Hierarchies in World Politics

Abstract

Hierarchy-centered approaches to IR promise to deliver what anarchy-centered approaches have not: a framework for theorizing and empirically analyzing world politics as a global system rather than just an international one. At the core of this proposition are three features of hierarchical systems as they are represented across the growing IR literature on the topic. First, the structures of differentiation at the core of hierarchical systems are deeply implicated with power. Hierarchical systems are thus intrinsically political. Second, in world politics, hierarchies stratify, rank, and organize the relations not only among states but also other kinds of actors as well, and often even a mix of different actors within a single structure of differentiation. Third, there are many different kinds of hierarchical relations in world politics, each of which generate different “logics” influencing social, moral, and behavioral outcomes. Hierarchy has been understood in the IR literature in two ways: narrowly, as a relationship of legitimate authority; and broadly, as intersubjective manifestations of organized inequality. Hierarchy operates in a variety of different ways that range from ordering solutions to deep structures. We identify three such “logics” that have been fruitfully explored in IR scholarship and that can form the basis of a future research agenda: hierarchy as an institutionalized functional bargain between actors (a logic of trade-offs); hierarchy as differentiated social and political roles shaping behavior (a logic of positionality); and hierarchy as a productive political space or structure (a logic of productivity).

Arctic governance

“…These two main categories are not at odds with each other, but rather distinguish between how superficially or how 'deeply' a hierarchy is entrenched (Mattern and Zarakol, 2016). In the transactional category, we see how hierarchies are not about direct coercion or dominance, but about relations that are seen as mutually beneficial or where the perceived costs of hierarchy are outweighed by perceived benefits (Lake, 2017).…”

“…Alternatively, hierarchies may be expressions of more embedded forms of power in which actor identities are so structured by longstanding forms of hierarchy that hierarchy becomes difficult to identify and, by extension, difficult to contest: for example, arguments that illustrate how discourses make superior and inferior spaces of politics and mark actors as superior and inferior (OECD countries vs the 'developing world'; 'transitional countries') (Mattern and Zarakol, 2016). Below, we will explore such dichotomous hierarchies in looking at Arctic/ non-Arctic states in the discussion of circumpolar governance dynamics and western/ postSoviet states in people-to-people cross-border politics.…”

Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things

“…Formally, great powers do not possess extra legislative powers: they cannot dictate the rules of the game in international society. Still, informally, they have executive prerogatives-in waging anti-hegemonic wars to 18 restore the balance of power (Bull, 2002(Bull, [1977 (Donnelly, 2009(Donnelly, , 2015 as well as a defence of hierarchy (Donnelly, 2006(Donnelly, , 2009Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016). Assessing the former, anti-anarchy argument is relevant for the present discussion.…”

“…Two principal groups of interlocutors can be distinguished depending on whether they prefer an anarchical, or an hierarchical structure. Proponents of hierarchy (in IR see Donnelly 2006Donnelly , 2009Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016) think of world politics in terms of an hierarchical authority covering the globe. The form of such authority is not international but global-it can range from a unitary world government (Craig, 2008;Nielsen, 1988;Wendt, 2003), to a more loosely structured global federation of states (Nardin, 2011(Nardin, : 2065(Nardin, -2067, to an ensemble of issue-specific global institutions.…”

Authority Under Construction: The European Union in Comparative Political Perspective

“…There remains a strong disciplinary incentive in international relations, particularly American-based scholarship, to accept the canonical view that anarchy is the guiding principle of politics among nation-states even as this view has increasingly come under question (Lake, 2009;Mattern and Zarakol, 2016;McConaughey et al, 2018). Yet IR scholarship also has a long tradition of pushing the boundaries of anarchy, from the early Grotian tradition, to Hedley Bull's exploration of what he called the 'anarchical society' among nation-states (Bull, 1977), to those that see international regimes as social institutions in a transnational environment (Ruggie, 1982).…”