keohane nye transnational relations and world politics an introduction international organization...

7/30/2019 Keohane Nye Transnational Relations and World Politics an Introduction International Organization 1971

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/keohane-nye-transnational-relations-and-world-politics-an-introduction-international 1/22

Transnational Relations and World Politics: An IntroductionAuthor(s): Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Robert O. KeohaneReviewed work(s):Source: International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics(Summer, 1971), pp. 329-349Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706043 .

Accessed: 29/02/2012 14:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International

Organization.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706043?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706043?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress



TransnationalelationsndWorldPolitics:

An Introduction

JOSEPH S. NYE, JR., AND ROBERT 0. KEOHANE

STUDENTS and practitionersf internationalolitics

havetraditionallyoncentratedheir ttentionn relationshipsetween tates.The state, egarded s an actorwith purposes ndpower, s thebasicunitofaction; tsmain agents rethe diplomat nd soldier. he interplayf govern-

mentalpoliciesyields hepattern f behavior hatstudents f internationalpolitics ttempt o understandnd thatpractitionersttempto adjustto orcontrol. inceforce, iolence,nd threatshereofreat the coreofthis nter-play,thestruggle or power,whether s end or necessarymeans, s thedis-tinguishingmark of politics mong nations.'Most politicalscientistsndmanydiplomatseemtoaccept hisviewofreality,nd a state-centriciewofworld ffairs revails.2

It is obvious,however, hatthe interactionsf diplomats nd soldiers onot take place in a vacuum.They are stronglyffectedy geography,he

JOSEPH S. NYE, JR., a member f the Board of Editorsof International rganization,s professorfpoliticalscience n the Government epartment f Harvard Universitynd programdirector f theCenterfor International ffairs, arvard University,ambridge,Massachusetts.OBERT 0. KEOHANE,

also a member f theBoardof Editors,s associate rofessorf political cience t Swarthmoreollege,Swarthmore,ennsylvania.

1 This is, of course, he orientationf Hans J. Morgenthau,ut it also reflectshegeneralpointofview of eminent cholars ike RaymondAronand KennethN. Waltz. See Morgenthau,olitics mongNations:The Struggle or Peace and Power (4th rev. ed.; New York: AlfredA. Knopf, 967); Aron,Peace and War: A Theoryof International elations, rans.RichardHoward and AnnetteBakerFox(New York: FrederickA. Praeger,967); and Waltz,Man, the Stateand War: A Theoretical nalysis

(Topical Studies n International elationsNo. 2) (New York: ColumbiaUniversityress, 959).2 Internationalawyers nd economistseemless proneto acceptthe state-centricaradigm s much

of the iteraturen internationalconomicsnd internationalaw indicates. ee, particularly,heworks fRichardCooper,RaymondVernon, nd PhilipJessup.

329



330 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

natureof domestic oliticsn the various tates,nd advances n science ndtechnology.ew would questionthat the developmentf nuclearweaponshas dramaticallyltered henature ftwentieth-centurynternationalolitics

or denythe importancef internal olitical tructureor relations etweenstates. romthe state-centricerspectiveeography,echnology,nd domesticpolitics omprise spects f the "environment" ithinwhichstates nteract.They provideinputs nto the interstateystembut for considerationsfanalytic onveniencere considered obe outside he system.

The environmentfinterstateolitics, owever, oesnot nclude nly hesepowerful nd well-known orces.A good deal of intersocietalntercourse,withsignificantolitical mportance,akesplacewithout overnmentalon-trol.For example, mong the majorWestern ountrieshis includesmost

trade,personal ontact, nd communication. urthermore,tates re by nomeanstheonly actors n worldpolitics.ArnoldWolfersnotedmorethanadecade ago that"theVatican,theArabian-Americanil Company, nd ahostofothernonstatentitiesre able on occasion o affecthecourseofin-ternationalvents.When this happens, heseentities ecome actors n theinternationalrenaandcompetitorsfthenation-state.heirabilityooperateas internationalr transnationalctorsmay be traced o thefactthatmenidentifyhemselvesnd their nterests ithcorporate odiesother hanthe

nation-state."3AlthoughWolfers nd othershave pointedout the importancef inter-societal nteractionsnd "transnationalctors" n internationalffairs,heimpactof these phenomena n world politicshas oftenbeen ignoredbothin policy-orientedritings nd more theoreticalworks.4When theyhavebeenrecognized,heyhaveoften eenconsignedwith thefactorsmentionedaboveto theenvironmentf interstateolitics,nd relativelyittle ttentionhasbeenpaid to themorto their onnections iththe nterstateystem.his

3ArnoldWolfers, The Actors n World Politics," n Discordand Collaboration: ssayson

Interna-tionalPolitics, d. ArnoldWolfers Baltimore,Md: JohnsHopkins Press, 962), p. 23. This essaywasfirst ublishedn I959 inWilliam T. R. Fox, ed., Theoretical spects f InternationalelationsNotreDame, Ind: Universityf Notre Dame Press, 959). Otherpolitical cientists ho have departed romthe state-centricaradigm re JohnW. Burton, ystems,tates,Diplomacy nd Rules (Cambridge: am-bridgeUniversityress, 968); tamesN. Rosenau, d., LinkagePolitics:Essayson the ConvergencefNational nd InternationalystemsNew York: Free Press, 969); Karl Kaiser, Transnationaleolitik:Zu einerTheorieder multinationalenolitik,"PolitischeVierteliahresschrift,969 (Special Issue,No. I),

pp. 8o-i0o; and Horst Menderhausen,Transnational ocietyvs. State Sovereignty," yklos, I969(Vol. 22, No. 2), pp. 251-275.

4 The moststrikingxamples f neglect f transnationalelationsnd complete oncentrationn statepolicies ppear n the literaturen theNorth Atlantic reatyOrganizationNATO). See, forexample,HenryA. Kissinger, he TroubledPartnership: Re-Appraisal f the AtlanticAlliance (New York:McGrawHill Book Co. [for the Councilon ForeignRelations], g65). On the more theoreticalidetheeditors f a recentvolumeof essays on internationalelations ote that,despiteardentdisagreementover methods, each author learly onceives he subject o consist f the individuals nd groupswhoinitiate nd sustain he actions nd interactionsf nation-states."laus Knorrand JamesN. Rosenau,eds., Contending pproacheso Internationalolitics Princeton, .J:Princeton niversity ress, 969),

