|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
よく一緒に購入されている商品
商品の説明
内容説明
A landmark work of international relations theory, Power and Interdependence first published in 1977 and posited a radically comprehensive explanation of the mechanics driving world affairs“power politics” on one hand and “complex interdependence” on the other hand.
This widely influential book reexamined the military and economic interests of state and non-state actors, and in an argument made before the end of the Cold War, the authors broadened the prevailing realist worldview of the time and anticipated many of the developments in our modern era of globalization. With a new preface by the authors and a foreword by Fareed Zakaria that looks at world affairs after the Cold War, the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the global financial crisis, Power and Interdependence is required reading for all students of international relations.
From the Back Cover
Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence, 3rd Edition*＼ This landmark book, an original work by two of the most renowned scholars in the field, continues to offer a rich theoretical approach to understanding contemporary world politics and valid general prescriptions for policy. Power and Interdependence was written to construct a way of looking at the world of politics that helps us understand the relationships between economics and politics, and patterns of institutionalized international cooperation, while retaining key realist insights about the roles that power and interests play in world politics. The new Third Edition has been thoroughly updated to include analyses of the effects of new technologies and growing globalism on power and interdependence in today's world. For those interested in international relations and politics.
--このテキストは、 ペーパーバック 版に関連付けられています。
--このテキストは、 ペーパーバック 版に関連付けられています。
登録情報
|
この商品を見た後に買っているのは？
カスタマーレビュー
最も参考になったカスタマーレビュー
7 人中、6人の方が、｢このレビューが参考になった｣と投票しています。
形式:ペーパーバック
リベラル制度論の代表的論者コヘインと、様々な理論的立場を受容しているナイとの有名な著書です。
相互依存論の書として有名な本書ですが、コヘインのAfter Hegemonyと比較して読むと、本書の方では国内レベルの話なども射程に含められている点など、理論的に何を容れて何を捨象するとか、その結果理論的な説明力や精緻さ、対象範囲がどうなるかという点も参考になりそうです。
この第三版では、グローバリゼーションについての議論が１パート分付け加えられて、それまでの相互依存論の概念の延長上に定義・考察されています。その意味で、国際関係論の発展という観点からも参考になるところがあります。
翻訳は出ていませんが、論理展開も分かりやすく、比較的読みやすい一冊です。
Amazon.com で最も参考になったカスタマーレビュー (beta)
Amazon.com:
11件のカスタマーレビュー
19 人中、19人の方が、｢このレビューが参考になった｣と投票しています。
The secret of understanding ...
2004/4/19
形式:ペーパーバック
Keohane and Nye say that "Contemporary world politics is not a seamless web; it is a tapestry of diverse relationships. In such a world, one model cannot explain all situations. The secret of understanding lies in knowing which approach or combinations of approaches to use in analyzing a situation". In that phrase we can find the purpose of this book: to give the reader some analytical tools that will help him to comprehend our world.
The authors say that neither the traditionalist vision nor the modernist vision is nowadays adequate to interpret our world, due to the fact that there is an ever- growing and multidimensional interdependence. Their task is to point out to us the situations in which the assumptions that characterize each vision should be applied, to offer good predictions and satisfying answers. In their words, "to provide a means of distilling and blending the wisdom in both positions by developing a coherent theoretical framework for the political analysis of interdependence".
In "Power and interdependence", you will be introduced to quite a few interesting concepts, starting by what does interdependence mean, and the differences between interdependence and dependence. Each definition is accompanied by several examples, that make the concepts easier to grasp.
I found especially interesting the way in which Keohane and Nye explained the role of power in interdependence, by distinguishing between two dimensions of interdependence: sensitivity and vulnerability. Sensitivity has to do with how much a country is affected by the policies of another country before reacting to those changes (the key assumption here is that the framework isn't changed). On the other hand, vulnerability takes into account how well and quickly a country can react to the changes in policies produced by other states, and has to do with the existence of alternatives (the assumption here is that the framework is changed). The authors illustrate this distinction with examples taken from history, and conclude that sensitivity interdependence is not as important as vulnerability interdependence from the point of view of providing power resources to actors.
Another interesting feature of this book is that the authors compare two ideal types: realism and one that they constructed, complex interdependence. None of these ideal types reflects reality exactly, but they help to understand what happens, because most situations fall between these two extremes.
They say that the realist ideal type involves three basic assumptions. To start with, states (rational and coherent units) are the more important actors in world politics, and interstate channels are the norm. Secondly, force is the more effective instrument of policy, even when there are others. Lastly, there is a hierarchy of issues, and the one that dominates is military security.
In contrast to that, the ideal type of complex interdependence has rather different assumptions. To begin with, the state is not the only important unit, and there are many channels that connect societies (not only interstate channels, but also transgovernmental and transnational ones). Also, there isn't a hierarchy among issues, and it is more difficult to distinguish between domestic and foreign policy. Finally, "military interdependence is not used by governments towards other governments within the region, or on the issues, when complex interdependence prevails". By that, I think that the authors mean the relationships between developed countries (North/North relationships). In complex interdependence, military force loses a lot (but not all) of its importance, mainly because using force can have negative effects on non security goals.
Other themes that you will find in "Power and interdependence" but that I won't explain now (this review is already too long!!) are linkage strategies (different for strong and weak states) and the role of International Organizations, agenda setting, international regime changes, the relationships between USA and Canada and Australia, and USA, its leadership and complex interdependence.
