Singer: The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations

Singer, J., 1961. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics, 14(1), 77-92.

“In the vernacular of general systems theory, the observer is always confronted with a system, its sub-systems, and their respective environments, and while he may choose as his system any cluster of phenomena from the most minute organisms to the universe itself, such choice cannot be merely a function of whim or caprice, habit or familiarity. The responsible scholar must be prepared to evaluate the relative utility—conceptual and methodological—of the various alternatives open to him, and to appraise the manifold implications of the level of analysis family selected. So it is with international relations” (77).

Requirements of an Analytical Model:

That it is descriptive. If we distort reality, we must be explicit about what we are willing to distort. That it be explanatory. The biggest issue here is not the performance in prediction, but the “validity of explanation”. Thirdly, it must predict.

Singer than explores the traditional levels of analysis, starting with the international system.

“As to explanatory capability, the system-oriented model poses some genuine difficulties. In the first place, it tends to lead the observer into a position which exaggerates the impact of the system upon the national actors and, conversely, discounts the impact of the actors on the system…Secondly, this particular level of analysis almost inevitably requires that we postulate a high degree of uniformity in the foreign policy operational codes of our national actors” (80-1).

The National State as Level of Analysis:

This is, by no means, a panacea, but it does provide a different flavor of analysis from the international perspective. One does now see the diverse and diffuse motivations for state-based action, but one can also suffer from another problem: do we now overemphasize the differences between states? Also, one is pressed to answer questions about exactly where theorists will look: do we look at perception, for example?

“In terms of description, we find that the systemic level produces a more comprehensive and total picture of international relations than does the national or sub-systemic level. On the other hand, the atomized and less coherent image produced by the lower level of analysis is somewhat balanced by its richer detail, greater depth and more intensive portrayal. As to explanation, there seems little doubt that the sub-systemic or actor orientation is considerably more fruitful, permitting as it does a more thorough investigation of the process by which foreign policies are made” (89-90).