The Network Analysis of International Relations: Overview of an Emergent Methodology

• Autorzy: Péter Kacziba
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The increasing complexity of international sphere and transnational processes challenge the traditional methodologies of International Relations. The growing number of state and non-state actors and the increasingly rapid interactions among them demand the development of new methodologies by which the international complexity could be more traceable and analysable. This paper reviews the framework of network paradigm among the possible alternatives. It examines the history of social network analysis, outlines core concepts of the most important pioneers and authors in IR, as well as investigates the possibilities and limits of network methodology. The aim of the paper is to briefly introduce network analyses trends that began to transform the traditional research methodologies in the field of international studies and related fields, including geopolitics and geoeconomics. The study will use two reference networks developed by the author to demonstrate methodological alternatives and explain the most important options of disciplinary application. At the end, the paper will illustrate that, despite its existing limitations, the network approach is particularly useful for studying and understanding international interactions. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Social networking; Network approach; International relations

PL

Serwisy społecznościowe; Podejście sieciowe; Stosunki międzynarodowe

• Czasopismo: Journal of International Studies
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: 14
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 155--171

Twórcy

autor

Péter Kacziba

• University of Pécs, Hungary

Bibliografia

• Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509.
• Barnes, J. (1954). Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations, 7, 39-58. doi:10.1177/001872675400700102.
• Bayer, R. (2006). Diplomatic Exchange Data set, v2006.1. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from http://correlatesofwar.org.
• Borgatti, S. P., & Grosser, T. J. (2015). Structural Equivalence: Meaning and Measures. In Wright, J. D., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. Elsevier, 621-625. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.43120-X.
• Borgatti, S. P., Brass, D. J., & Halgin, D. S. (2014). Social Network Research: Confusions, Criticisms, and Controversies. Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks, 40. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1-29.
• Brams, S. J. (1966). Transaction Flows in the International System. American Political Science Review, 60(4), 881-898. doi: 10.2307/1953763.
• Brams, S. (1969). The Structure of Influence Relationships in the International System. In Rosenau, J. N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory. New York: Free Press, 583-599.
• Breiger, R. (1981). Structures of economic interdependence among nations. In Blau P. M. &Merton, R. K., eds., Continuities in Structural Inquiry. London: Sage, 353-379.
• Caporaso, J. A. (1978). Dependence, Dependency, and Power in the Global System: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis. International Organization, 32(1), 13-43. doi:10.1017/S0020818300003842.
• Cartwright, D. & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: a generalization of Heider's theory. Psychological Review, 63(5), 277-293. doi:10.1037/h0046049.
• Christopherson, J. A. (1976). Structural Analysis of Transaction Systems: Vertical Fusion or Network Complexity? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(4), 637-662. doi:10.2307/173213.
• Corbetta, R., & Grant, K. A. (2012). Intervention in Conflicts from a Network Perspective. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 314-340. doi:10.1177/0738894212443343.
• Cranmer, S. J., Desmarais, B. A., & Menninga, E. J. (2012). Complex Dependencies in the Alliance Network. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 279-313. doi:10.1177/0738894212443446.
• Dorussen, H., & Ward, H. (2008). Intergovernmental Organizations and the Kantian Peace: A Network Perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(2), 189-212. doi:10.1177/0022002707313688.
• Eulau, H. (1962). Bases of Authority in Legislative Bodies: A Comparative Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(3), 309-321.
• Europa Publications (2016). The Europa World Year Book. 57th edition. London: Routledge.
• Faber, J. (1987). Measuring Cooperation, Conflict, and the Social Network of Nations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(3), 438-464. doi:10.1177/0022002787031003003.
• Fiellin, A. (1962). The Functions of Informal Groups in Legislative Institutions. The Journal of Politics, 24(1), 72-91. doi:10.2307/2126738.
• Hafner-Burton, E., & Montgomery, A. H. (2006). Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3-27. doi:10.1177/0022002705281669.
• Hafner-Burton, E. Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network Analysis for International Relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559-592. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090195.
• Healy, B., & Stein, A., (1973). The Balance of Power in International History: Theory and Reality. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(1), 33-61. doi:10.1177/002200277301700103.
• Heider F. (1946). Attitudes and Cognitive Organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275.
• Hoff, P. D. & Ward, M. D., (2004). Modeling Dependencies in International Relations Networks. Political Analysis, 12(2), 160-175. doi:10.1093/pan/mph012.
