Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-mhx7p Total loading time: 0.64 Render date: 2022-05-23T15:14:13.926Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Beyond anarchy: logics of political organization, hierarchy, and international structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2018

Meghan Mcconaughey*
Affiliation:
Fellow, American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, USA
Paul Musgrave
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Department of Political Science, Amherst, MA, USA
Daniel H. Nexon
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract

Many scholars now argue for deemphasizing the importance of international anarchy in favor of focusing on hierarchy – patterns of super- and subordination – in world politics. We argue that only one kind of vertical stratification, governance hierarchy, actually challenges the states-under-anarchy framework. But the existence of such hierarchies overturns a number of standard ways of studying world politics. In order to theorize, and identify, variation in governance structures in world politics, we advocate a relational approach that focuses on three dimensions of hierarchy: the heterogeneity of contracting, the degree of autonomy enjoyed by central authorities, and the balance of investiture between segments and the center. This generates eight ideal-typical forms: national-states and empires, as well as symmetric and asymmetric variants of federations, confederations, and conciliar systems. We argue that political formations – governance assemblages – with elements of these ideal types are likely ubiquitous at multiple scales of world politics, including within, across, and among sovereign states. Our framework suggests that world politics is marked by a heterarchy of nested and overlapping political structures. We discuss broad implications for international-relations theory and comparative politics, and illustrate our approach through an analysis of contemporary China and the evolution of the British ‘Empire’ in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Type
Original Papers
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., Genschel, Philipp, Snidal, Duncan, and Zangl, Bernhard. 2016. “Two Logics of Indirect Governance: Delegation and Orchestration.” British Journal of Political Science 46(4):719729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuto, Michele, and Curtis, Simon. eds. 2014. Reassembling International Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. “Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society.” International Organization 68(1):143176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agranoff, Robert. 1999. Accommodating Diversity: Asymmetry in Federal States. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag-Ges.Google Scholar
Barder, Alexander D. 2015. “International Hierarchy”. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Accessed 14 April 2018, http://internationalstudies.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-95.Google Scholar
Barkawi, Tarak, and Laffey, Mark. 2002. “Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations.” Millennium 31(1):109127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkey, Karen. 2008. Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkey, Karen, and Godart, Frédéric C.. 2013. “Empires, Federated Arrangements, and Kingdoms: Using Political Models of Governance to Understand Firms’ Creative Performance.” Organization Studies 34(1):79104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59(1):3975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Robert. 1993. The Making of Modern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bednar, Jenna. 2008. The Robust Federation: Principles of Design. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Duncan. 2007. “The Victorian Idea of a Global State.” In Victorian Visions of Global Order, edited by Duncan Bell. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdanor, Vernon. 2001. Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Boli, John, and Thomas, George M.. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Boucoyannis, Deborah. 2007. “The International Wanderings of a Liberal Idea, or Why Liberals Can Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Balance of Power.” Perspectives on Politics 5(4):703727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousquet, Antoine, and Curtis, Simon. 2011. “Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory, Systems Thinking and International Relations.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24(1):4362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, Jane, and Cooper, Frederick. 2010. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Burnham, Peter. 1991. “Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order.” Capital & Class 15(3):7392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, Charles R., and Griffiths, Ryan D.. 2017. “Between Eurocentrism and Babel: A Framework for the Analysis of States, State Systems, and International Orders”. International Studies Quarterly 61(2):328356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerny, Philip G. 1995. “Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action.” International Organization 49(4):595625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, Ivan D. 1980. “Social Process and Hierarchy Formation in Small Groups: A Comparative Perspective.” American Sociological Review 45(6):905924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, Alexander. 2005. Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cooley, Alexander, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2013. “The Empire Will Compensate You: The Structural Dynamics of the U.S. Overseas Basing Network.” Perspectives on Politics 11(4):10341050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deudney, Daniel. 2007. Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory From the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Deudney, Daniel H. 1995. “The Philadelphian System: Sovereignty, Arms Control, and Balance of Power in the American States-Union, Circa 1787–1861.” International Organization 49(2):191228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickovick, J. Tyler, and Eaton, Kent H.. 2013. “Latin America’s Resurgent Centre: National Government Strategies After Decentralisation.” The Journal of Development Studies 49(11):14531466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2009. “Rethinking Political Structures: From ‘Ordering Principles’ To ‘Vertical Differentiation’ – and Beyond.” International Theory 1(1):4986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2015. “The Discourse of Anarchy in IR.” International Theory 7(3):393425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Empires. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Drezner, Daniel W. 2014. The System Worked: How the World Stopped Another Great Depression. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Bernhard. 2003. “Ever Larger Unions: Organisational Restructuring and Its Impact on Union Confederations.” Industrial Relations Journal 34(5):446460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elazar, Daniel J. 1987. Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Emont, Jon. 2016. “China Goes All Out To Win Favor With Indonesian Muslims.” Washington Post, July 1. Last Accessed 15 April 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-goes-all-out-to-curry-favor-with-indonesian-muslims/2016/06/30/caee52d4-3e08-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html?utm_term=.6b2e742d7091.Google Scholar
