Within the realist school of international relations, a prevailing view holds that the anarchic structure of the international system invariably forces the great powers to seek security at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to an unrelenting struggle for power and dominance. Rational Theory of International Politics offers a more nuanced alternative to th Within the realist school of international relations, a prevailing view holds that the anarchic structure of the international system invariably forces the great powers to seek security at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to an unrelenting struggle for power and dominance. Rational Theory of International Politics offers a more nuanced alternative to this view, one that provides answers to the most fundamental and pressing questions of international relations. Why do states sometimes compete and wage war while at other times they cooperate and pursue peace? Does competition reflect pressures generated by the anarchic international system or rather states' own expansionist goals? Are the United States and China on a collision course to war, or is continued coexistence possible? Is peace in the Middle East even feasible? Charles Glaser puts forward a major new theory of international politics that identifies three kinds of variables that influence a state's strategy: the state's motives, specifically whether it is motivated by security concerns or greed; material variables, which determine its military capabilities; and information variables, most importantly what the state knows about its adversary's motives. Rational Theory of International Politics demonstrates that variation in motives can be key to the choice of strategy; that the international environment sometimes favors cooperation over competition; and that information variables can be as important as material variables in determining the strategy a state should choose.
Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation
Within the realist school of international relations, a prevailing view holds that the anarchic structure of the international system invariably forces the great powers to seek security at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to an unrelenting struggle for power and dominance. Rational Theory of International Politics offers a more nuanced alternative to th Within the realist school of international relations, a prevailing view holds that the anarchic structure of the international system invariably forces the great powers to seek security at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to an unrelenting struggle for power and dominance. Rational Theory of International Politics offers a more nuanced alternative to this view, one that provides answers to the most fundamental and pressing questions of international relations. Why do states sometimes compete and wage war while at other times they cooperate and pursue peace? Does competition reflect pressures generated by the anarchic international system or rather states' own expansionist goals? Are the United States and China on a collision course to war, or is continued coexistence possible? Is peace in the Middle East even feasible? Charles Glaser puts forward a major new theory of international politics that identifies three kinds of variables that influence a state's strategy: the state's motives, specifically whether it is motivated by security concerns or greed; material variables, which determine its military capabilities; and information variables, most importantly what the state knows about its adversary's motives. Rational Theory of International Politics demonstrates that variation in motives can be key to the choice of strategy; that the international environment sometimes favors cooperation over competition; and that information variables can be as important as material variables in determining the strategy a state should choose.
Compare
30 review for Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation
Related products
Tricked: An Abduction Fantasy
Grand Illusion: The Fantasy of Voter Choice in a Two-party Tyranny
Green Magic: The Fantasy Realms of Jack Vance
Montrose Paranormal Academy, Book 2: Crossing Nexis: A Young Adult Urban Fantasy Academy Novel
Year's Best Fantasy 4
Dominating Jess (A Fantasy Fulfilled Novella, #1)
Dreamscapes Magical Menagerie: Creating Fantasy Creatures and Animals with Watercolor
Nate Huston –
Wanna know about defensive realism? Here ya go. Despite driveling ON AND ON AND ON about relaxing assumptions (I get it - it's good to dive deeper, but man, I'm dying here), Glaser does a nice job of laying out the defensive realist's argument. It's all about the security dilemma, and if you can signal to your adversary that what you're doing is not meant to threaten him, perhaps there's a way out. Wanna know about defensive realism? Here ya go. Despite driveling ON AND ON AND ON about relaxing assumptions (I get it - it's good to dive deeper, but man, I'm dying here), Glaser does a nice job of laying out the defensive realist's argument. It's all about the security dilemma, and if you can signal to your adversary that what you're doing is not meant to threaten him, perhaps there's a way out.
Rich –
I've long thought that the great debate over the "isms" was an exercise in virtue signaling. But, despite the incompleteness in these competing views of how the world hangs together, there is a utility to wrestling with the ideas. Glaser's work here is not one of the great "isms," but it gets very close to trying to become one--despite its humble repeated protestations. Like in the great debate, people are only left with "a sense" of whether there is enough truth in the empirics to curry support I've long thought that the great debate over the "isms" was an exercise in virtue signaling. But, despite the incompleteness in these competing views of how the world hangs together, there is a utility to wrestling with the ideas. Glaser's work here is not one of the great "isms," but it gets very close to trying to become one--despite its humble repeated protestations. Like in the great debate, people are only left with "a sense" of whether there is enough truth in the empirics to curry support for these incomplete yet grand theories of the relations between states. And, with that said, my sense of Glaser's work is that this is a useful contribution that moves beyond the system selects, or material selects, or ideas all the way down, but instead finds that the decision by states to compete or cooperate is the result of a complex set of interactions between the context of the states and the states themselves.
Albert B. Wolf –
alex bitter –
Ben Denison –
Rizwan Niaz Raiyan –
Raymond Thomas –
Betsy –
William C. Rose –
John F. –
Brad –
Layla Dawood –
Jesse Wheeler –
Jeanette –
Keith –
Mike –
Rebekah Sewell –
Serkan Bakışgan –
Jamison H –
Christopher Buchheit –
Luke –
Aamir Sohail –
Mariana –
John –
Jimmy –
Nick Anderson –
Caitlin –
JMOL –
Hugh –
Spenser A. –