Power in interdependence can be separated into two areas, sensitivity dependence and vulnerability dependence. Sensitivity interdependence can be social, political or economic. It refers to the way that a change in the policy of one state effect the policies of other states and to what effect. An example of social interdependence would be the manner in which many American methods of trading such a large scale shopping malls began appearing firstly in the UK, mainland Europe and more recently the rest of the world. The rapid growth in the size and scale of the telecommunications industry had increased the general levels of sensitivity. There are three types of information usage in complex interdependence, free information, commercial information, and strategic information. Each can be manipulated by states to form an asymmetrical relationship with another state.
Information’s major role in the contemporary world arena is to decentralize as it reduces costs, economies of scale and barriers to entry. This should in theory aid weaker states as it will make it easier for them to operate on the world stage in a cheaper and more efficient manner. But in practice as stronger economies of stronger states mean they are heavily involved in the creation of much of the information related to soft power*, weaker states often find themselves still confronted by larger states manipulating their access and use of such information.
The increase in availability of information has led to some degree of increased vulnerability of stronger states. This is by way of weaker states/organisations being able to freely use this information/education to confront or even attack larger states. This is particularly prevalent in view of the events of September 11 2001.
On a broader scale however increased information has led to increased power for stronger states and a lesser need for strategic interdependence. For example the spy satellites that America has been able to utilise in space has meant that America has been able to carry out and increasing amount of international control without increased levels of international co-operation. When this technology was not available America would have required the co-operation of allies by way of intelligence sharing or allowing American forces to use bases on foreign soil.
Vulnerability dependence refers to the “costs imposed by external events even after policies have been altered.”(source1 pg13) Hence vulnerability is a measure of a states ability to cater for a change in its environment. The use of raw materials is a good example of this. Two countries could have an equal level of sensitivity to a change in their potential import levels of raw materials however it is the accessibility of viable alternatives and at what cost which will show their respective level of vulnerability. Vulnerability is clearly a more important measure of interdependence that sensitivity. States are sometimes able to exploit other states vulnerability to achieve political manipulation of issues. This will involve a level of negotiation where power measured in terms of resources is measured against influence over outcomes. This practice is referred to by Keohane as “the political process of translation.”
Asymmetric interdependence has far more benefits for the stronger power in terms of the use of power. For example waltz says “US Foreign policy is replete with examples of how the United States has used its superior economic capabilities to promote its political and security interests.” Strong states may make short term concessions to weaker states but that is in effect only to encourage them to follow policies of interdependence for the long run benefits of the stronger state. Ref Strange waltz pg 16
International institutions, although they can provide an arena in which weaker states can introduce issues, are principally formed and funded by stronger states “to serve what powerful states believe to be in their interests.” Waltz pg 21 It can widely be seen how international organisations remain a functioning body for as long as their powerful creators deem them useful. They may still appear to be a functioning body where in fact the forum for debate which the organisation used to represent has been lost, with countries involved returning to interstate relations.
In terms of the goals of actors, the high degree of intergovernmental relations which complex interdependence expect it will be hard to clearly see specified goals from a state.
As I have previously mentioned the costs involved in a decision or policy play a major role in agenda setting through complex interdependence theory. In contrast to a more realist point of view, where especially in regard to security issues the cost is seen as a consequence rather than as a factor in considering the viability of that option. Complex interdependence portrays these costs not only in terms of monetary value but also in more normative ways. For example the costs to an executive of using force to settle a dispute would also include the costs in terms of falling out of favour with international community and possibly part of the executives own electorate. In relation to current events, the United States occupation of Iraq could in the long run present problems that the ’hawks’ of Washington may have hastily overlooked. The occupation is not only costing a large amount to the US taxpayer, it is also causing a rising level of discontent among the international community as the US is becoming more and more single minded in its pursuit of security through pre-emptive attacks. For example Hungary announced on Wednesday that it would withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq,
The conditions of contemporary international interdependence, such as levels of comparative political unity and the geographical locations of states tend to limit the ability of statesman to manipulate asymmetrical interdependence. For example the fact that the US defence budget is approximately 37 times that of Canada does not bear any influence on their various disputes. This is because the geographical location, and hence level of integration between the two in terms of trade makes the use of force not a viable option. This does not however mean that military capability has no bearing on their relationship. The US is still able to use its capabilities to form an alliance against external threats. An alliance where Canada is heavily dependant on the US. However the bargaining relationship between these two countries has principally been focused on economic issues. An interdependent relationship can clearly be seen when we look at the Canadians manipulation of the US government and trans national automobile companies. The main example being the Auto pact of the 1960’s where the Canadian government placed an import tax on automobiles to protect Canadian manufacturers. The US responded by suggesting a no tariff situation would be in the best interests of both countries. Canada agreed and then made sure it received the first round of investment from the Multi-national companies involved. The US government could of course have stopped this from happening but due to the complex levels of linkages between US-Canadian trade issues they knew that it would be in their long run interest to hold their tongues and use it to their advantage at a later date.
The US Canada relationship also exhibits other features of complex interdependence such as multiple channels of contact. Keohane and Nye show this with statistics “in November 1972 there were an average of 340 calls between the US and Canada on the US governments federal telephone lines.” This shows that 5the image of governments only contacting each other on a foreign office to foreign office level is not the case any more. The situation we see today is one of internationally highly integrated governments where ministers can interact on aa multitude of levels and in a multitude of forums. A good example of this is the European Parliament.
International organisations play an ever increasing role in international relations today. This is in keeping with the theory of complex interdependence. As the use of military force becomes a less and less viable option increasing levels of international co-operation are inevitable. We can see examples of how the use of international organisations can be seen to benefit both stronger and weaker states. Stronger states often play a formulative role in the creation on Non-government organisations. This can lead to them holding a disproportional amount of power within that organisation. The US and the International Monetary fund are good examples of this. The IMF, based in Washington has been referred to by critics as merely an instrument of US foreign policy. Smaller states can benefit from using NGO’s such as the World Trade Organisation as it is a relatively cheap and available partner in protecting its international interests.
- A major area in which we can see the relevance of complex interdependence in the contemporary world arena is in states use of asymmetrical interdependencies for political gain.
- . It has been seen on a number of occasions how trans-governmental contacts have in fact made it harder for more powerful state to exert their power on weaker opponents.
