What Differentiates Complex Interdependence from Realism and What are Krasner’s Arguments

In his 1977 article, World Politics in Transitions, he wrote about power and interdependence. In Chapter 2: Realism and Complex Interdependence, Keohane constructs complex interdependence as the opposite of realism, establishes the distinctions between complex interdependence and realism, and contends that complex interdependence is sometimes closer to reality than realism. According to Keohane, Realist assumptions tend to describe an ideal political world and enable individuals to imagine a world dominated by a potential or actual conflict between states. However, as he mentioned, these reasonable assumptions can be questioned. Notably, Keohane asserts that the three primary characteristics that characterize complex interdependence are multiple channels that connect societies, an interstate agenda that consists of numerous issues arranged in an unclear and inconsistent hierarchy, and governments that do not use military force to combat other governments in situations where complex int

What Differentiates Complex Interdependence from Realism and What are Krasner’s Arguments

In his 1997article about “Problematic Lucidity: Stephen Krasner’s ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade.’” World Politics, Keohane summarizes and criticizes Stephen Krasner's "State Power and the Structure of International Trade” article. Keohane conducts a lucid analysis of the issue addressed in Krasner’s work. According to Keohane, the international political economy lacks clear boundaries, presenting excessive confusion. To address the subject matter, Keohane seeks threads to offer guidance and to show how different processes and forces relate and identify what is of the essence. According to Keohane Krasner's article, the "state Power and the Structure of International Trade" of 1996 is recognizable due to its distinct combination of problematic and lucid propositions. Krasner forcefully claims that openness is likely to take place in the world economy during a hegemonic state’s ascendancy period. According to Keohane, as long as the technological lead of a state is increasing, the leadership of this state will tend to perceive economic benefits to economic openness because openness is likely to multiply markets for the state's technologically sophisticated industries' products. Notably, as Keohane mentions, Krasner argues that the hegemon is also likely to gain politically because the closure’s opportunity costs are likely to be less than those that face poorer and smaller states. According to Keohane, the rhetoric presented by Krasner is dazzling: political science’s central subject matter is endangered and should be recovered. By defining the continuum between closure and openness, Krasner not only presents a vital puzzle but also offers an approach to assess the dependent variable he has pinpointed. However, Keohane mentions a serious issue in his work, and mentions that Krasner seems to be falsifying his proposition in 25 pages of his article. In the end, Krasner offers a less rigorous explanation of the past. According to Keohane, Krasner was partly influential because although his argument was insightful and lucid, it had significant gaps in its empirical anomalies and causal arguments. 


What's Your Reaction?