P. 4.



'IRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD POLITICS 331

volume, y contrast,ocuses n these transnationalelations"-contacts,oali-tions, nd interactionscross tateboundaries hatare not controlled ythecentral oreign olicy organsof governments.t treats he reciprocal ffects

between ransnationalelationsnd theinterstateystems centrallympor-

tantto the understandingf contemporaryorldpolitics.A glanceat thetableof contents ill reveal hatwe are nterestedn a wide

variety f transnationalhenomena:multinational usiness nterprisesndrevolutionaryovements;radeunions nd scientificetworks;nternationalair transportartels nd communicationsctivitiesn outer pace.Yet,we donot exploretransnationalelations imply becausethey re there";on thecontrary, e hope touse our analysis o cast ighton a number fempiricaland normative uestions hatare directly elated o thecontemporaryon-

cernsof statesmennd studentsf internationalffairs.These questions an be grouped nto fivebroadareasof inquiry: ) What

seems obe theneteffectftransnationalelations n theabilities f govern-ments o deal with their nvironments?o whatextent nd how have gov-ernments ufferedrom "loss of control" s a result f transnationalela-tions?2) What are the implicationsf transnationalelations or the studyof worldpolitics? s the state-centriciew,whichfocuses n the interstatesystem,n adequate analytic rameworkorthe investigationf contempo-

raryreality? ) What are the effectsftransnationalelations n the alloca-tion of value and specificallyn asymmetriesr inequalities etween tates?Who benefits rom transnational elations,who loses,who controls rans-nationalnetworks,nd how is thisaccomplished? ) What are the mplica-tionsof transnationalelations orUnitedStatesforeign olicy? nsofar stheUnited States s indeedpreponderantn transnationalctivity, hat dan-gers as well as opportunitiesoes thispresent o Americanpolicymakers?

5) What challenges o transnationalelations aisefor nternationalrgani-zationsas conventionallyefined?To what extentmaynew international

organizationse needed, nd towhatextentmay olderorganizationsavetochange n order o adaptcreativelyo transnationalhenomena?

We elaborate hesequestionsater n this ntroductionnd return o themin the conclusion, rawingon evidencepresentedn thevariousessaystodocument ur assertions,einforce ur speculations,nd proposehypothesesfor further esearch.We do not pretend o be definitive; e realizethatweare just beginning o explorethisfieldand thateven our best-documentedbeliefs are only provisional.We hope to stimulatenquiry,not to codify

knowledge.Before onsideringhesefivebroadquestionsn detail,however,t is neces-sary o define hetwoaspects ftransnationalelationsn whichwe concen-trate n this ntroduction-transnationalnteractionsnd organizations-andto analyze someoftheir ffectsn interstateolitics. efinitionnd descrip-




tion hereforeake riorityt this oint,lthoughurbroaderndmorepecu-lative nquirieshould otbe forgotten.e returno them eginning ithsectionII ofthis ntroduction.

I. TRANSNATIONAL INTERACTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

In themost eneralense ne canspeak f"globalnteractions"s move-ments f information,oney, hysical bjects, eople, r other angible rintangibletems cross tate oundaries. e candistinguishourmajor ypesof global nteraction:) communication,he movementf nformation,n-cluding he ransmissionfbeliefs,deas, nddoctrines;) transportation,hemovementfphysicalbjects,ncluding armaterielndpersonal roperty

as well as merchandise;) finance,hemovementfmoneynd nstrumentsof credit; ) travel,hemovementfpersons. any nternationalctivitiesinvolvell four ypes f interactionimultaneously.rade andwarfare,orexample, othrequire oordinated ovementsf information,hysicalb-jects,money,nd persons; o doesmost ersonal articipationy ndividualsin foreignocieties-"transnationalarticipation"-asiscussednDonald P.Warwick'sssay.

Someglobal nteractionsre initiatednd sustainedntirely,r almostentirely,y governmentsfnation-states.his is true fmostwars, largeamount f internationalommunication,onsiderablerade, nd somefi-nance.These we considerinterstate"nteractionslongwith onventionaldiplomaticctivity.ther nteractions,owever,nvolve ongovernmentalactors-individualsr organizations-and e consider hese nteractions"transnational."hus, transnationalnteractionay nvolve overnments,but tmaynot nvolve nly overnments:ongovernmentalctorsmust lsoplay significantole.We speak ftransnationalommunication,ransporta-tion, inance,ndtravel henwe refero nongovernmentalronly artially

governmentalnteractionscross tate oundaries.hus, transnationalnter-actions"s ourterm o describehemovementf tangibler ntangibletemsacross tate oundaries hen t least ne actor s notan agent f a govern-ment r an intergovernmentalrganization.5

Another ayof ookingttransnationalnteractions,nd ofdistinguishingthem romnterstatenteractions,s torefero a diagramhatwe found se-ful n thinkingbout he ubject.he classic aradigmf nterstateolitics,depictednfigure, focusesngovernmentss the gencies hrough hichsocietiesealpoliticallyith achother.nterstateoliticss conceptuallyis-tinguishedrom, lthoughinked ndirectlyo, domestic olitics; ransna-

,5As our conclusion xplains t greater ength, transnationalnteractions"onstitute nly one aspectof "transnationalelations" y our definition. et, mostof the essays hat followfocuson transnationalinteractionsnd transnationalrganizations. hus, in order to understand he essays, ur definition ftransnationalnteractionss crucial.



TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD POLITICS 333

tional interactionsre ignoredor discounted.Governmentsmay,however,interact hrough ntergovernmentalrganizations; hus,this is included nthe classicparadigm.

IGOG2GItI X

I J

'GO= Intergovernmentolrganizotion

Figure I. A state-centricnteractionattern

The additional inesdrawn in figure indicatewhatwe mean by trans-national nteractions.or each of the interactionsepresentedy these inesat leastone of theactors s neither government or an intergovernmentalorganization. he point can be made somewhatdifferentlyy referringoJ.David Singer'sdistinctionetween wo ways n which ndividualsnd or-ganizationsn a given society an playroles n world politics: ) Theymay

participates members f coalitions hatcontrol r affectheirgovernmentsor 2) theymayplay direct olesvis-a-visoreign overnmentsr foreigno-cieties nd thusbypass heir wn governments.6nly thesecondtype f be-havior s transnational y our definition.

At the Center or nternationalffairs onferencen Transnational ela-tionstheobjectionwas raisedthata definitionuch as oursconcentratesx-clusivelyn theposition f an actor-whether ithin governmentr outsideit-and does notraise he question fwhether overnmentalctors ecessarily

play governmentallyefined oles. t was pointed ut thatven highofficials

may takeactions hat annot e ascribed o their tatus s governmentalctors.Military fficersn the UnitedStates, orexample, requentlyharecommoninterests ith militarymen n allied countriesnd may sometimesct n con-

6J.David Singer, The Global Systemnd Its Subsystems: Developmental iew," n Rosenau, . 24.




