The Complexity Turn In International Relations Theory:“Complex Systems” As A Research Program

Why were mainstream IR theories unable to predict international and structural changes such as the end of Cold War and “9.11?” Existing theories lack explanation regarding systemic change, especially with regards to explanation on specific mechanisms of change.Thus, complexity theory can play a supplementary role to existing mainstream IR theories.First, mainstream theories are system-level theories, and also macro-structural theories.They are in nature top-down, linear analytic models, confined to analyzing systemic stability and international continuity. In the field of natural science, this kind of analysis is called Newtonian determinism. We tend to belive that a theory’s parsimony equals to scienticity,because it guides a very clear logic of causal relationship between variables. Yet, in today’s complex international environment, using only a small number of variables and limited information is not likely to have much predictive ability. Theory however parsimonious, if it cannot reflect reality, then its value and practicality is likely to be questioned. According to complexity theory, the complexity of world politics comes not only from increase in the number of variables in question, but also from the non-linear interaction between these variables and the unintended macro-level systemic effects they produce. Positivist epistemology and state-centric IR theories built upon it search for nomological causal relationship from observable events, while constructivism focus on the systemic structure’s constitutive role, but both rationalist and constructivist theories look the other way when it comes to dealing with contingent variables, plural non-state actors, or bottom-up, complex interaction between variables and processes on the micro-level.Second, complexity theory analyses and studies complex systems and its structure and behavior. Systems share the same components such as structure and interacting units as other IR systems theories. But complexity theory further adds the “external environment” as a system component. External environment includes technology, weapons, physical, economic and such systems differentiated from, but deeply inter-connected with, and can exert a great amount of influence on the international political and social system. In effect, this is looking at the international system as a “living organic system”, and not a closed system. An open system would include not only negative feedbacks that mainstream theories assume for a homeostatic systems analysis, but also positive ones that would induce systemic change. This means that we cannot “hold all other variables constant,” while tracing the change that only one variable occurs. Rather, we should look at the collective interaction between variables on the micro-level and the macro-results they produce. Complexity theory defines this as“co-evolution” and “emergence,” respectively.Third, exiting mainstream theories use classical micro-economics as its main methodology, for example reductionism, rational choice, game theory, quantitative analysis,all which are essentially individualistic under the rubric of rationalist tradition, to predict macro-results and international events. Yet, analyzing a nation’s strategic choice or a leader’s expected utility to predict macro-results and systems-level phenomena, such as war, will have to transcend countless levels-of-analysis. Perhaps in-between this causal relationship mightexist the bureaucracy, society, state, transnational state, regions, and etc. Furthermore, as critical theories would argue, rationalist theories are valid only within fixed, given structures,in essence they are problem-solving theories. Systemic change has never been their focus of interest. In this respect, complexity theory can make a theoretical contribution because it provides a concrete explanation regarding systemic change and the internal mechanism of change.Complexity theory assumes that actors have bounded rationality, but unlike social evolutionary theory, actors are intentional, teleological and strategic organisms. Individual and social agency implies that actors can make pro-active choices such as learning, searching and adaptation, through which actors can supplement its bounded rationality. Such collective unit-interactions on the micro-level will also interact with the external environment,ultimately leading to “co-evolution” on both the micro-macro levels of the international system. Complexity theory refers to this process “self-organization”. When change within the system is accumulated and reaches a critical point, then abrupt(and not gradual) change will occur, what IR refers to as systemic change. Various methodologies of complexity theory such as agent-based modelling, computer simulation, and counterfactual thinking, is used to trace such micro-macro dynamic change. This logic also equates to the epistemology of scientific realism, which argues that explanation should be “generated” and not simply derived from unchanging laws.Therefore, my dissertation strives to establish a IR theory based on complexity. To do this, I use the three main assumptions of rationalist IR theories built on three different levels-of-analysis, i.e. anarchy, state-centrism, and actor-rationality, and offer a complexity-turn perspective. First, complexity theory argues that on the systems-level, the organizing principle is not an anarchic absence of higher authority, but rather “organized complexity”, meaning a conflation of order and disorder. Second, on the unit-level, the analytic focus is on variable-interactions, tracing the co-evolution of inter-unit interactions and unit-environment interactions and how they produce change on the macro-level. In essence, this is a bottom-up and top-down combined analytical model. Doing so will supplement the shortcomings of reductionism and holism, and also the long social science debate regarding agent and structure. Third, on the sub-unit level, international actors are not only confined to states but also non-states play an important role on global stage. All actors have bounded rationality. The main part of the dissertation deals with each of the three complexity-based levels-of-analysis in detail, i.e. analyzing the shortcomings of mainstream IR assumptions in explaining systemic change and why and how complexity theory’s assumptions can supplement them. Each level-of-analysis provides explanation on the mechanism of systemic change. In conclusion, my dissertation talks about the need for a complexity-turn in IR theory and its scientific philosophy, as well as further area of study required in the future.