What is Complex Interdependence?

On the past several weeks, I’ve been researching a little about complex interdependence for my thesis, that’s why I become so lazy to put anything international-relations-related. My brain was too busy to think whatever outside the thesis. Primarily, I proposed idea to analyze conflictual pattern of Japan-China relations in 2001-2007, but my professor said to analyze solely on conflictual relation is simply oversimplifying overall Japan-China relations.

Luckily my friend just finished her thesis, and she lend me her copy of “Power and Interdependence”, a book authored by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye which could be used as alternative approach toward state relationship. Complex Interdependence, as complicated as it might sounds, it’s actually not too hard to understand if we could grasp the concept. If you are looking some simple reference toward this concept, you might want to read this article.

The most basic assumption is, states are tied together in complicated pattern of interdependence toward each other.

The first assumption is the existence of multiple channels of contact among societies in transnational relations which expands the range of policy instruments. In this assumption, the actions conducted by business and political elites affect the interstate relations.

The involvement of large and multinational corporation has become a normal part of foreign as well as domestic relations. The actions of these channels are important because their pursuit to fill one’s interest ultimately influences the government policy. Imagine the oil companies in US, they have heavy influence toward US’ Energy Policy, no? If you don’t get it, watch Syriana or just googling to find out which oil companies in US get the Iraqi oil field cake.

The second assumption is the absence of a hierarchy in state policies, there is no clear distinction between domestic and international issues. When there are multiple issues on certain agenda, and possibly threatening certain interest group, but not as nation as whole, the process of formulating a coherent and consistent foreign policy tend to increases.

This is because the interests of the certain interest group clashing are not imperatively interest of all citizens’s of particular state, and thus, politicization becomes important to gain attention worldwide. Also, some nonmilitary issues are emphasized in interstate relations and treated equally important such as the traditional issues. International monetary politics, oil, food, and multinational corporations have been rising as important issues. Economic growth for instance, is treated equally as important as traditional issues (geography, military, etc) these days isn’t it?

The third assumption is the irrelevance of military force and coercive power in conducting foreign affairs. Traditionally, military power plays role on influencing other state. In tradionalist assumption, state with superior military force will win. If security dilemma for all states were acute, military force, supported by economic resource would become the source of power. Survival is the primary goal of all states, and possession of strong military force would support. But this condition has changed in the indrustialized era. The perceived margin of safety has widened, fears of attack in general have declined. The fear of being attacked by one another are virtually nonexistent.

The third assumption could explain the developed countries relationship, but in my opinion, this is the most fatal flaw of complex interdependence.

It’s true that we haven’t seen another full-scale warfare these days since the end of cold war, but military power, though it plays minor role these day because being overrided by economic interdependence, it’s still sensitive. This is especially true if we look at Asia in general: East Asia in Southeast Asia.

Every year another countries increasing their military budget, their neighbours will tend to yap as if they will be nuked tomorrow. The paradox tringular relations of Japan-China-South Korea defeats this assumption. Even though they are highly interdependent economically, I’m yet to hear a positive comments from Japan if China to increase its military budget next year.

Complex interdependence is unforunately, not a suitable approach if you’re analyzing developing countries relationship. It could be easily defeated with simple arguments of military relationship. My suggestion is, be wary if you’re using this concept. Find a country with relatively stable relationship (e.g: Japan-Indonesia, US-Canada, German-France, etc), or maybe you want to write a thesis to falsify this concept?

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex Interdependence 

Popularity: 19% [?]

Related posts

• Shinzo Abe Mengundurkan Diri | Abe Resigns (0)
• Drama Defisit Perdagangan AS (2)
• Aspek Sejarah Dalam Perpolitikan Asia Timur (8)
• What You Need to Know: Adventuring .jp Sites (5)
• Perang Irak dan Perang Dagang Amerika Serikat-China (5)
• Mengintip Perjanjian Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) Jepang-Indonesia (6)
• Mengenal Ciri-Ciri “Negara Gagal”: Palestina (11)