IGO' S~~ \

GI ./ \. Ga

Classic interstatepolitics

---- - Domestic politics*--Transnational interactions

G-=GovernmentS = SocietyIGO= ntergovernmentalrganization

Figure . Transnationalnteractionsnd nterstateolitics

certwith theseforeignmilitaryfficersgainst ther lements f theAmeri-can governmentto achieve common political goals.' Leon N. Lindberg and

StuartA. Scheingold avenoted hedevelopmentfcoalitionsmong gricul-turalofficialsromvarious ountriesf theEuropeanEconomicCommunity(EEC): "The MinistersfAgriculturefthe sixand their idesand advisors,chargedwithprimary egotiatingesponsibilitylongwith theCommnission,have come to sharepreoccupationsnd expertise.heyare subject o similarconstituencyemands, ngaged n annualbudgetbattles gainst heir espec-tiveMinistersfFinance, nd they eekthe samegeneralgoalsofimprovingthe conditions f farmersnd ofmodernizinggriculture.ndeed, n theeyes

ofmanyoftheir olleaguesn other overnmental inistries,heyhave cometo form an exclusive lub,thoroughlyefendedby impenetrableechnicalcomplexities.'/

The position f a governmentalctor,however,s morevisible nd thusmoreeasilyknown than hisbehavioral ole.Furthermore,n actor's ositionis classifiablen one of three ategories-governmental,ntergovernmental,rnongovernmental-whereasis role may slideback and forth etween hethree. venwithperfect nowledge t wouldbecomeextremelyifficultndultimatelyrbitraryo sayexactlywherea governmentalgent stopsplaying

7 Robert . Keohane,"The Big Influencef Small Allies," ForeignPolicy, pring 97I (Vol. i, No.2), pp. I6I-I82.

8 Leon N. Lindberg nd StuartA. Scheingold, urope's Would-BePolity:Patterns f Change n theEuropean Community Englewood Cliffs,N.J: Prentice-Hall,970), p. i6o. Their quotation s from"How Not to Rule the Roost: More Trouble n the PoultryMarket,"CommonMarket,July 963 (Vol.3. No. 7). P. 131.




a governmentallyefined ole and begins o act"on his own."Furthermore,sincetheessaysn thisvolumefocusprimarilyn nongovernmentalctivitiesand organizations, definition hat stresses he governmental/nongovern-mental/intergovernmentalistinctionocuses ttention n the relationshipswith whichwe aremostconcerned ere.For a first pproximationhatcanbe easily pplied n widelyvarying ssays, herefore,e use thenarrowerndmore precisedefinition,enteringn the position f an actor, ather hanabroader nd vaguerdefinitionn terms f role. n the conclusion,n whichwe contrast worldpoliticsparadigmwiththe state-centricaradigm,wereintroducehe dimension f role and discuss heproblemsnd prospectshatit raises.The reader houldbe aware,therefore,hat n this ntroduction euse the phrase transnationalelations" s shorthandor transnationalnter-

actions nd organizations," hereas n the conclusionwe also consider ela-tionsbetween overnmentalctors hat re notcontrolledy the central or-eign policyorgansof theirgovernments.

Manytransnationalnteractionsake place without he ndividualsnvolvedleavingtheir ocalities r the organizationsmaintainingnybranches utsidetheir ountries f origin.Domestic ndustries,radeunions, nd farmersn-gage in internationalradewithout ecessarilyhanging heiroci of activity;bankers an move vast sums ofmoneywithouteavingtheir ffices;tudentgroupsmay broadcast heirviews via world televisionwhile remainingnParis,Cambridge, r Tokyo; theNew York Times would somehowbe ob-tained n otherworldcapitals ven f it did notmaintain ales officesbroad.Thus, purelydomestic rganizations,uch as national radeunions, an par-ticipaten transnationalnteractions.

Yet,we are also concernedwith the activities fnongovernmentalrgani-zations thatdo operate egularlyn several tates. ransnational elations your definition hereforenclude the activitiesf transnationalrganizations,exceptwithin heirhomestates,ven when someof their ctivitiesmaynot

directlynvolvemovementscross tate oundariesndmaynot, herefore,etransnationalnteractionss defined bove. Thus, the activities f IBM inBrazilorUnilevernthe UnitedStates re within hecontextf transnationalrelations ven though ome of these ctivitiesmay take place entirely ithinBrazil,on the onehand,or the UnitedStates n the other. t would seemex-tremely rtificial,or example,to exclude an arrangementmade betweenStandardOil Company f New Jerseynd the Frenchgovernmentrom hearenaof transnationalelationsmerely ecause ll negotiationsortheagree-mentmayhave takenplace in Paris.9

Multinational usiness enterprises,nternationalradeunion secretariats,9It would seem equally absurd, n the otherhand, to consider grantby the Ford Foundation o

Newark,New Jersey,r the sale of computersy IBM in Des Moines, owa, to be transnationalctivi-ties. Thus, we exclude fromtransnationalelations he activities f transnationalrganizations ithintheirhome states f the organizations etain uch national dentification.




global eligiousrganizations,ndfar-flungoundationsre all transnationalbyourdefinition.hisdoesnot mply,owever,hat heyre taffedy citi-zensoftheworld" rthat heyrenecessarilyontrolledy ndividualsrom

severaltates.n fact,most ransnationalrganizationsemaininked rimar-ilyto one particularational ociety. ultinationalnterprisesendto bemanaged y citizensrom hehome tate; hus, ccordingoSidneyRolfe,21 percent f the employees,ut only1.5 percent f themanagers,fI50 UnitedStates-based ultinationalnterprisesn the I96os werenon-American."0n this olume .Bowyer ellpointsutthat ransnationalevo-lutionaryovementsftenspire o become ationalistegimes,ndPeter .Bell shows hat heFord Foundation'snternationaltaffemains redomi-nantly merican.hese rganizationsretransnationalyourdefinition,ut

they renot "geocentric.""n organizationecomes eocentricnlywhenthecompositionf ts eadershipnd itspatternf behaviorndicatehat thas ost ll special ies oone ortwoparticulartates.

Intergovernmentalrganizationsften evote onsiderablefforto assur-ingthat heywill be geocentricn fact s wellas in name:Oneneedonlynote hecontinuingttemptsy essdevelopedtatesn theUnitedNationstoassure equitableeographicalistribution"fpositionsnthe ecretariat.Transnationalrganizations,ycontrast,rerarelystablisheds suchbut

usuallyvolve raduallyrom ationalrganizations.urthermore,hey re-quentlyonothave utonomousonstituentnits-suchs the tatesninter-governmentalrganizations-tonsist n geocentricity.hus,transnationalorganizationsend o become eocentricraduallynd quite requentlyovein that irectionnly fter ressureas beenbroughtrom utside,articu-larly yhost overnments.'2

II. SOME EFFECTS OF TRANSNATIONALRELATIONSON INTERSTATEPOLITICS

Howdo transnationalnteractionsrorganizationsffectnterstateolitics?Atthemost eneralevel urcontentions that hese ransnationalelationsincreasehe ensitivityf societiesoone anothernd therebylter elation-shipsbetween overnments.hispoint s illustratedytwo examples,nefromhe reaof nternationalrade nd finance,heother rom lobalmasscommunications.

10Sidney Rolfe,The International orporation Paris: International hamberof Commerce, 969),p. 76.

1"For these erms ee HowardV. Perlmutter,The Tortuous volution f the Multinationalorpora-tion,"Columbia

ournal ofWorld

Business,January-February969

(Vol. 4, No.I),

pp.9-18.

1'2 encompass ransnationalrganizationss well as interactionsigure would have to be three-dimensional. ransnational rganizations ould appear on the thirddimension,inked to governments,national ocieties, nd intergovernmentalrganizationsy a variety f interactions.ince such a repre-sentations beyond ur artistic owers, he readerwill have to be contentwith thereminder hattrans-nationalrelations nderour definitionncludetheseorganizational ctivities s well as the interactionsthat figure depicts.