Keohane and Nye try to explain us how our world is changing (and yes, they had already observed those changes when this book was first published, many years ago), and highlight many times throughout the pages of this book that they believe that different frameworks are needed for different situations, and that old contributions are as worthy as new ones. It is essential, however, to know when to use each one, and when we must combine them, in order to grasp the various situations. Due to the fact that they repeat the same thing many times, the reader is highly unlikely to forget it. To me that is great, because it is an idea we need to remember.
"Power and interdependence" is neither overly easy to read, nor too difficult. However, if you are tenacious you will be rewarded, because you will end up having another tool with which to understand the world. All in all, strongly recommended :)
Belen Alcat
7 人中、7人の方が、｢このレビューが参考になった｣と投票しています。
Realism throught the looking glass
2008/1/8
形式:ペーパーバック
Power and Interdependence, is a classic work that sets out to add a new dimension to international relations thinking. It, literally, turns classical realist thought on its head to attempt to explain areas of IR that realist thought usually struggles to.
Keohane and Nye start out by questioning the realist assumptions made by writers such as Waltz, namely that IR theory is state centric, in an anarchical world where military security is most important. By turning these assumptions on their head, the writers develop what they term `complex interdependence', the conditions of which are that the use of force is minor, that there are multiple issues not arranged hierarchically and that there are multiple channels of contact between states. The key difference that arises out of this is the notion that regimes become more important under a complex interdependence theory and therefore greatly assists in explaining why hegemonic states such as the US still participate in multi-lateral institutions, such as the UN.
The authors then proceed to use four case studies to test their theory. The first two issues deal with global issues, being Oceans (that is law of the sea), money (capital controls, Bretton Woods), while the second two examine the relationship between Canada and the US and Australia and the US. The authors then proceed to examine each case study, looking at changes in the relationship and applying each of the three factors mentioned above. This then leads them to determine which end of the scale the relationships sit, complex interdependence, realist or somewhere in between.
As they make it clear at the beginning of their book that their theory does not set out to replace realist notions of power and security, but rather seeks to enhance it by providing alternative tools to use where realist thought appears to fail. For example, realism has never been very good at explaining why states join international organisations such as the UN, nor why states sometimes appear to place economic priorities ahead of military or security ones. The theory of complex interdependence seeks to address this problem.
One area where there is a lack of depth is in describing how states form preferences. The authors themselves acknowledge this and leave it open for further investigation.
Keohane and Nye start out by questioning the realist assumptions made by writers such as Waltz, namely that IR theory is state centric, in an anarchical world where military security is most important. By turning these assumptions on their head, the writers develop what they term `complex interdependence', the conditions of which are that the use of force is minor, that there are multiple issues not arranged hierarchically and that there are multiple channels of contact between states. The key difference that arises out of this is the notion that regimes become more important under a complex interdependence theory and therefore greatly assists in explaining why hegemonic states such as the US still participate in multi-lateral institutions, such as the UN.
The authors then proceed to use four case studies to test their theory. The first two issues deal with global issues, being Oceans (that is law of the sea), money (capital controls, Bretton Woods), while the second two examine the relationship between Canada and the US and Australia and the US. The authors then proceed to examine each case study, looking at changes in the relationship and applying each of the three factors mentioned above. This then leads them to determine which end of the scale the relationships sit, complex interdependence, realist or somewhere in between.
As they make it clear at the beginning of their book that their theory does not set out to replace realist notions of power and security, but rather seeks to enhance it by providing alternative tools to use where realist thought appears to fail. For example, realism has never been very good at explaining why states join international organisations such as the UN, nor why states sometimes appear to place economic priorities ahead of military or security ones. The theory of complex interdependence seeks to address this problem.
One area where there is a lack of depth is in describing how states form preferences. The authors themselves acknowledge this and leave it open for further investigation.
10 人中、8人の方が、｢このレビューが参考になった｣と投票しています。
An alternative to Hans Morgenthau's "Realism?"
2000/6/12
形式:ペーパーバック|Amazonが確認した購入
In recent years the effects of the "internet age" to foster "globalism" has been described by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, among others. In the current circumstances, it seems as if old notions of power politics by nation-states is just an inaccurate way of looking at international relations. What other ways are there? Keohane and Nye, writing originally in the mid-1980s, describe a "theoretical" framework for what they refer to "interdependence." They illustrate their theory with examples of international monetary negotiations relating to the IMF, in negotiations relating to the Law of the Sea, and US-Canada relations. They state that increasingly major corporations or working government bureaucracies, working apart from the institions of the State Department in the US (for example), reach out to their counterparts across national boundaries. Speaking as someone who has had mid-level military assignments in other nations, it seems to me gratifying that these kinds of situations are presented and discussed. However, I agree with the Afterword in the 1989 edition of the book written by the authors themselves, that states that their treatment in this book is focused on areas where realism was not intended to apply in the first place. Also, they acknowledge (on page 159) that in the kinds of circumstances that "interdependence" applies, domestic politics makes foreign policy decisions subordinate to private interests. I think Hans Morgenthau would say that the role of those making decisions for nations in national security areas need to be leaders in determining national interests and applying policy based on (realist) analysis, and not followers on domestic politics. From my own point of view, lack of focus on "national interests" has caused US foreign policy to be disjointed and opportunistic in recent years.
これらのレビューは参考になりましたか？
ご意見はクチコミでお聞かせください。
リストマニア
|
|
関連商品を探す
同じキーワードの商品を探す
フィードバック
- カタログ情報、または画像について報告
- 著者からのコメント
- 出版社からのコメント
|
