LINKAGE THEORY

By

                                                  O.P.Adelusi, PhD

                                                            adelusifemi@yahoo.com

                                                                             

Linkage theory evolves from systems analysis (FRANKELIJ :1972) .According to JosephFrankel in his book entitled Contemporary International theory and Behaviourofstate.1972; he posit that what he refer to as the linkage approach has its starting point from the systems analysis. Further still, for him, ‘Linkage’denotes “any recurrentsequence of  behaviour that originates in one system and is reacted to in another “(J N. ROSENAU 1969:5)

The initial and the terminal stages of linkage are described as “inputs “ and ” outputs “ are differentiated according to their origin within the state or withinits external environment.The Input and output are linked together by three major types of linkages namely;the Penetrative;the Reactive and the Emulative.

“Penetrative“Linkage –is one in which one polity serves as a participant in the political processes of another and shares the authority to allocate values within the penetrated units.     This category embraces not only political and military but also economic penetration and could be usefully employed in the analysis of the denomination of industriesand economies by massive foreign investment.

“Reactive “linkage is what is caused by boundary –crossing reactions without direct foreign participation in the decisions made within the unit.

“Emulative” linkage is where the response takes essentially the same as the action triggering itoff.

The “linkage” approach is useful because it neither denies nor exaggerates the relevance of national boundaries.

James N ROSENAU in his edited work entitled Linkage Politicsfree press.New York 1969 has an article by M.O LEARY entitled “Domestic politics and the international system”p.330.The author shares the definition of international politics with Morton Kaplan. Thus both M.O LEARY and Morton Kaplan. Sees a linkage between Domestic politics and international politics.

Precisely, Morton KAPLAN sees international politics. As an arena in which ultimately authoritative State …..have to come into contact with each other and settle their conflicts without the supravention of any external political Authority (M.KAPLAN 1961:470) Kaplan has been observed to have provide the opening wedge for such consideration . He points out that the need for sensitivity to the existence of “Coupled” social systems, when the output of one (say domestic political system) is input for (the international system) and vice versa.

In essence, strong independent governments and a stable unintegrated international system tend to reinforce one another. Thissupportive relationship suggests that the leaders of a strong and stable domestic political system (in Kaplan’s term, a system dominated by a subsystem) may have a special affinity for an unintegrated competitive international system.

There is another important linkage between domestic politics and international political system which is relevant -that is the active participation in international Relationsrequires the establishment of an effective cadre of officials charged with successful management of their nation’s foreign relations.

A.A.STEIN in his article entitled “The politics of Linkage” in World Politics.Vol.xxxiii No.1October 1980 stated that Linkage is a face of a two party relationship and its rigorous analysis requires a model of international interaction.

Figure 1

A No conflict situation

  In this and all following figures cell numerals refer to ordinarily ranked preferences:- 4 = best , 1= Worst ; the first number in each cell refers to As preference and the second number in each cell refers to Bs preference,

Forms of Linkage

An actor aggrieved with an equilibrium outcome cannot improve its position simply by changing its own Course of Action, Therefore,the aggrieved actor must get the other actor to change it course of action and that is why it turns to linkage politics. There are three different kinds of linkage appropriate in different situations which require that the aggrieved actor followdifference bargaining strategies.

(i)              Coerced Linkage –This is a situation in in whichthe aggrieved actor eschews its dominant strategy and thus forced the other, which has a contingent strategy to change course. The U. S attempt to get Britain to withdraw its forces from the Suez Canal in 1956 may be considered an example of coerced linkage.

(ii)            Threat  Produce Linkage – Such a threat could be made in the following circumstances;- (a) The actor that links issues (A) has a dominant strategy, preferring one particular course e.g A, no matter what the other does . (b) This aggrieved actor also prefers that B doB2 when it does A,1 (c)  the other actor  (B) either has a dominant strategy of  B1 or  (d)Has a contingent strategy preferring B1 only when A does A1 and B2 when A does A2  for example ,an Arab threat to embargo oil in order to obtain a change in U.S middle East policy .

The U.S and OPEC

U.S

Maintain Mid - East                            Change Mid-East                                               Policy                             Policy                                                                                                            B1                                                                B2

(Iii)  Mutual Linkage. This is one situationin which the desire for linkage is mutual and

in which either Actor can link the issues.

Allies

B1 No contribution to self Defence          B2 contribution to self Defence

Actor’s Dominant Strategy

Equilibrium Outcome

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Actor B

B1                          B2

In prisoner’s dilemma, either actor can introduce linkage by promising to eschew

it dominant strategy if the other also agree to do so.The initiator promises to do what is not in its interest if the other reciprocates. Mutual linkage requires that both actors shift away from their dominant strategies and that both eschew standard decision criteria of strict maximization. In contrast, threat- induced – linkage requires only that the threatened actor change course, coerced linkage requires that the initiator eschew its dominant strategy and normal decision criteria, thus forcing the other to change its policy .But the mutual. Linkage in the prisoner’s dilemma requires that both eschew the standard decision criteria and the dominant strategy, Thefirst actor has no assurance (unless it has been negotiated and formalized) that the other will be exploited if the other does not respond in kind

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.     J.N ROSENAU “Towards the study of National –International linkages” in J.N ROSENAU (ed), Linkage Politics. New York; The Free Press. 1969 .p.ps35-15

2.     M.O’LEARY “Domestic Politics and the International System” in J.N ROSENAU (ed)Ibid  pp.330-335

3.     J.FRANKEL,Contemporary International Theory and Behaviour of State. FreePress. New York 1972.

4.     A.A STEIN “The Politics of  Linkage” World Politics .Vol.xxxiii  No1.October 1980