Customer Reviews

Emergent Actors in World Politics

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I think this is an excellent book, and well worth a read for anyone with more than a passing interest in international relations. Cederman presents one of the first studies to explicity apply complexity theory to problems of IR, and it is a remarkable effort - perhaps a good omen of things to come. The computer models he develops aren't games, but analytic tools designed to address two of the thorniest problems in IR: the emergence of states and the role of nationalism. Regarding the former, this is the first study of state emergence that I have read with any empirical thrust or explanatory heft. In particular, I think his incorporation of 'two-level action' (not what it sounds like) into his model is fascinating, and a real asset to 'dissident' scholars looking for ways to challenge the international-domestic dichotomy in the discipline. His models of nationalism are also interesting, but not nearly as central and challenging to the sacred tenets of international relations.

The main drawback of the book is that it is so obviously adapted from a dissertation - and thus bound to all the conventions that fact implies. Someone without a lot of background in IR theory (I'm a grad student) might not appreciate it as much as I do; it's not intended for general audience, I think. Still, if you're a grad student in the discipline, or even an undergrad with a basic IR course completed, this book should be interesting and useful.

This was an interesting book. I have been interested in Emergent Behaviors for a few months and stumbled upon this book through Amazon's "Similar Books". It looked interesting and I decided to give it a read; I wasn't disappointed.

As a computer programmer with a love of political science, I wrote awhile ago a very similar computer program, that Lars describes in this book. While reading this book, I got no idea just how big or complex his was but mine was done over a few days when I was too sick to come to work and wanted to do something. Yet it seems to being far more sophisticated then this one. For example it had sea and mountains, its military conflicts were treated better and not all regions were equal in resources but normally distributed. I do not quote it as a brilliant peace of work on the contrary quite ordinary. Somehow I get the feeling that it was better then the computer model quoted here. What the reader would really love is a chance to get your hands on this program and play with it. Why it was not supplied on a disk or a web address given I am not sure but it should have been?

I left with the feeling after reading it that I have learnt little on the subject. Maybe use it as a brief introduction Many of the charts are not well explained.

The biggest problem I think in this subject is not so much how empires start but why they fall? Why do empires that seems to be so efficient, and strong, collapse. His tended to collapse due to military over reach. Yet their are many other reasons for empires collapse.

Interestingly my model gave quite different results then this one. Mine tended to collapse due to the core (or center) becoming too expensive. Growing citizenship in the empire means that the center cannot treat the provinces like cash cows and bully them anymore. The empire becomes rigid both in economy and structure and cannot change in changing circumstances. Surrounding it are nations that have copied from the empire technology and system. Military spending goes up as the relative economy to the barbarians goes down. Wars being defensive are not profitable. In time the provinces often decide they do not need this expensive and interferring core, they are not prepared to fight for it in strange places and want to separate. This is particularly true of the richer ones and the poor ones get dumped as the core cannot afford them any more.