Richard . Cooper as onvincinglyrguedhe asefor he conomicrena:As thedecisionomainsfbusinessnd bankingranscendationalurisdic-tions,mall hangesnone state's oliciesmayhave arge ffectsnthe ys-

tem."3 he essay y Lawrence rausen thisvolumemakes similaroint.

Statesmaybe ableto reduce heir ensitivityo outsidenfluenceut onlyat thehighprice freducinghe oncomitantenefitshich esultromheirintercourse.

As a result fglobalmass ommunicationsarious roupsn differento-cieties,uch s radical tudents, ilitaryfficers,r racialminorities,anob-serve achother'sehaviorndcopyt when t seemsppropriate.hus, tu-dentradicalsmaysuddenly evelop imilar olitical emands nd tacticswithout irect ontact ithone another.heir nternationalconspiracies"

arecarriedn inpublicnd transmittedith he ssistancef ttentiveedia.Precursorsf thisphenomenonanbe found,ut ts cale, cope,ndspeedarelargely roductsfglobal elevision.lthoughts mmediateffectsreon the ensitivityfonestate'somesticoliticsothat f nother,ts econd-aryeffects-orheeffectsfeffortso haltunwantedommunication-maywell haveconsequencesor nterstateolitics.

We canbecomemore pecificysuggestingivemajor ffectsftransna-tionalnteractionsndorganizations,ll withdirect r ndirectonsequences

formutual ensitivityndtherebyor nterstateolitics.ourof thesemayresult rom ransnationalnteractionsven withouthepresencef trans-national rganizations,lthough ransnationalrganizations ayproducethem swell;thefifthffectecessarilyependsn thepresenceftransna-tionalorganizationss autonomousr quasi-autonomousctors.We sum-marize hese ffectsnder he followingeadings:) attitudehanges,)internationalluralism,) increasesn constraintsn stateshroughepen-dence nd nterdependence,) increasesnthe bilityfcertainovernmentsto influencethers,nd5) the mergencefautonomousctors ith rivate

foreignolicieshatmay eliberatelyppose r mpingenstate olicies. urcategorizationoes not pretendobe exhaustiver definitiveut s ratherdesignedystematicallyo suggestome ffectsf transnationalelationsninterstateolitics.

Transnationalnteractionsfall typesmaypromotettitudehanges hichmayhavepossibleonsequencesor tate olicies. s Warwick'sssay ug-gests, ace-to-facenteractionsetweenitizens fdifferenttatesmayaltertheopinionsndperceptionsf realityfelites ndnonelites ithin ational

societies.ransnationalommunicationt a distance,ransmitteditherlec-tronicallyr throughheprinted ord,may lsopromotettitudehanges.13RichardN. Cooper, The Economics f Interdependence:conomicPolicy n the AtlanticCommu-

nity AtlanticPolicy Studies) (New York: McGraw-HillBook Co. [for the Council on ForeignRela-tions], I968), especially hapters , 4, and 6.




Similar esultsmayfollow, lthough robablyess directly,rom ransnationaltransportation,ravel, nd finance.World peace maynot,as the BM sloganhas it, come throughworld trade, ut buying Toyotaor a Fiat may very

well influencene'sattitudesowardJapanese r Italians.New attitudes an also be fostered y transnationalrganizationss theycreatenew myths, ymbols,nd norms o provide egitimacyortheir ctivi-ties or as they ttempto replicateWestern eliefs,ife-styles,r socialprac-ticeselsewheren theworld.Thus, JamesA. Field,Jr., races heactivityfmissionaries nd the "cultural package that accompaniedthe Protestantgospel" in the nineteenthentury s well as the economic nd evangelicalactivitiesf multinationalusiness nterprisesnthe wentiethentury.eterB.Evans argues hat dvertising ythesemultinationalnterprisesffectsopu-lar attitudesn less developed ocieties o thedetrimentf their utonomyndeconomic evelopment; obertW. Cox referso themultinationalnterprisesthe new herooffunctionalistheory. ox also givesexamples fthe ustifica-tionsfortransnationalconomic ctivity evelopednot only by corporationsbut also by certain nion eaders. xamining he deasof sometrade nionists,Cox perceives n emerging policy of symbiosis" etween he trade unionand the corporationn which both sharepower and throughwhichunionswould replace nation-statess the chief countervailing orce to corporate

dominance fthe worldeconomy.It is clear to Cox and to other uthorsn thisvolumethatthenation-statewill not be as easilyreplaced s such visionsmight mply. ndeed, manyoftheessays n thisvolumefocuson theroleof the state n transnationalet-works.BowyerBell observes hateven transnationalevolutionariessuallyseek powerwithin state, lthough heymaydraw support romoutside;Peter Bell and Ivan Vallier focus good deal oftheir ttention n relationsbetween heFord Foundation nd the RomanCatholicchurch, n the onehand,and thenation-statesithinwhichthey perate n the other.WhereasKrauseand RaymondVernonarguefornew internationalgreementso ac-commodate ncreases n transnationalxchanges,RobertGilpin speculatesthatgovernmentsill be led to support egional ntergovernmentalrganiza-tions s defensesgainst lobaltransnationalism. welter fdivergentrends,predictions,nd proposals merges romtheseessays.What is clear to any-one, however, s that the attitudes roducedby transnationalelationswillnot necessarilyead to eitheruniversal oncordor to the continued rowthof transnationalelations hemselves.

A secondeffectf transnationalelationss the promotionf internationalpluralism, y whichwe mean the inking f national nterest roups n trans-national tructures,sually nvolving ransnationalrganizationsorpurposesof coordination. he essayby Kjell Skjelsbaekdocumentshe rapid growthof international ongovernmentalrganizations hich ink nationalorgani-




zations having common interests. fter theircreationthese transnationalorganizationsmay stimulate he creation f new national ffiliatesnd thuscontributeo the internationalizationf domestic olitics.But transnationalorganizationshemselvesre apparentlyhe product f increasingpecializa-tion of societies ombinedwiththephenomena ftransnationalommunica-tion,travel, nd transportationhichallow people to perceive he possibili-ties for transnationalrganizationsnd to implementheir isions. he crea-tion of organizationalinkages, s theessaybyEdward Miles indicates,mayin turn ffectttemptsy nationalgroups o influenceovernmentalolicy.

It is interestingo note thatthe firstwosuggestedffectsftransnationalrelationsre similar o those hathave been mostfrequentlybserved y stu-dents fEuropean ntegration.he "cybernetic"chool ftheoristsasstressed

the effect f transactionsn mass attitude hanges,whereas he "neo-func-tionalist" pproach mphasizes he rolesof nterestroups nd elites, r inter-nationalpluralism.'4 heoristsof both varieties ttempt o specify ertaineffectsf transnationalelations hat re likely o constrain overnmentsndmake theirpoliciesmorecooperative.

A thirdeffect f transnationalelations,he creation f dependence ndinterdependence,s often ssociatedwithinternationalransportationnd fi-nance. The essaysby Krause and EdwardL. Morse focuson thisrelation-

ship,and the essays y Field, Gilpin,RobertL.

