Network Analysis for International Relations

Abstract

International relations research has regarded networks as a particular mode of organization, distinguished from markets or state hierarchies. In contrast, network analysis permits the investigation and measurement of network structures—emergent properties of persistent patterns of relations among agents that can define, enable, and constrain those agents. Network analysis offers both a toolkit for identifying and measuring the structural properties of networks and a set of theories, typically drawn from contexts outside international relations, that relate structures to outcomes. Network analysis challenges conventional views of power in international relations by defining network power in three different ways: access, brokerage, and exit options. Two issues are particularly important to international relations: the ability of actors to increase their power by enhancing and exploiting their network positions, and the fungibility of network power. The value of network analysis in international relations has been demonstrated in precise description of international networks, investigation of network effects on key international outcomes, testing of existing network theory in the context of international relations, and development of new sources of data. Partial or faulty incorporation of network analysis, however, risks trivial conclusions, unproven assertions, and measures without meaning. A three-part agenda is proposed for future application of network analysis to international relations: import the toolkit to deepen research on international networks; test existing network theories in the domain of international relations; and test international relations theories using the tools of network analysis.

Knowledge and networks: An experimental test of how network knowledge affects coordination

“…States that are part of an alliance network may find themselves in conflicts they would rather avoid; trade ties can be used for economic sanctions; normative bonds are deployed to force compliance through naming and shaming; and telephone and email records can be used to destroy a terrorist network." Hafner-Burton et al (2009) The possibility that a new connection could impair activity in a network is also identified by Fowler (2005) and Siegel (2009) in studying how social networks can affect behavior such as voter turnout. Watts (2003) noted the general problem of how to add connections to a network "If adding links at random isn't a good way to reduce information congestion, what is?…”

In the shadow of fortress Europe? Impacts of European migration governance on Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia

“…The SNA, supplemented by material from the semi-structured interviews, allowed us to explore in more detail the relational aspects of the networks, that is, not only to map the nodes and identify relationships, but also to explore the nature of these relationships. This allows us to go beyond the notion of network as an organisational mode by assessing the relational characteristics of networks insofar as they affect the determination of policy agendas (Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery 2009). We thus understand networks as lying between states with their hierarchical character and markets that centre on a 'more ephemeral bargaining relationship' and see them as 'sets of relations that form structures, which in turn may constrain or enable agents' (Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery 2009, 559-560).…”

The Prospects for Cyberocracy (Revisited)

“…But the two views of networks remain conceptually variant, and it will be a while before their overlaps and contradictions are sorted out. 116 Both views will surely continue to develop apace, and new efforts are being made to reconcile them (see Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery, 2008). The fields of network science and social network analysis have much to offer methodologically, even though we are wary of their expansive tendency to subsume all forms of organization under a minimal criterion of networks.…”

“…Also see Hagel and Brown (2006). On network failure, see Meyer and Baltes (2004); Varda (2007);and Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery (2008). Look for future publications by Peter Monge and associates on network carrying-capacity.…”