Erikson, Emily. 2013. “Formalist and Relationalist Theory in Social Network Analysis.” Sociological Theory 31(3):219242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabbrini, Sergio, and Brunazzo, Marco. 2003. “Federalizing Italy: The Convergent Effects of Europeanization and Domestic Mobilization.” Regional & Federal Studies 13(1):100120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2014. “Domestic Institutions Beyond the Nation-State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach.” World Politics 66(2):331363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Yale H., and Mansbach, Richard W.. 1996. Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Filippov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shvetsova, Olga. 2004. Designing Federalism: A Theory of Self-sustainable Federal Institutions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fravel, M. Taylor. 2008. Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China’s Territorial Disputes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galtung, Johan. 1971. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research 8(2):81117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Go, Julian. 2008. “Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires.” Sociological Theory 26(3):201229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E. 2009. “Brokering Change: Networks and Entrepreneurs in International Politics.” International Theory 1(2):249281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E., and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2005. “Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 11(1):961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E., and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2016. “The Dynamics of Global Power Politics: A Framework for Analysis.” Journal of Global Security Studies 1(1):418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goode, J. Paul. 2004. “The Push for Regional Enlargement in Putin’s Russia.” Post-Soviet Affairs 20(3):219257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Guy, and Lewis, Janet I.. 2014. “Administrative Unit Proliferation.” American Political Science Review 108(1):196217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2013. Power, Realism and Constructivism. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hameiri, Shahr, and Jones, Lee. 2016. “Rising Powers and State Transformation: The Case of China.” European Journal of International Relations 22(1):7298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, John M. 2014. “The Twin Self-Delusions of IR: Why ‘Hierarchy’ and Not ‘Anarchy’ Is the Core Concept of IR.” Millennium 42(3):557575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, John M., and Sharman, J. C.. 2005. “The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change.” European Journal of International Relations 11(1):6398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97(2):233243.Google Scholar
Hui, Victoria Tin-bor. 2004. “Toward a Dynamic Theory of International Politics: Insights From Comparing Ancient China and Early Modern Europe.” International Organization 58(1):175205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, Ross. 2006. “Empire and the State: A Critical Theoretical Assessment.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 60(3):429438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After Victory : Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2004. “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age.” Review of International Studies 30(4):609630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immerwahr, Daniel. 2016. “The Greater United States: Territory and Empire in U.S. History.” Diplomatic History 40(3):373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 1999. “Relations Before States: Substance, Process, and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5(3):291332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmo, Hent, and Skinner, Quentin. 2010. Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Stuart J., Little, Richard, and Wohlforth, William Curti. 2007. The Balance of Power in World History. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 1996. “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations.” International Organization 50(1):133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 1999. Entangling Relations: American Foreign Policy in Its Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lanoszka, Alexander. 2013. “Beyond Consent and Coercion: Using Republican Political Theory to Understand International Hierarchies.” International Theory 5(3):382413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Welch, Deborah, and Shevchenko, Alexei. 2010. “Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to US Primacy.” International Security 34(4):6395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Gales, Patrick. 2008. “Territorial Politics in France: Le calme avant la tempête.” In Developments in French Politics, edited by Patrick Le Gales, Jonah Levy, and Alastair Cole, 156171. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 2004. “Great Powers in the Post-Cold War World: A Power Transition Perspective.” In Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, edited by T. V. Paul, J. J. Wirtz, and M. Fortmann, 5275. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jacob T. 2007. “Federalism, Liberalism, and the Separation of Loyalties.” American Political Science Review 101(3):459477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Tom. 2015. Latin America Confronts the United States: Asymmetry and Influence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Paul K. 2009. “Those Who Forget Historiography Are Doomed to Republish It: Empire, Imperialism and Contemporary Debates About American Power.” Review of International Studies 35(1):4567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Paul K. 2014. Networks of Domination: The Social Foundations of Peripheral Conquest in International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Paul K. 2018. “Embedded Authority: A Relational Network Approach to Hierarchy in World Politics.” Review of International Studies, 44(1): 128150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Kathleen R. 2015. The Politics of Everyday Europe: Constructing Authority in the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansergh, Nicholas. 1952. Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs: Problems of External Policy, 1931-1939. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mattern, Janice Bially, and Zarakol, Ayşe. 2016. “Hierarchies in World Politics.” International Organization 70(3):623654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, David M. 2016. “Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism.” International Studies Quarterly 60(3):475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Patrick J. 2015. “Great Powers, Hierarchy, and Endogenous Regimes: Rethinking the Domestic Causes of Peace.” International Organization 69(3):557588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Richard. 2010. The Party: The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
McIntyre, William David. 2009. The Britannic Vision: Historians and the Making of the British Commonwealth of Nations, 1907-48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Basingstoke.Google Scholar
