10 Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital and European States AD990–1990(Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1990)
11 Hendrik Spruyt, The Soveign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of System Change
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
12 Taken from Barry Buzan and Richard Little ‘Reconceptualizing anarchy: structural
realism meets world history’ European Journal of International Relations2 (4), 1996,
pp. 403–38. The units identified in the typology are discussed in some detail in Barry
Buzan and Richard Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of
International Relations(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
13 Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, Polities: Authority, Identities and Change
(Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), p. 294..
14 Osiander, Before the State.
15 Ruggie in ‘Continuity and transformation’ is citing Perry Anderson, Lineages of the
Absolutist State(London: New Left Books, 1974) p. 37. See also Edward Keene, Beyond
the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002) who stresses the importance of divided sovereignty
continuing into the nineteenth century, and Daniel H. Deudney, Bounding Power:
Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village (Princeton: Princeton
University Press) who discusses the Philadelphian System in terms of negarchy.
16 Stacie E. Goddard and Daniel H. Nexon ‘Paradigm lost? Reassessing Theory of International
Politics’, European Journal of International Relations11 (1), (2005), pp. 9–61.
17 See Barry Buzan, Charles Jones and Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to
Structural Realism, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993) pp. 30–33. The
argument is developed in Section 1, written by Buzan. See also Barry Buzan and Mathias
Albert, ‘Differentiation: a sociological approach to International Relations theory’,
European Journal of International Relations16 (3) (2010).
18 Logic of Anarchy, p. 32
19 Buzan and Little, International Systems.
20 As it happens, this line of argument builds on the relationship between the observer and
observed. Indeed, in his section to Logic of AnarchyJones notes ‘that the observer is also
a participant, that viewpoint makes a difference to what is perceived, and that far from
rendering objectivity unattainable, this perception in the observed world is the very
condition of scientific understanding’, p. 231.
21 Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation(Boston: Beacon Press, 1957 [1944]); Eric R. Wolf,
Europe and the People Without History (Berkeley: University of California Press 1982; Justin
Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society: A critique of the Realist Theory of International
Relations(London: Verso, 1994). See also Douglass C. North, John Joseph Wallis and
Barry R. Weingast, Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting
Recorded Human History,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
22 Ellen Meiksins Wood, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 245.
23 Benno Teschke, The Myth of 1648: Class Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International
Relations(London, Verso, 2003), pp. 40–41. For responses to Teschke’s thesis from
Spruyt, Axtmann, Agnew, with Teschke’s reply, see ‘1648 and the myths of Westphalia’
International Politics43 (5), 2006, pp. 511–73.
24 Myth of 1648, p. 15. Teschke is citing Waltz from ‘Reflections on Theory of International
Politics: a response to my critics’ in Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and its Critics
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), p. 53.
25 Waltz, TIP, p. 40.
26 But see William C. Wohlforth, ‘The stability of a unipolar world’, International Security
24 (1), 1999, pp. 5–41. For further discussion, see ch. 6 in Richard Little, The Balance of
Power: Metaphors, Myths and Models(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
27 Based on Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society, (London: Routledge, 1992),
pp. 14–16, 122–25. This figure is simplified because it omits suzerainty and dominion.
Watson locates hegemony and dominion on either side of the pendulum’s resting point.
The paradox of parsimony 303