Playing with International Relations theory

So, here’s a new IR theory for you: Okay, traditional realism is well expressed in the game Diplomacy. Everyone out for themselves, there are no permanent alliances, the internal make-up of a state doesn't really matter.  Realism has a lot of problems, but it is a fairly effective means for measuring hard power and how it shapes interactions and the world stage.

Sometimes states behavior is broken down on a values versus interest spectrum. 
Values are often associated with ideologies such as liberalism, communism, or fascism (not all values are good obviously).

Alternately, state behavior can be broken down into hard power and soft power.  Joseph Nye came up with this idea and has been plugging it ever since.  He's on the board for a new project at CSIS is running called "smart power" which is about using both types productively.  Until a certain level of independent power is achieved, such groups should be treated as derived variables.

So, cribbing some from Civilization 3+, I wonder if perhaps a good breakdown of power and interests would have three categories: military, economic, and cultural.  The more power you have in any of the three areas, the better able you are to impose your will on the world. (Even if your will is expansion of democracy or the like).  Military power is perhaps the least influenced by internal structure (hence realism) and culture is the most.  Similarly military power is zero-sum and both culture and economics are positive sum games.  Implications after the jump.

Guerrilla warfare and nukes have both gone a long way to bounding military power.  Economics have grown steadily more prominent, just look at the percent of the GDP going to spending.   I'd suggest that the first major jump in cultural importance was the rise of evangelical religions and thus crusades.  The treaty of Westphalia and rise of sovereignty in Europe was an attempt to close the Pandora's box of culture.  The rise of mass-communication opened the box again.

This system can include a role for international organizations, non-state/trans-national actors.  To keep analysis, I'd probably need to set some minimum thresholds for being considered as an actor of note.

A few things left out by my system:

• Technology.  Technology influences all three and is a key determinant of power.  I'm treating      it more as an independent variable/world state. 
• Environment.  Similar to tech.  Culture and economics can be key influences on how we treat the environment.
• Any distinction between political culture, ideology, religion, and civil society.
• A role for espionage.  I don't consider it important enough to breakout.  It has its role influencing all three of course.
• Non-aggregated consideration of the interests of actors.  A country's chief executive my have the most influence over how they use their power, but in non-totalitarian societies much if not most of the economic/cultural power will not be in his or her hands.  That said, I think the world state is still fractured enough to aggregate primarily at the national level.  I don't think such an approach would work for U.S. states for example.

[Edit: Formatting problems fixed]

Comments

[Heuristics Inc.]

Did you ever try the online (free) game NationStates?
-bill

[Greg Sanders]

I don't think I have. I'll have to check it out.