Menon, Anand, and Schain, Martin. 2006. Comparative Federalism: The European Union and the United States in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
Milne, David. 1991. “Equality or Asymmetry: Why Choose?.” In Options for a New Canada, edited by Ronald Watts, and Douglas Brown, 285–307. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander J. 1999. “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics 31(2):127145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motyl, Alexander J. 2001. Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2018. “Defending Hierarchy from the Moon to the Indian Ocean: Symbolic Capital and Political Dominance in Early Modern China and the Cold War.” International Organization, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Neumann, Iver B. 1999. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Iver B., and Sending, Ole Jacob. 2010. Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2018. “Hegemonic-Order Theory: A Field-Theoretic Account.” European Journal of International Relations, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H., and Wright, Thomas. 2007. “What’s At Stake in the American Empire Debate.” American Political Science Review 101(2):253271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parent, Joseph. 2011. Uniting States: Voluntary Union in World Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Thazha V., Larson, Deborah Welch, and Wohlforth, William C.. 2014. Status in World Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, Simon Frankel. 2017. “A Relational View of Ontological Security in International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 61(1):7885.Google Scholar
Rector, Chad. 2009. Federations : The Political Dynamics of Cooperation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2004. “Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and Measurement.” Comparative Politics 36(4):481500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, Saskia. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savage, Jesse Dillon. 2011. “The Stability and Breakdown of Empire: European Informal Empire in China, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt.” European Journal of International Relations 17(2):161185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sending, Ole Jacob, and Neumann, Iver B.. 2006. “Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power.” International Studies Quarterly 50(3):651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirk, Susan L. 2007. China: Fragile Superpower: How China’s Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shirk, Susan L. 2014. “The Domestic Context of Chinese Foreign Security Policies.” In Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia, edited by Saadia M. Pekkanen, John Ravenhill, and Rosemary Hill. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigmund, Paul E. 1962. “The Influence of Marsilius of Padua on XVth-Century Conciliarism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 23(3):392402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, Georg. 1971. On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Skumsrud Andersen, Morten. 2016. “Semi-Cores in Imperial Relations: The Cases of Scotland and Norway.” Review of International Studies 42(1):178203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, David E. 1991. “Empire, Crown, and Canadian Federalism.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 24(3):451473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, Hendrik. 1996. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred C. 1999. “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the US Model.” Journal of Democracy 10(4):1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenden, Wilfried. 2002. “Asymmetric Federalism and Coalition-Making in Belgium.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 32(3):67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvan, David, and Majeski, Stephen. 2009. U.S. Foreign Policy in Perspective: Clients, Enemies, and Empire. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tarlton, Charles D. 1965. “Symmetry and Asymmetry as Elements of Federalism: A Theoretical Speculation.” The Journal of Politics 27(4):861874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, Ross. 2004. The New Chinese Empire: And What It Means for the United States. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Thompson, Lanny. 2002. “The Imperial Republic: A Comparison of the Insular Territories Under U.S. Dominion After 1898.” Pacific Historical Review 71(4):535574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1997. “How Empires End.” In After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building, edited by Karen Barkey, and M. von Hagen, 1–11. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1998. “International Communities, Secure or Otherwise.” In Security Communities, edited by E. Adler, and M. Barnett, 397412. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 2003. The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towns, Ann. 2009. “The Status of Women as a Standard of ‘Civilization’.” European Journal of International Relations 15(4):681706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 2007. War and the State: The Theory of International Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of international relations. Reading, MA: Addison-Webley.Google Scholar
Ward, Steven. 2017. “Lost in Translation: Social Identity Theory and the Study of Status in World Politics.” International Studies Quarterly, 61(4): 821834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Ronald. 1996. Comparing Federal Systems in the 1990s. Kingston: Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, Ronald L. 1998. “Federalism, Federal Political Systems, and Federations.” Annual Reviews of Political Science 1:117137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Katja. 1997. “Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: A Transaction Costs Approach to International Security Cooperation.” International Studies Quarterly 41(2):321340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Joe. 2016. “European Union Member States in Cross-National Analyses: The Dangers of Neglecting Supranational Policymaking.” International Studies Quarterly 60(1):91106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander, and Friedheim, Daniel. 1995. “Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State.” International Organization 49(4):689721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wibbels, Erik. 2005. Federalism and the Market: Intergovernmental Conflict and Economic Reform in the Developing World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron B. 1967. American Federalism in Perspective: Readings. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Wohlforth, William C. 2009. “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War.” World Politics 61(1):2857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuber, Christina Isabel. 2011. “Understanding the Multinational Game: Toward a Theory of Asymmetrical Federalism.” Comparative Political Studies 44(5):546571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Beyond anarchy: logics of political organization, hierarchy, and international structure
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Beyond anarchy: logics of political organization, hierarchy, and international structure
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Beyond anarchy: logics of political organization, hierarchy, and international structure
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *