Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Copyright Notice
Staff and students of the University of London are reminded that copyright subsists in
this extract and the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under
the terms of a CLA licence which allows Course Users to:
• access and download a copy;
• print out a copy.
This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied under the terms of this Licence
are for use in connection with this Course of Study. They should not be downloaded or
printed by anyone other than a student enrolled on the named course.
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be
destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by the University.
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution
(including by e-mail) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the
work and neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or
other modification of the work, or any other derogatory treatment of it, which would be
prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
Name of Designated Person authorising scanning:
Publishing Manager, University of London International Programmes
ISBN: 1369-118X
Information, Communication & Society 3:3 2000 415–436
INFORMATION INTERDEPENDENCE
Keohane and Nye’ s complex interdependence
in the information age
Kenneth S. Rogerson
Duke University, Durham, USA
Abstract
A well-known and respected attempt to theorize interdependence in the eld
of international relations is complex interdependence. In Power and Interdependence,
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
Keywords
important to know who controls it and what implications might that knowledge
have? Each entity certainly had, at minimum, an in uence on the ow of infor-
mation in an increasingly interdependent world.
Interdependence is a term used more and more to describe global inter-
actions. It means, in a very general sense, that events and situations in one area
depend on, or are influenced by, those in another and, most importantly,
this relationship can be reciprocal. In addition, there is the understanding that
groups increasingly need each other, for various reasons, in order to function and
exist. Interdependence is a characteristic of information and communication
flows and processes. But, these concepts have not been fully analysed in the
context of interdependence, especially since the meaning of interdependence, as
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
flows? This essay is a theoretical discussion, analysing the usefulness of the concepts
behind complex interdependence in a different context than originally intended.2
It begins by looking at the interdependent nature of the world and how
‘interdependence’, both theoretically and empirically, can be used to describe the
environment in which international relations take place and then focuses on how
information ows might be applied to the complex interdependence.
WHAT IS INTERDEPENDENCE?
An early de nition of interdependence noted that it is ‘a state of affairs where what
one actor does impinges directly upon other nations’ (Rosecrance 1977: 426),
emphasizing the notion of reciprocating governmental in uences. But Keohane
and Nye believe that interdependence is more than just ‘connectedness between
groups’ (Rosecrance 1975: 21) and certainly more than simply political
connections. Interdependence also refers to the degree of interaction as well as
the outcomes of interaction. Mizukami (1990) points out that discussions
of economic interdependence began as a look at the quantity and type of ‘trans-
actions ‘ but later moved to the effects and results of those transactions. In other
words, there is an element of influence on, as well as susceptibility to, the
consequences of another’s actions.
In academic writing and research, the most common use of the term inter-
dependence has been in an economic sense, referring to the interdependent nature
of open markets and the idea of comparative advantage. In theory, open markets
provide opportunities for foreign trade and investment and encourage the
recipient country to do the same elsewhere. Comparative advantage means that
different groups will specialize in the production of the item(s) and/or services
they can provide most ef ciently, which forces interaction in order to obtain those
items/services they do not have. The greater reliance there is on these other
417
goods and services which cannot easily be produced, the more interdependent a
group is considered. As an example, economic theory is replete with discussions
of trade balances and imbalances which contribute to an interdependent world.
Bilateral trade relations between the USA and Japan are often studied because
‘the economic performance of the United States and Japan and harmonious
economic relations [what the authors refer to as interdependence] between them
are of global signi cance’ (Noguchi and Yamamura 1996: 4).
In both an economic and political sense, interdependence has advantages and
disadvantages. One of the principal advantages is that groups find they have
something to gain (often monetarily) through an interdependent relationship.
In addition, some believe that interdependence leads to co-operation in other
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
There are numerous concepts that have been used in conjunction with
explanations of the information age. What do we gain from focusing on inter-
dependence as opposed to these? These alternative ideas have elements of both
interdependence and information ows, and provide some understanding of how
the term ‘interdependence’ is used.
