Review: The Logic of Anarchy
| Author | Kal Holsti |
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002070209304800412 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
786
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
THE
LOGIC
OF
ANARCHY
Neorealism
to
structural
realism
Barry
Buzan,
Charles
Jones,
&
Richard
Little
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press,
1993,
viii,
26
7pp,
US$
4
o.oo
cloth,
US$1
5.5
o
paper
Read
almost
any
article
on international
theory
and
it
will
often
begin
with
a
ritual
denunciation
of
Kenneth
Waltz's
1979
classic,
Theory
of
International
Politics.
Critics
have
charged
Waltz
with
pseudo-scientific
pretensions, unabashed
support
of
American
Cold
War
policies,
a-his-
toric
determinism,
and
many
other
sins.
Few
serious
works
of
scholar-
ship
in
international
relations
have
attracted
such
notoriety.
The authors
of
The
Logic
of
Anarchy
take
on
the
task
of
rehabilitating
Waltz,
not through
a
systematic
defence
(many
of
Waltz's
critics
have
not
read
his
book
carefully),
but
by
a
rigorous
reconstruction
and
extension
of
structural
explanations
of
the
main
patterns
of
interna-
tional
politics.
They
address
four
main
problems:
(1)
how to
expand
Waltz's
very
narrow
definition
of
international
politics
which
excludes
connections
with
other
sectors
of
the
world
system,
in
particular
eco-
nomics;
(2)
how
to
build
a
theory
of
international
politics
that
avoids
excessive
determinism,
that
is,
a
theory
that
allows
for
human
agency
and
purpose;
(3)
how to
account
for
system
change;
and
(4)
how
to
explain
the
large
amount
of
co-operation
that
takes
place
in
the
anar-
chical
international
system.
The
authors
name
the resulting
analytical
framework
'structural
realism'
because
it
locates
most
of
the
explana-
tion
at
the
level
of
the
international
system
and
acknowledges
that
one
of
the
system's
main
characteristics
remains
anarchy
(though
re-defined
from the
Waltz
version).
This
is
a
bold
enterprise,
whose
ultimate
value
can
only
be
deter-
mined
after
the
necessary
empirical research
is
completed.
Some
appears
in
Richard
Little's
chapters
on
the
Greek
city-state
system
and
the
Roman
empire.
These
demonstrate
the
promise,
but
also
the
major
problem,
of
any
structural
theory
of
international
politics.
The
authors
seek to
develop
a
single
trans-historical
and
trans-cultural
theory
of
international
politics.
But
is
it
possible
or
even
desirable
to
devise
a
single
theoretical
scheme
to
explain,
for
example,
the
main
character-
To continue reading
Request your trial