• Hwang, S. (2008). Past, present, and future of social network analysis: Network as a metaphor, method, theory, or paradigm? International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 4(9), 21-36. doi:10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v04i09/52979.
• Kim, R. E. (2020). Is Global Governance Fragmented, Polycentric, or Complex? The State of the Art of the Network Approach. International Studies Review, 22(4), 903-931. doi:10.1093/isr/viz052.
• Kramer, C. R. (2017). Network Theory and Violent Conflicts Studies in Afghanistan and Lebanon. London-New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R. & McPhee, W. N. (1968). Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Maoz, Z. (2011). Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816-2001. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762659.
• Maoz, Z. (2012a). How Network Analysis Can Inform the Study of International Relations. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 247-256. doi:10.1177/0738894212443341.
• Maoz, Z. (2012b). Preferential Attachment, Homophily, and the Structure of International Networks, 1816-2003. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 341-369. doi:10.1177/0738894212443344.
• Maoz, Z. (2017). Network Science and International Relations. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.517.
• Maoz, Z., Kuperman, R. D., Terris, L. & Talmud, I. (2006). Structural Equivalence and International Conflict - A Social Networks Analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 664-689. doi:10.1177/0022002706291053.
• Matthews, D. R. (1959). The Folkways of the United States Senate: Conformity to Group Norms and Legislative Effectiveness. American Political Science Review, 53(4), 1064-1089. doi:10.2307/1952075.
• McDonald, H. B. & Rosecrance, R. (1985). Alliance and Structural Balance in the International System: A Reinterpretation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29(1), 57-82. doi:10.1177/0022002785029001004.
• Mitchell, J. C. (1969). Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press. doi:10.1086/225354.
• Monsma, S. V. (1966). Interpersonal Relations in the Legislative System: A Study of the 1964 Michigan House of Representatives. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10(3), 350-363. doi: 10.2307/2108890.
• Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Nervous and mental disease monograph series, No 58. Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.
• Nemeth, R. J. & Smith, D. A. (1985). International Trade and World-System Structure: A Multiple Network Analysis. Fernand Braudel Center Review, 8(4), 517-560.
• Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001.
• Patterson, C. H. (1959). Attitudes Toward Work. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 7(3), 155-158.
• Polacheck, S. (1980). Conflict and Trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 55-78. doi:10.1177/002200278002400103.
• Routt, G. C. (1938). Interpersonal relationships and the legislative process. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 195(1), 129-136. doi:10.1177/000271623819500118.
• Rusinowska A., Berghammer R., De Swart H., & Grabisch M. (2011). Social Networks: Prestige, Centrality, and Influence. In: de Swart H., eds., Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science. RAMICS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6663. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 22-39. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21070-9-2.
• Russett, B. M., & Lamb, C. W. (1969). Global patterns of diplomatic exchange 1963-1964. Journal of Peace Research, 6(1), 37-55. doi:10.1177/002234336900600104.
• Russett, B. M. (1968). Delineating international regions. In: Singer, D. J., ed., Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence, New York: Free Press, 317-352.
• Salancik, G. R. (1995). Wanted: A good network theory of organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 345-349. doi:10.2307/2393642.
• Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London-New Delhi: SAGE Publication. doi:10.4135/9781529716597.
• Shannon, Paul et al. (2003). Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Research, 13(11): 2498-2504. doi:10.1101/gr.1239303.
• Steiber, S. (1979). The World System and World Trade: An Empirical Exploration of Conceptual Conflict. Sociological Quarterly, 20(1): 23-36. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1979.tb02182.x.
• Szántó, Z. (2011). Egy kettős évforduló kapcsán: a strukturális kiegyensúlyozottságelméletének újrafelfedezése [Regarding a dual anniversary: re-discovering the theory of structural equivalence]. In: Takács, K., ed., Társadalmi kapcsolathálózatok elemzése [Analysis of social networks]. Budapest: BCE Szociológia ésTársadalompolitika Intézet, 32-38.
• Victor, J. N., Montgomery, A. H., & Lubell, M. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190228217.001.0001.
• Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815478.
• Wendt, A. (2015). Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316005163.
• Wertheimer, M., & Puente, A. E. (2020). A Brief History of Psychology. Sixth Edition. New York-London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203686485.
• West, G. (2017). Scale: The Universal Law of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life, in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. New York: Penguin Press.
• White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. R. (1976). Social Structure from Multiple Networks I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4),730-780. doi:10.1086/226141.
• Zinonyev, A. (2010). Data visualization in political and social sciences. Cornell University, Retrieved November 10, 2020, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1188v1.pdf

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-8330.2021/14-3/10