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
First, world systems theory views the world in principally economic terms,
which emphasize relationships between core groups of states and those in
the periphery. These relationships are uneven and must be so in order for the
relationships to function. Dependency theories explain that these relationships
unfairly favour the core group of countries since this group is wealthy and takes
advantage of the peripheral group in order to maintain core status. In a second
line of thinking (one that has been applied specifically to information and
communication ows) Galtung has taken this a step further by saying not only
are these primarily economic relationships, but are structural as well. That is, the
inequities are a part of the systemic structure. Imperialistic societies are ones
in which the collective relates to some of its parts in terms of ‘harmony of interest,
and other parts in relations of disharmony of interest, or conflict of interest’
(Galtung 1971: 81; see also Haynes 1984). Galtung believed that these inequalities
were very much a part of information-oriented relationships in the world
(Galtung 1985; Galtung and Vincent 1992).
In a second category of explanations, Keohane and Nye (1989: 19) define
regimes as ‘governing arrangements that affect relationships of interdependence’.
Later, regimes were more speci cally de ned as norms, standards and decision-
making rules which emerge in a given issue area (see Krasner 1983: 1). Based on
these formal de nitions, there really can be no such a thing as an information
regime, though other scholars would argue the existence of informal regimes
that may be applicable (see Puchala and Hopkins 1983). ‘Information’ is too broad
a concept to discuss the overriding norms and standards by which people interact
in all information issues. For example, though not all encompassing, GATT has
been considered the institutionalization of a trade (an equally broad concept)
regime. But, as of yet, there is no similar institutionalization in information. In
fact, many organizations – international, regional, national and local; govern-
mental and nongovernmental – claim a stake in these issues.
419
However, those who have written about regimes have grappled with many of
these issues. Krasner (1983:2) posits explicit and implicit regimes; that is, regimes
that are openly understood through formal, often institutionalized, processes
as opposed to regimes that may be underlying broader contexts (a theme that
will be addressed hereafter). In addition, there may be regimes in subcategories
of information, such as telecommunications trade or satellite usage. For example,
there may be a regime in discussions surrounding the allocation of satellite
space, but these rules do not apply in negotiations on internet access or biased
media coverage. Events and situations that take place because of interdependent
relations may be subject to regimes, but interdependence is not a synonym
for regimes.
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
In brief, complex interdependence states that power does not lie only in the
traditional areas of study in international relations – the state and military strength
– but in other conceptual frameworks and issue areas. The de ning characteristics
of complex interdependence are: (1) a multiple number of actors, placing an
emphasis on non-state actors (a discussion of the relationships in the system [the
uneven characteristic] will be elaborated on below); (2) multiple channels through
which these actors interact in the system (a context in which the relationships take
place); (3) a changing hierarchy of issues (an explanation of the goals of the actors);
and (4) a decrease in the use of military force in interactions (a broadening of the
environment in which decisions are made) (Keohane and Nye 1989: 24–5).
In addition, complex interdependence provides other fertile concepts:
sensitivity, ‘the degree of responsiveness within a policy framework – how quickly
do changes in one country bring costly changes in another’ and vulnerability ,
‘the relative availability and costliness of the alternatives that various actors
421
Sensitive Insensitive
422
Thus, Keohane and Nye provide the basis for examining interdependence as
an ideal type, a true theoretical example of how international relations function.
In other words, pure dependence, pure mutual dependence, or pure imperialism
or hegemony are, less and less, complete explanations of the reality of relation-
ships in the international system. Interdependence could be filling that void.
Other concepts from complex interdependence support this assertion.
Sometimes, interdependent relationships are assumed to benefit every
participant – interdependence is something good and positive. This is known
as symmetrical interdependence. This positive relationship does not reflect
reality. Jones notes that ‘most signi cant instances of manifest interdependence
are asymmetrical and imbalanced’ (Jones and Willetts 1984: 14). Indeed, ‘it is
possible for [a] . . . relationship to involve a relatively trivial sensitivity depen-
dence in one direction, but a critical dependence, of high vulnerability, in the
other’ (Jones 1995: 8).
Another important concept, then, is asymmetry. For Keohane and Nye (1989:
16–18) and others, the international system would not function in complete
symmetry, that is, each group giving and receiving ‘equally’:
423
Yet, there is a ‘paradox’ in the expansion of information and communications processes. The
integrating versions of information ows also have a fragmenting effect. One the one hand,
current technological innovations are creating a global infrastructure much more sophisticated
in scope and technical quality than previously imagined . . . On the other hand, however,
technological innovation has also functioned to fracture or fragment the mass audience. The
advent of diverse, individualized telecommunications and media systems . . . threaten to render
the concept of mass national or international systems obsolete.
(McPhail 1989: 49–50)
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
Both the fragmentive and integrative forces may be at work at the same time and
quite possibly from the same sources. Rosenau (1997) has called this a ‘fragmegra-
tive’ approach to understanding global governance, a ‘label referring to the
simultaneous fragmentation and integration of a panoply of global developments’
(Comor 1998: 217). Interdependence itself can also manifest fragmegrative
characteristics as increasing international relationships bring nations and peoples
together. But, the same interactions can also increase con ict. The management
of this characteristic may be the key to maintaining leadership in an information
interdependent world.
The connective nature of information and communication may be adapting to
a more interdependent world as the importance of these issues increases both
nationally and internationally. Klapper noticed this when he said, it is:
Very clear that the mass media [as a form of information ows] do have important consequences
for individuals, for institutions and for society and culture. That we cannot trace very precise
causal connection or make reliable predictions about the future does not nullify this conclusion
. . . All that remains is to discover not whether the media have power and how it works, but who
has access to the use of this power.
(Klapper 1989: 33, original emphasis)
and regional organizations, ethnic groups, states, the media, and age and gender
groups. More than at any other time in history, groups are utilizing information
channels to be heard. Revolutionary groups, like the indigenous people’s rebellion
in the Mexican state of Chiapas, as well as the Irish Republican Army and Hamas
have ‘taken their struggles to the Internet . . . as a cheap and effective way to
promote their cause and disseminate information, usually without the interfer-
ence of state censorship’ (Vincent 1996: 9). With the appropriate technology,
individuals may spread their ideas via personal web pages and local cable television
stations. Radio and television talk shows have proliferated. According to Heath
(1998), during the early 1980s, only fty-three US radio stations had news/talk
formats, compared with more than 1,000 in the late 1990s, while the total
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
the posting of web pages are the two most visible examples of methods for inter-
actions between groups. In the future, complex interdependence could provide
a solid theoretical grounding for the study of international interactions over the
internet.
Third, there is a changing hierarchy of issues. In some situations, economic
questions might prevail, while in others military or environmental needs might
be more pressing. As stated above, information ows play a role in probably most,
if not all, of these issues. Complex interdependence could help in analysing this
relationship. One way to do it would be to identify various issues that arise in
international interactions and juxtapose them with some general characteristics
of information and then examine potential outcomes.
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
These are the two general characteristics which seem to continually surface
when discussing information: (1) access to the ‘hardware’, the physical capabilities
of information and communication systems such as fibre optic cable and the
launching and control of satellites, by individuals, groups and institutions and
the training and education that is necessary to achieve access; and (2) content, the
‘software’ or the information itself and the interpretation and structures of that
information, such as computer programmes, television shows and news. An
analysis of these concepts can aid in understanding the power of information and
its accompanying technologies and how they can be most effectively used to situate
a group on the world stage into the twenty- rst century.
In addition to these general methods of recognizing information issues, there
are different issue areas that arise in the international interactions of different
types of groups. Though not completely exhaustive, many interactions can t in
the following categories: security, economy, ideology, culture, environmental,
health and human rights. These, when analysed with the various concepts used
to de ne information, are only heuristic separations. In addition, information
ows may inform one or more of these categories at the same time.
First, as information has focused on the security area, it has been discussed in
two categories: national security and personal security. Decisions of national
security have been instrumental in the creation of information technologies and
the gathering of data and, as far as they apply to protecting the state and its peoples,
tight control is maintained on both. Personal security has centred on discussions
of privacy. The proliferation of access to international communications networks
has made personal data much more difcult to keep hidden or secret.
Second, economically , decision makers have focused on information as a
commodity. The underlying processes have been the spread of capitalism and
consumerism. For example, when the promotion of a state’s economic interests
abroad seem to dovetail with the interests of domestic businesses: ‘One of the
428
process. The liberation comes through education, especially on the local level
in the form of family planning or agricultural projects. The controlling exists in
the colonial and neo-colonial tendencies of those with the ability to produce
information hardware and software to seem imperialist in their quest to nd new
markets for their goods as well as teach others a ‘better’ way to live.
Finally, in interaction on the environment, health and human rights, the issues
of the truthfulness, validity and applicability of information ows can have a great
effect on the way political and economic decisions are made. The advent of a crisis
– such as the outbreak of the E-bola virus or the spread of AIDS – as well as the
presence on charismatic leaders – such as Saddam Hussein – or international
pressure – such as East Timor – can lead to lopsided or biased information ows
and quick reactions by the international community without lasting effects.
Complex interdependence provides some conceptual tools for addressing
complexities surrounding the information flows through diplomatic commu-
nications, the media or other avenues.
Finally, according to complex interdependence, international relationships are
characterized by a decrease in the use of military force. As seen above, military
and security issues play an important role, but, if the assertions of complex
interdependence are to hold true, the use of force should be less than what might
be expected from a realist analysis of the situation. Though military organizations
around the world are in the habit of discussing information as a military tool
(Libicki 1995; Henry and Peartree 1998), the flow of information is more
associated with diplomatic actions than military ones. Though there can be no
assertion that the increasing flows of information have eliminated or even
decreased con ict, the idea that information ows have provided an outlet for
alternative views as a substitute for force could be pursued.
429
CONCLUSION
dovetails well with the research from the eld of communications: information
ows should be understood as underlying mechanisms and processes that facilitate
contextual understanding of issues. It maintains the integrity of the multiple-
actor and multiple-channel assumptions, while adding an understanding of the
nature of information and information ows.
Finally, one important caveat must be mentioned. Keohane and Nye (1998)
rightly point out that ‘globalization is far from universal’ and that a ‘large portion
of the world’s population will not participate’ in many aspects of the information
revolution. Yet, the impact of information interdependence will still be felt. Many
who do not participate in the information revolution are still subject to the effects
of decisions made by those who do.
Complex interdependence has informed much of the authors’ work. It began
as a collaborative effort in 1968 with a special issue of the journal International
Organization, devoted to the relevance of international organizations in world
politics, which was later reprinted as Transnational Relations and World Politics
(1972). The authors continued to develop their ideas because they felt that though
they ‘had pointed out signi cant problems with realist theory, . . . [they] had not
provided an alternative theory’ (Keohane and Nye 1989: v). The result was Power
and Interdependence and it elicited much attention (Keohane and Nye 1977). The
responses to complex interdependence, both positive and negative, led to a second
printing with some additional material (Keohane and Nye 1989). At the same
time each separately worked on different ideas related to complex interdepen-
dence (see, for example, Keohane 1984; Nye 1990a, b). Finally, in recognition
of the value their ideas could have for the information age, they collaborated again
(Keohane and Nye 1998), providing a valuable overview of interdependence and
its relationship to information content and technologies.
The richness of complex interdependence is apparent in the fact that it is still
being discussed, both by the authors and others. The true value of the ideas and
432
concepts associated with it will become clear as it is used as the basis for more
research, especially in the growing area of information and communications.
Kenneth S. Rogerson
DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism
Duke University
Box 90241
Durham, NC 27708
USA
rogerson@pps.duke.edu
NOTES
1 These assumptions are generally understood to include the primacy of the state as an actor, as
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
well as the dominance of military and security issues in the study of international relations.
2 It is important to note that, even by the second edition of their book, Keohane and Nye
stated: ‘we did not pursue complex interdependence as a theory, but as a thought
experiment’ (Keohane and Nye 1989: 254). Despite the modesty, it has taken on the status
of theory in many international relations discussions.
3 Keohane and Nye even mention Deutsch in the following: ‘Our respect for the liberal
tradition of political analysis re ects our debt to studies of regional integration carried out
during the 1950s and 1960s. Karl Deutsch focused on the development of pluralistic security
communities, ‘groups of states which developed reliable expectations of peaceful relations
and thereby overcame the security dilemma that realists see as characterizing international
politics’ (1989: 247). This reference was to Deutsch’s Political Community and the North
Atlantic Area, written in 1957. There is no reference to his Nationalism and Social Communication
written in 1953 which also emphasized community building.
