. Rengger, N J International Relations, Political Theory and the Problem of Order: Beyond International Relations Theory? Routledge Publishing, 2000. Read More