Thomas J. Volgy – författare

The three main levels of analysis in international relations have been the systemic, the national, and the individual.  A fourth level that falls between the systemic and the national is the region.  It is woefully underdeveloped in comparison to the attention afforded the other three.  Yet regions tend to be distinctive theaters for international politics.  Otherwise, we would not recognize that Middle Eastern interstate politics somehow does not resemble Latin American interstate politics or interstate politics in Southern Africa (although once the Middle East and Southern Africa may have seemed more similar in their mutual fixation with opposition to domestic policies in Israel and  South Africa, respectively). 

This book, divided into three parts, first makes a case for studying regional politics even though it must also be appreciated that regional boundaries are also hazy and not always easy to pin down empirically.  The second part examines power distributions within regions as an important entry point to studying regional similarities and differences.  Two emphases are stressed.  One is that regional power assessments need to be conditioned by controlling for weak states which are more common in some regions than they are in others.  The other emphasis is on regional power hierarchies.  Some regions have strong regional hierarchies while others do not. Regions with strong hierarchies operate much differently from those without them in the sense that the former are more pacific than the latter.  The third part of the book focuses on regional differences in terms of conflict behavior, order preferences, rivalries, and rivalry termination.

This edited book complements and follows up on the book, Thompson and Volgy et al, Regions, Power and Conflict: Constrained Capabilities, Hierarchy, and Rivalry.  It is predicated in part on the paucity of published material available on comparing regional international politics. Monadic, dyadic, and systemic approaches all have their uses and have been exploited extensively. The same cannot be said about comparative regional analysis.  The premise is that a great deal of international politics takes place within regional parameters.  Most states simply lack the capability or interest in devoting many resources to extra-regional affairs. Yet each region is distinctive.  In some, military coups remain common while they have died out as a form of political practice in others.  A few have been highly conflictual and then become more pacific, while others persist in their conflict intensity.  Some have powerful neighbors with intervention tendencies, while others are surrounded by relatively weak states. Some are rich; others are poor. The point is that regions, all with proper names, have attributes that can be harnessed through comparison to explain why regional behavior differs greatly across the planet. The aim is to replace the proper names with the leading variables that appear to drive behavior. For instance, to shrug and say “that’s the Middle East for you” does not take us very far.  Replacing the Middle East label with conceptualization about how a set of small, weak, autocratic states behave subject to high penetration by major powers might take us farther than shrugging off regional identity.    

Political shocks have come to be considered highly salient for explaining major changes to international politics and to the foreign policies of states. Such shocks can occur at all levels of analysis: domestically, dyadically, regionally, or globally. They range from political phenomena such as coups and wars to ecological catastrophes. These shocks are sufficiently disruptive to cause foreign policy makers to reconsider their foreign policy orientations and to contemplate major changes to their policies. In fact, some have argued that it is mostly through political shocks that fundamental policy change occurs in most states. No wonder then that political shocks are now increasingly part of the toolbox of considerations used by foreign policy and international relations scholars as they focus on understanding patterns of conflict and cooperation between states. 

Given the salience of political shocks to understand foreign policy change, this book brings together a group of both senior and more junior scholars whose previous work has shown substantial promise for moving forward theory and empirical analysis. Their combined efforts in this book highlight the value of multiple theoretical and empirical approaches to a clearer understanding of the nature of political shocks and their consequences for foreign policy and international politics.