Thornton,nd Vernonalso

give it a good deal of attention. et, as we have suggestedbove,one mayalso become dependent n a transnationalommunicationetwork r ontransnational ravel.Even totalitarian tates, f their governments ant tokeep pace scientifically,ay have to allow their cientists o read foreignjournalsand to participaten internationalonferences.tatesmay also be-come dependent n transnationalrganizations,articularlyf thoseorgani-zations providesomething-goods, ervices, nformation, anagerial kills,religiousegitimacy-thathey eed.

Dependenceis translated ntopolicymost directlywhen certainpolicieswhich government ight therwise ollow ecomeprohibitivelyostly.nte-grationnto a worldmonetary ystemmay makeit impossible ora state ofollowan autonomousmonetary olicywithout rastic hanges n itsecono-my; dependence n foreign ompanies or echnology,apital, ndmanagerialskillmaydeter essdeveloped ountries romfollowinghighlynationalisticand socialistic conomicpolicies.Wheretransnationalrganizationsecomeimportant ithin host ociety,heymay alter he patterns fdomestic nter-

ests so thatcertain overnmentaloliciesbecomeprohibitivelyostly oliti-callyeven if theymightbe feasible conomically.urthermore,ew actors,such as multinational nterprises, ith new patterns f behaviormay raise

14 See Peter J. Katzenstein,Hare and Tortoise:The Race toward ntegration,"nternational rgani-zation,Spring 97I (Vol. 25, No. a), pp. 290-295.




difficultiesorbureaucratizedovernmentshat endto follow tandard per-ating procedureswhen reacting o change. Following an effectiveolicytoward new transnationalctormay thereforee too costly n bureaucratic

grounds.Coping withdependence nd interdependenceaisesspecialproblems orlargestates. mall or weak statesmaywell be able to make theirdecisionssolelyby consideringhecostsand benefitsf various lternative olicies othemselves,aking nto account, f course, he probablereactions f otherstates.More powerful tates, owever,must lso consider heeffectsftheirown policies n the system f transnationalelations.nsofar s thestate ene-fitsfrom particularet of linked transnationalrrangements,t will needto exercise are lesta reversion o autonomyn one area setsoffretaliatory

measures y other arge states hat ould-quite apartfrom heir irect ffectson the first tate-destroy he entire ystem. et, only f statesmenerceiveboth nterdependencend system-fragilityill they llowconsiderationsuchas these to constrain heir ctions.Perceptions f transnationalelations ygovernmentallites re therefore crucial ink between ependence r inter-dependence,n the one hand, and statepolicies n the other.

We have ustnotedthat ransnationalelationsmaymake all states epen-denton forces hat none of themcontrols. ut theymayhave a less even-

handed result s well by creating ew instrumentsor nfluence or use bysomegovernmentsver others.Among powers froughly qual weight othsidesmaybe able to takeadvantage fthese nstruments,s in the use ofthePugwashConferencesn Science ndWorldAffairsy theUnitedStates ndthe Union of SovietSocialistRepublics o explore uestions farms control.But among unequal states ransnationalelationsmay merely utadditionalmeans of leverage nto the hands of the morepowerful tates,ocated t thecenter f thetransnational etworks,o the disadvantage f thosewhich arealreadyweak.

Governments aveoften ttemptedomanipulateransnationalnteractionsto achieveresults hatare explicitly olitical:The use of touristss spies orthe cultivationf sympatheticthnicor religious roups n other tates reexamples f such"informal enetration."'" overnments ayalso seek,how-ever,to direct he flow of economic ransactionso theirown politico-eco-nomicends. Through the use of tariff nd quota policiespowerful overn-mentsmay attempt o affect he flow of internationalrade-forexample,theycan discouragemanufacturingn less developedcountries y levying

higher ariffsn imports fprocessed nd semiprocessedoodsthan on rawmaterials.Or, as the essay by Krause indicates, overnmentsmay try to

15 See AndrewM. Scott,The Revolutionn Statecraft:nformal enetrationRandom House Studiesin Political cience, 51) (New York: RandomHouse, I965); and RichardW. Cottam,Competitiven-terferencend Twentieth entzuryiplomacy Pittsburgh,a: Pittsburgh niversityress, 967).



TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD POLITICS 34I

produce hangesn internationalonetaryrrangementsy unilateral rmultilateralction. nsofars states ecome ependentn one another,omestatesmay cquire ewmeans ywhich o influencethers.

Transnationalrganizationsre particularlyerviceables instrumentsfgovernmentaloreignolicy hetherhroughontrolrwilling lliance. hishasbeen videntn theuseofUnited tates-based ultinationalusinessn-terprisesy the Americanovernment.hus, n themid-Ig6osheUnitedStates ought o retard hedevelopmentfFrance's uclearapabilityotbysendingn ultimatumr launching war but byforbiddingBM-Franceto sell certainypes f computerso the French overnment.he UnitedStates asalsoused ts nfluenceverUnited tates-basedultinationalnter-prises s a means f nternationalizingts mbargoesgainst hePeople'sRe-

publicof China (Communisthina) and Cuba.'" Cox gives xamples fBritishnd Americanrade nionswhich, ollowingrivate oreignoliciessimilar o thepublic oreignolicies ftheir overnments,nterferen thedomesticoliticsf otherountrieso combat ealor maginedommunism.Evenwhen heres no explicitoordination,ransnationalrganizationsanbeusefulostates. he FordFoundationasbeen neoffewAmericaninkstomanyArab tatesince967. Vallierrgues hat tates hich oldkey osi-tions n transnationalesourceystemsre ble, ften ith ecisivedvantage,to drawon, and to somedegreemobilize,ll the"funds" hat he systemencompasses.

The fifthffectf transnationalelationsn interstateolitics ependsnthepresencef transnationalrganizationss autonomousr quasi-auton-omous ctorsn world olitics.everal ssaysn this olume iscussuch r-ganizations-revolutionaryovements,radeunions,multinationalusinessenterprises,nd the RomanCatholic hurch mong thers-thatmaintainprivate oreignolicies.n some ases hese rganizationsossess normousresources:n I965 some 5 businessnterprisesachhadannual ales arger

than hegross ational roductsf some57 votingmembersftheUnitedNations.'7 s Krausepoints ut, n themonetaryield heresourcesn thehands f ome wentyanks an, t eastnthe hortun, ender ugatoryheeffortsfnationalmonetaryuthoritiesven n very owerfulountries.hus,autonomousransnationalrganizationsre potentialnd sometimesctualopponentsfgovernmentalolicy n a wide varietyf areas-whetherhepolicys iberalizingivorcen taly,ivingt peacewithsrael n theMiddleEast, nforcingconomic lans n France, rmaintainingstrongalance-of-paymentsositionn theUnitedKingdom. he conflictetweenovern-

16 For a discussion f some of the controls sed by theUnited Statesfor thesepurposes ee JackN.Behrman,National nterestsnd the Multinational nterprise: ensions mong the NorthAtlantic oun-tries (Englewoodliffs, .J:Prentice-Hall,970), chapter, pp. 101-113.