4 Even conservative estimates say this number is, at minimum, growing rapidly. There are
numerous web sources providing estimates at the numbers of internet users and their
demographics (all accessed September and October 1999);
www.anamorph.com/docs/stats/stats.html;
www.isc.org/ds/;
www.headcount.com;
new-website.openmarket.com/intirdex/99-05.htm;
www.computereconomics.com/new4/pr/pr990610.html; Headcount.com;
www.wcom.com/about_the_company/speakers_bureau/statistics.html;
www.infoplease.com;
www.euromktg.com/globstats;
www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html; and
MIDS (Matrix Information and Directory Service) www.mids.org
5 The term ‘hegemony ‘ is accompanied by some intellectual baggage. There are theories of
hegemonic stability, referring principally to the propensity for states to be in war; economic
hegemony as in Immanuel Wallerstein’s work on world systems theory; as well as combinations
of both in Paul Kennedy’s works on great powers. But this view of the ‘hegemonic ‘ status of
the USA in information and culture is not my idea alone. It comes from the perceptions that
the rest of the world, both Western and non-Western, has of the USA. For example, in 1993,
French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur talked about the ‘Commercial and cultural
433
domination’ and ‘hegemonic tendencies’ of the USA (Federic Bobin. ‘L’accord sur le commerce
international, La declaration de politique generale du premier ministre, La France n’a jamais
ete aussi grande que lorsqu’elle s’ouvre sur le monde’ Le Monde, 17 December 1993, p. 3).
Robert Keohane said in a panel discussion called ‘IPE Distinguished Senior Scholar Panel in
Honor of Immanuel Wallerstein’, (ISA Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, March
1998), that the USA is as hegemonic now as ever, both in a Gramscian sense and in the sense
of Nye’s ‘soft power’. Hegemony means providing something ‘extra’ that you can use to
‘perpetuate the issue above and beyond’ what may be considered legitimate.
6 This could happen in an instance where there is an intransigent dictator who is on the verge of
collapse, but refuses to admit defeat, i.e. Adolf Hitler, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, or
Saddam Hussein.
REFERENCES
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
434
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1972) Transnational Relations and World Politics,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1977) Power and Interdependence, Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1989) Power and Interdependence, 2nd edn,
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S., Jr (1998) ‘Power and Interdependence in the
Information Age’, Foreign Affairs, 77: 81–94.
Klapper, J.T. (1990) ‘The effectiveness of mass communication’, in D.A. Graber
(ed.) Media Power in Politics, 2nd edn, Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press, pp. 7–18.
Krasner, S.D. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Levine, D.P. (1996) ‘Global interdependence and national prosperity’, in R.A.
Blecker (ed.) US Trade Policy and Global Growth, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
pp. 37–57.
Lewinsky, G. (1997) Transcription of radio interview on Marketplace, 21 August.
Libicki, M.C. (1995) What is Information Warfare? Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Of ce.
Markoff, J. (1995) ‘On-line service blocs access to topics called pornographic’,
The New York Times, 29 December.
McPhail, T.L. (1989) ‘Inquiry in international communication’, in M.K. Asante
and W.B. Gudykunst (eds) International and Intercultural Communication,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 47–66.
Mizukami, K. (1990) ‘Economic interdependence and cooperation in the
european community’, Master’s thesis, Department of Economics,
University of South Carolina.
Noguchi, Y. and Yamamura, K. (1996) US–Japan Macroeconomic Relations: Inter-
actions and Interdependence in the 1980s, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Nye, J.S., Jr (1990a) ‘Soft power’, Foreign Policy, 80: 153–71.
Nye, J.S., Jr (1990b) Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power, New
York: Basic Books.
435
Puchala, D.J. and Hopkins, R.F. (1983) ‘International regimes: lessons from
inductive analysis’, in S.D. Krasner (ed.) International Regimes, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, pp. 61–91.
Rosecrance, R. (1975) ‘International interdependence’, in G. Goodwin and
A. Linklater (eds) New Dimensions of World Politics, London: Croom-Helm,
pp. 36–53.
Rosecrance, R., Alexandroff, A., Koehler, W., Kroll, J., Laquer, S. and
Stocker, J. (1977) ‘Whither interdependence?’ International Organization, 31:
425–71.
Rosenau, J. (1992) ‘Citizenship in a changing global order’, in J.N. Rosenau and
E.-O. Czempiel (eds) Governance without Government: Order and Change in
World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 272–94.
Rosenau, J. (1997) Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a
Downloaded by [The British Library] at 06:18 01 August 2017
436