Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond

Abstract

‘Structure’ in the discipline of International Relations, for all the criticism of Kenneth Waltz’ work, still typically means the Waltzian triad of ordering principles, functional differentiation, and distribution of capabilities. I argue, however, that this triad not only does not in Waltz’ particular presentation but cannot provide an adequate account of political structures. In its place I sketch a five-part framework of the elements of political structures. Three types of structural differentiation are identified: vertical differentiation, which establishes hierarchical ranking; horizontal differentiation, which establishes non-hierarchical segmentation; and unit differentiation, which assigns certain types of actors a privileged status. Two dimensions of structural elaboration are also identified: norms and institutions and technology and geography. This framework highlights the central place of ranking in international political structures, developing a tripartite account of ‘ordering principles’ that identifies autarchic, single-hierarchic, and heterarchic systems. It also draws attention to the diversity of international orders and opens structural analysis to the concerns and contributions of constructivism.

Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things

“…Formally, great powers do not possess extra legislative powers: they cannot dictate the rules of the game in international society. Still, informally, they have executive prerogatives-in waging anti-hegemonic wars to 18 restore the balance of power (Bull, 2002(Bull, [1977 (Donnelly, 2009(Donnelly, , 2015 as well as a defence of hierarchy (Donnelly, 2006(Donnelly, , 2009Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016). Assessing the former, anti-anarchy argument is relevant for the present discussion.…”

“…This meaning has three variations: an absence of government, authority, or rules (Donnelly, 2009(Donnelly, : 51, 2015). …”

“…In international relations, the participant states are engaged in mechanisms of self-regulation and self-policing without oversight by a global sovereign. Third, the issue is not whether the anarchical international system contains some elements of hierarchy (Deudney, 2007;Donnelly 2006Donnelly , 2009) but whether the system-as a whole-is structured as hierarchy or, alternatively, as anarchy. This leads us back to the problem of structure.…”

“…Two principal groups of interlocutors can be distinguished depending on whether they prefer an anarchical, or an hierarchical structure. Proponents of hierarchy (in IR see Donnelly 2006Donnelly , 2009Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016) think of world politics in terms of an hierarchical authority covering the globe. The form of such authority is not international but global-it can range from a unitary world government (Craig, 2008;Nielsen, 1988;Wendt, 2003), to a more loosely structured global federation of states (Nardin, 2011(Nardin, : 2065(Nardin, -2067, to an ensemble of issue-specific global institutions.…”

Sociology and international relations: legacies and prospects

“…We do not claim to have exhausted the possibilities of this exchange-far from it. Indeed, notable by its absence is a discussion of systems theory, particularly the powerful work on functional differentiation in IR which has been derived from Durkheim and the work of the German functionalist, Niklas Luhmann (see Albert and Hilkermeier 2004;Buzan and Albert 2010;Donnelly 2009). Equally prominent by its absence is a pronounced engagement with Marxism, an approach that has contributed significantly both to international theory in general (Rosenberg 1994;Teschke 2003) and to subfields such as international political economy (Cox 1986;Gill 2008;Morton 2007).…”