17 G. Modelski, The Corporationn World Society," he Year Book of WorldAtfairs, 968 (Lon-don: Stevens& Sons [under the auspices f the LondonInstitute f World Affairs],968), pp. 64-79.




ment nd transnationalrganizationsmayreflecthepolicies fa homegov-ernment tanding ehindthe transnationalrganization,ut itmayalso re-sultfromdifferencesetween he policies f a hostgovernmentnd thoseof

a transnationalrganization, ithout hehome government,fany,becominginvolved n thedispute.Where home governmentsre involved, hepresence f transnationalr-

ganizationsmay exert distinctiveffectn the interstateelationshatde-velop.Thus, itwouldbe difficulto understand ritish-Iranianelations ur-ing I95I-I953 or American-Cuban elations etween 959 and I96I withoutappreciatingheroleof certain nternationalil companiesnboth ituations."8In these ases actions y the oil companies lmost ertainlyggravatedxist-ing interstateonflicts.t is possible,however, or a transnationalrganiza-

tionalso to facilitate ood relations etween tates; ertainly,hese ame oilcompanies ave tried o foster ooperation etween he UnitedStates nd theArab world.Their effortsave, n turn, eenpartiallyoiled ya very ower-ful transnationalorce-namely, ionism-whichhas workedeffectivelyorgood American elationswith srael evenat theexpense fUnitedStates e-lationswith Israel'sadversaries. ot only may a struggle etween ransna-tionalorganizations,r between ransnationalrganizationsnd states,eadto interstateonflict;nterstateonflict,uch as theArab-Israeli onflict, ay

lead to struggles orinfluencemongtransnationalrganizationsr move-ments.The interrelationshipsre complex nd often eciprocal,utthey anhardly e ignored.

III. TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND "LossOF CONTROL" BY GOVERNMENTS

Our observationsboutchanges n world politics o not denythatgovern-ments emain he most mportant layersnthegame. Although ransnationalorganizationsre immenselymoreplentifulnd significantow thanbeforeI914 or I945, governmentsave attemptedince World War I not only tomaintain utalso toextend heir ontrol veroutside orces nd events. revi-ously gnored reasof activity ave been broughtwithin he regulationndconcern f governments.nternational onetary lows, orexample,were ofmuch ess mportanceogovernmentsefore 9I4 than hey renow. n thoseyears ewgovernmentsonsciouslyttemptedo plan economic rowth r topromotefull employmentt home. As Cooper has stressed, ew tasks forgovernmentsplace greater urdens n the available nstrumentsf policy"

and make t moredifficulto accept the ntrusionsf internationalconomicintegrationn nationaleconomicpolicy."' Thus, the sensitivityf govern-

-8For a discussion f thesecases see MichaelTanzer, The PoliticalEconomyof International iland the Underdeveloped ountriesBoston:BeaconPress, 969), chapter 4, pp. 3I9-348.

19 Cooper, . x5I.




ments o changes lsewherencreases s governmentsecomemore mbitious.Increased spirations or control nd increased nterdependenceo hand inhand.

It thereforeecomes lear that o pose questions uch as we did at the out-set n terms f an alleged "loss of control" s to put the ssue n a misleadingway. Governmentsave generally ot been able to control heir nvironmentssuccessfully or long periods of time whenever hose environments avechangedrapidly s a result f large-scale ocial forces r advancing echnol-ogy. Small and middle powers, nd even greatpowerswithin balance-of-power system, ave had to accustom hemselveso a very mall degree f en-vironmentalontrol; heyhave had to adjustto changes ather hanto shapethe forces f history.t maybe thatUnitedStates olicymakersave ess con-

trolnowthan n the 95os,but t was the 950S thatwereexceptional, ot thepresent.

As governmentsecomemoreambitious, owever, heimpactof transna-tionalrelations oes create "control ap" between he aspirationor ontroland the capability o achieve t. The essaysby Morse,Krause, and Vernondiscussvarious acets fthisproblem.At the same time, s Vallierand Evansargue,transnationalelationsmay redistributeontrol rom ne state o an-other nd benefit hosegovernmentst the center f transnationaletworks

to the disadvantage f those n the periphery.It seemsbetter, herefore,o raisethe issueof governmentalontrol s aquestionfor nvestigationather han to prejudge he issueat this point nterms f "loss of control." t is clear that governmentsre becomingmoreambitious nd thatthisforces hemto react o, and often o adapt to,trans-national nteractionsnd organizations. he further overnmentseek to ex-tendtheir each, he more they nvolve hemselves ith theenvironmentfinterstateolitics nd particularly ithtransnationalelations.nsofar s theyare unwilling o paythepriceforcomplete ontrol, heymustcontendwith

relativelyutonomous ransnational orces.From the analyst'sperspective,therefore,heirbehavior ecomesmoreand moredifficulto predictwithouta rather etailedknowledge f transnationalelations. ur nextquestion sthereforeosed: Does the phenomenon f transnationalelationsmake thestate-centricaradigm inadequatefor understanding ontemporary orldpolitics

IV. TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE STATE-CENTRIC PARADIGM

Sophisticated roponents f the state-centriciew have observed ransna-tionalinteractions,nd theyhave certainly ot been blind to thefact thatactorsotherthan states xist.Yet, theyhave deliberatelyxcluded transna-tional relations romthe interstateystem n the grounds hat theirdirect




politicalmportances small nd that heirndirectffectsnter,longwithdomesticactors,ntotheformationf national oreign olicies. lthoughthis onclusionas partiallyelied n a definitionfpoliticsmerelyn terms

of state ehavior,t does ontain solid ore f nsight.tates avebeen ndremainhemostmportantctorsn world ffairs,cting othdirectlyndthroughntergovernmentalrganizationsowhich tates,nd only tates,e-long.States irtually onopolizearge-scale,rganizedorcewhich emainsthe ultimate eapon nd a potent argainingesource. hus,therewouldbe no pointnignoringhenation-state.nstead,nemightskthefollowingquestions:houldmore ttentionepaidto the ffectsftransnationalela-tions n interstateelations,nd is the tate-centricaradigmdequatefwewishto explore hese ffects?vanshas expressedhisfeeling ungentlyalthoughna somewhatloaded"way:"It isnot nterestingo excluderadi-tional tate ehaviorndthen tudyheresidualnly.What s interestingsthe contaminationf interstateelationsytransnationalelations."20

If wedepartrom state-centric,nstitutionalefinitionfpolitics,heneedfor broader ocus ecomesvidentmmediately.he classicmodel s de-pictedn figure normallyssumeds a definitionfworld oliticshe c-tions nd interactionsfstates. tudentsfdomesticolitics, owever,avemovedway romuch xclusiveeliancenthe tatendhavefocusedmore

broadly n theprocess ywhich ocieties ake indingecisions.2"he prob-lemswith efinitionsuch s DavidEaston'srewellknown: epartingroma traditional,arrow iewofpoliticseems o ead oneto a definitionith-outclear imits. ntilweadopt broaderefinition,owever,econtinueoviewgovernmentssmore learly nique han hey re, ndwe areforeclosedfrom xamininghe politics f tradeunions,ndustrialorporations,rschools. ikewise, ithnternationalolitics,definitionfpoliticsntermsofstate ehaviorlonemay ead usto gnoremportantongovernmentalc-tors hat llocate alue ndthat semeans imilar othose sedby govern-mentso achieveheir nds.

We thereforerefer definitionfpoliticshat efersorelationshipsnwhich t leastone actor onsciouslymploysesources,othmaterialndsymbolic,ncludinghe hreatrexercisefpunishment,o nduce therc-tors o behave ifferentlyhan heywould therwiseehave. sing his efi-nition fpolitics, e define orld oliticss all politicalnteractionsetweensignificantctorsna world ystemnwhich significantctors any ome-whatautonomousndividual r organizationhatcontrolsubstantiale-

sourcesndparticipatesnpoliticalelationshipsith therctorscross tate20 This is a close paraphrase f a remarkmade by Evans at the Center or nternational ffairs on-

ference n Transnational elations, arvardUniversity,une -5, I970.

21For a discussion f this trend ee David Easton,"'Political cience," nternationaZlncyclopedia fthe Social Sciences, d. David L. Sills (I7 vols.; n.p: MacmillanCo. and Free Press, 968), Vol. I2,

pp. 282-298.




lines.22 uch an actorneed not be a state:At any pointwhere transnationalorganization mploys echniques uch as economicboycotts,irline hijack-ings, r religious xcommunicationo achieve hemodificationf other ctors'behavior,t is behavingpolitically.nternationalil companies, orexample,insofar s they ct to maintain olitical tabilityn producing ountries,retransnationalolitical ctorsby this definition.23

If the effectsf transnationalelationswere slight, ariable, nd perhapstransitory,onsigninghemto a vaguely pecifiednd generallygnored n-vironmentwould be acceptable s a parsimoniousimplifying evice.Yet,this ntire olume estifieso thefact hat heeffectsf transnationalelationsare muchmore mportantnd pervasivehan that.Knowingthe policies ndcapabilities f a set of governments aynot allow us accuratelyo predict

outcomes r future haracteristicsf the system f significantransnationalinteractionsr powerful ransnationalrganizationsre involved.Even ifstatesn somesense"win" confrontationsith transnationalorces, heir n-ticipation f theseforces, nd of the actionsof transnationalrganizations,may ead states o alter heir olicies n advance o avoidcostly onfrontations.

Transnational elations re not "new," although, s Skjelsbaek's ssay n-dicates, he growth f transnationalrganizationn the twentiethentury asbeen spectacular. et, our contentions notonlythatthe state-centricara-digm is inadequateforreasons ndicated bove but also that t is becomingprogressivelyore nadequate s changes n transnationalelations akeplace.As a partialview of internationalolitics t was moreuseful n the pastthanin thepresent, nd it is stillmoreusefulnow than tis likely o be in thefu-ture.The essays hed some light on changes n transnationalelations; heconclusion o this volumeattempts o draw the evidence ogethern orderto buttresshecase thathas beensketchedboveand to introduceur alterna-tive "world politicsparadigm"as a substituteorthe state-centricnalyticframework.

V. TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND VALUES

Thus far n thisessaywe havebeenviewing ransnationalelationsargelyfroman empiricalperspective,ut theycan also be evaluatednormatively.This immediatelyaisesthequestionof who benefits rom ransnationale-lations. t could be arguedthattransnationalelationsnrich nd strengthenthestrongnd the rich-in short,hemostmodernized,echnologicallydeptsegments ftheworld-becauseonlythese lements re able to takefull ad-vantageof its network f intersocietalinkages.The continuing ebateonthe effectsf multinationalusiness nterprisesn welfare, orexample,has

22 These definitionsorrowheavily nd consciously,lthoughwith substantialmodification,rom nessay by Oran R. Young,"The Actors n WorldPolitics," n The Analysis f Internationalolitics, d.JamesN. Rosenau,B. VincentDavis and MauriceA. East (Glencoe, ll: Free Press,forthcoming).

23For an analysis f the activities f thesecorporationsee Tanzer.




raised numerous uestions boutthe value of transnationalelations or essdeveloped ountriesnparticular.24anyof theessaysn thisvolume, articu-larly those n parts II and IV, raise questions f thiskind. n producing

volume hat mphasizes ransnationalnteractionsnd organizations e meantopointout theirmportance,ot necessarilyocelebrateheir ffects.Somewouldregard ransnationalelationss a newnamefortheold phe-

nomenon f imperialism. s one scholarhas noted,however, heword "im-perialism"s "entirelyt the mercy f its user."25t is sometimessed to de-scribe irtuallyny relationshipcross tate oundaries etween nequalsthatinvolves he exercise f influence.f thisdefinitions used, "imperialism"nn-cludesmost f worldpolitics nd therebyecomes irtually evoidofanalyticvalue.

Imperialismmaybe used,however,n a morerestrictedlthough otverypreciseway to refer o cross-nationalelationshipsn whichunequal poweris used to achieve unfair" llocations f value.Some actors,whethertates rnot, xploit thers. ivenan agreed oncept f "fairness"which s, of course,thechiefdifficulty)ome transnationalelationswould presumablye "im-perialistic"nd otherswould not.Yet, the ambiguities resent venin thisuse of "imperialism"re so great hatwe wouldrather skdirectly bouttheeffectsf transnationalelations han inquirewhether given setof trans-

nationalrelations s "imperialistic" r not. Focusing on "asymmetries"r"inequalities" eemsmoreuseful o us than tryingo employ lder terms n-crustedwith many ayers f ambiguous r contradictoryeaning.

The reader hould hereforeear nmindwhile reading hese ssaysHaroldLasswell's definitionfpolitics n terms f "who getswhat." Do theactivi-tiesofmultinational usiness nterprises,radeunions, r the Ford Founda-tionredistributeconomicresources? f so, in what direction oes the flowgo? Do these ransnationalrganizations,r transnationalnteractionsener-ally,differentiallyffect he welfare, ecurity,r autonomy f various tatesor regions?To what extent re the effects nidirectionalnd to what ex-tent are cross-currentsore typical,with some benefitsnd somecostsforeach stateor region?Once again, the conclusion ttemptso draw togetherevidence rom he essays n order o give at least a tentativenswer o thesequestions.

24 For some recentworkson the subject ee CharlesP. Kindleberger, merican usinessAbroad: Six

Lectures n Direct nvestmentNew Haven, Conn: Yale Universityress, 969); HarryMagdoff, heAge of Imperialism: he Economics f U.S. ForeignPolicy New York: MonthlyReviewPress, 969);and HarryJohnson, The Efficiencynd Welfare mplications f the International orporation,"nThe International orporation: Symposium, d. CharlesP. KindlebergerCambridge,Mass: M.I.T.Press, 970), pp. 35-56.

25 Hans Daalder, "Imperialism,"n the Internationalncyclopedia f the Social Sciences,Vol. 7, p.I08.




VI. TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY

As Field pointsout in his essay,Americans ave alwayshad a propensityfor transnationalctivity. he United States has the world's most highly

modernized, s well as its largest, conomy.American ocial units such ascorporations,oundations,abor organizations,nd universitiesnvolved ntransnationalctivities ftenhave annual budgetsgreater han those of thegovernmentsn whose territorieshey perate.Vernon nd PeterBell indicatein their ssays hatperhaps hree-fourthsf the world'smultinationalnter-prises nd 29 of32 foundations ith ssets ver ioo millionhave their riginsin the United States. n ironiccounterpoint ostility owardthe Americancolossus s one of the few tiesuniting he revolutionary ovements escribed

by Bowyer ell.At the sametime t would be a mistake o view transnationalctivitiess apurelyAmerican ame, et alone a United Statesgovernmentame, particu-larly f one looks at recent rends. tephenHymer and RobertRowthornhave concludedfrom an analysis f comparative rowthof EuropeanandAmerican irms hat hefuturewill see ncreasing uropeandirect nvestmentin the United States as multinational irms romthe Old World vie withthose fromthe New World to "establishworld-widemarketpositions ndprotect hemselves rom the challenges f each other."26 ainer Hellmann

has pointed ut that lthoughAmerican irect nvestmentn Europe s morethandouble Europeandirect nvestmentn the UnitedStates,f one includesportfolionvestmentshe totals re almost xactly qual. Furthermore,sinceI967 European ompanies avefor he first ime ncreased heir irectnvest-ments n Americamorerapidly hanAmerican irms ncreased heirsn Eu-rope."27 part from he economic ealm America s byno meansdominantevennow: The UnitedStates s notthecenter f transnationalolitical arties,revolutionary ovements,r the Roman Catholic hurch.t is, however,he

most mportantocusof transnationalctivityn basic science nd one of themajor centers f transnationalrade unionism.Not all roads lead to NewYork; some still ead to Rome,Peking,Geneva,or even Damascus.

We can thereforeee an emerging ialecticbetweenAmericanpredomi-nance, at leastin theeconomic rea,and Europeanor Japanese hallenges,with less developedstates s bystanders,ictims, r junior partners s thecase maybe. Such a dialectic aisesthequestionof whetherUnitedStatesforeign olicy hould eek to defend, gnore, r countervailhetransnationaleffects f American ociety.s theUnitedStates ike an elephant n a hen-

26 Stephen Hymerand Robert Rowthorn, Multinational orporationsnd International ligopoly:The Non-American hallenge," n Kindleberger, he International orporation,. 8i.

27 Rainer Hellmann,The Challenge o U.S. Dominance of the Internationalorporation,rans.PeterRuof (Cambridge,Mass. Dunellen,Universityress of Cambridge,Mass., 1970), p. 306. Hellmannesti-mates that 6o percent f worldwide irect nvestmentriginatesn the United Stateswhile 30 percentoriginatesn Europe (p. 305).




house-sopowerfulhattcauses roblemsegardlessf ts ntentions-orstheUnited tatesmoreikeGreat ritainn the atenineteenthentury-stilldominant,ut mperceptiblyosing he advantagesn which tsdominance

is based?Althoughew uthorsn thisvolume onfronthese uestionsi-rectly, ost fthe ssaysrehighlyelevanto such roblemsfforeignol-icy.The readerhould eaware fthese olicyssuesshereads his olume;we returno themn the onclusion.

VII. TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

A discussionfthe ffectsftransnationalelationsn values ndofAmer-ica'srole n transnationaletworksaises he nevitableurtheruestionf

intergovernmentalooperationocontrolhese ffectsndto limit r legiti-mateAmerican ominance.t is clear hatmost fnotall governmentsillfindt very ifficulto cope lonewithmanyspectsftransnationalelationsin thedecade fthe 970S and thereafter.n readinghis olume tudentsfinternationalrganizations,nternationalolitics,ndinternationalawwillsurelysk themselveshattasks ntergovernmentalnstitutionsanbe ex-pected o assumen their ttemptso influencend controlransnationaltrends. uter pace, heoceans, nd the nternationalizationfproductionareonly hree fthemost bvious reas nwhichntergovernmentalontrolmay e demandednthe ormfnew nternationalawsornew nternationalorganizationsrboth. henew aws ndorganizationsillhave o take ntoaccountmportantongovernmentalctors, erhapsncludinghemn theorganizationss wellas acknowledginghemnthe aws.Whetherovern-mentswill cooperatemore uccessfullyn regulatingransnationalelationsthan n controllingach other's onflictehavior emainso be seen.

Yet, few entativetepsnthis irectionanbe discerned.he EuropeanEconomic ommunityspireso convertts rade loc nto single urrency

areaduring he 970s.28 Less sweeping lterations avebeen madeinAtlanticandglobal ntergovernmentalrrangementsn thearea of monetaryolicytocopewith isruptionsaused ytransnationalinancialctivity.herehasbeen considerableiscussionn Europeofdevelopingn EEC-wide ncor-porationawto assist hegrowthf Europeanmultinationalorporationsocombathe Americanhallenge."29ydeclaringhe ea to be "the ommonheritagefmankind"heUnitedNations eneral ssemblyastaken sym-bolic tep owardontrollinghe ctivitiesftransnationalrganizations,uchas multinationalusinessnterprises,s wellas the ctivitiesfstatesntheirexploitationfthe eaand seabed or ommercialndmilitaryurposes.herecentreaty rohibitingheEmplacementfNuclearWeapons n the ea-

28New YorkTimes,Februaryo, 1971, p. I.

29 Hellmann,p. 30I. See also J.-J. ervan-Schreiber,he AmericanChallenge, rans.Ronald Steel(New York:Avon Books. o6o).




bed and Ocean Floor has limited tates' ights o use theseabedby banningatomic rms, nd limits n theencroachmentsf transnationalrganizationsare likely to follow.30 he United Nations Conference n the Human En-

vironment,o be held in I972, will certainly ave to come to gripswith thetransnational,s well as governmental,ctorsthat help determine nviron-mental mprovementrdecay.

Mostof these re smallsteps, ignificantnly fthey epresentheopeningedge of a wedge.Whatever heir mpact, t is clear thatnone of themwastakenautomatically;ndividuals ad to perceive resentnd future roblemsand act on thembefore overnmentsould be expected o cooperate. asicresearch, irected t describingnd explaining mportant henomena, s anecessary rerequisiteo suchanticipationf future ifficultiess well as to

intelligent olicy analysis nd recommendationsfterproblemshave beenidentified.tudents f internationalaw and organization hould thereforebecome involved n the study f transnationalelations otmerely or thesakeofunderstandingeality utalso in order ohelp changereality. he es-saysthatfollow re intended otonly o improve urunderstandingutalsoto improve he waysin which we can increase hegeneralwelfare y con-trolling he forces hat shape our lives.

30 New YorkTimes,February2, I97I, p. I.

keohane nye transnational relations and world politics an introduction international organization...

Documents