SE-506 THE ENVIRONMENT FROM A SYSTEMS VIEW

PURPOSE:

The lessons that you have covered so far have provided you with different tools to use when viewing the strategic environment. You are now aware that anytime you are assessing the strategic environment your own bias must be taken into account so that you are not perceiving the strategic environment through a faulty lens. This lesson builds on the knowledge you have gained so far, providing you with yet another tool for use in assessing the strategic environment. From here you will go on to learn the impact that international laws have on the various actors in the strategic environment.

Systems theory investigates the principles common to all complex entities and some of the models which can be used to describe them. It enables one to more effectively assess the strategic environment by helping to identify and explain why actors (nations, states, governments, factions, etc.) are behaving in the manner that they are.

Main Point I: A systems view helps explain system behavior in terms that can be understood.

Main Point II: Depending on the world view taken (e.g., realist or globalist), the relative influence or dependency of any international actor, condition, or event on the system will be elevated or diminished.

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

506.1 Comprehend the general nature of systems theory.

Systems theory provides you with another way of viewing the strategic environment. Systems theory investigates both the principles common to all complex entities and the models which can be used to describe them.

Systems of interest have something flowing through them, and the flows accumulate in various parts of the system. The "flows" are typically flows of materials that accumulate as "stocks"--the flows of goods ordered and goods sold, for example, accumulate as a stock held in a warehouse. Material flows should be interpreted in the broadest generic sense. "Material" may be people, or energy, or temperature, or other abstract concepts that can be accumulated.

Systems theory is independent of "systems analysis" which aims to specify possible courses of action, together with their risks, costs and benefits. A "system" is a "set of components interacting for a purpose."

506.11 Explain the basic attributes common to all systems

The three major factors to consider in any system are time, accumulation, and feedback. Rolf explains that "time" is how a system changes over time; "accumulation" are flows/rates that are accumulated into stocks; and "feedback" is simply the analysis of the system. Learning to master these concepts will enable you to make sense of the behavior of the various actors in the international arena.

The "Time" Variable

By analyzing a system, we mean showing how the system changes over time. This can be done in two ways. First by finding an analytic function that includes all the system variables in a mathematical expression that is a function of time, and then inserting any selected value of time to obtain system values at that point.

Feedback

A very important characteristic of time is that it is a truly independent variable (relativity theory aside). It makes sense to make the level of an inventory be a function of time, but it hardly seems practical to make time a function of inventory level. Being an independent (or exogenous) variable, time is an excellent indexing variable. Systems with feedback can be made dependent on time, without concern that time is dependent on the system variables.

There are modeling techniques that use other indexing variables. An "event based" simulation of an inventory, for example, may define its variables as functions of sales, so that a calculation occurs each time an item is sold. Such indexing is not very suitable however, for most feedback models.

The Process of Accumulation

A dynamic system is one in which there are flows that, as time passes, are accumulated (or "integrated") into stocks. Flows are often called rates, for "rate of change" per unit time, of the stock, and stocks are called levels, representing the amount of flows that have accumulated. The terms "stocks and flows" and "levels and rates" are closely related. A level represents the value for a stock at a point in time, and a rate represents the value for a flow.

506.2 Comprehend how systems theory can apply at the strategic level.

The first international system of the twentieth century carried over from the nineteenth century, and extended until 1914. In general terms, it was a balance of power system in which flexible groupings of states altered their relationships with one another to maintain a semblance of international peace and stability. Its hallmarks were the economic dominance of European states, the maintenance of global European empires, and the functioning of a militarily based balance of power in Europe to maintain the peace.

One of the extremely important but often overlooked preconditions for the successful operation of the system was the widespread acceptance by the actors within the system of the system's legitimacy. At the same time, while there was widespread acceptance of the system's legitimacy, the legitimacy of two of the major state actors, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, was being challenged by internal ethnic groups that sought to dissolve the empires in which they lived. These groups hoped to establish their own nation-states.

In addition, other pressures had long been building that challenged the balance of power system's stability. As early as 1868, dissatisfied but increasingly powerful nation-states sought to reapportion Colonial holdings, upset existing military balances, and otherwise challenge the existing system. Chief among these unsettling influences were Japan following the Meiji Restoration (1868) and Germany following unification (1871). Even the United States, which itself joined the rush to assemble overseas empires in the 1890s, had a role in destabilizing the balance of power system.

However, it was not until World War I (1914 -1918) that the balance of power system collapsed. Not surprisingly, the unprecedented death and destruction of World War I caused many people to reject the system that had led to the war. Thus, when World War I ended, the victorious side, urged on by American President Woodrow Wilson, created a new international system based on national self-determination and the nation-state in Europe, and on collective security throughout the world.

506.21 Describe the strategic environment in systems terms.

a unipolar world based on American military might, a regionalized world organized around three economic trading blocs, and a multipolar world based on several measures of national and international capabilities.

Throughout most of the years of the post-World War II bipolar international system, military strength was the primary measure of national power. To be sure, economic strength was almost always a major component of an international actor's ability to develop and maintain military strength, but military capabilities were nevertheless the foremost measure of national strength in most observers' eyes.

Given this emphasis, it therefore was not too surprising that when the Soviet Union collapsed, some people concluded that a unipolar world had emerged, with that one pole being the United States. These observers argued that the United States was now the only country that could project large quantities of military power anywhere in the world, that the United States had far and away the world's single largest national economy, and that the United States was now the focus of global affairs. Most observers who adopted this viewpoint were U.S. citizens.

A second model was based on regional economic blocs, centered on the United States; in Europe centered on the European Community and its member states; and in East Asia centered on Japan. To proponents of this viewpoint, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the East-West conflict had relegated military capabilities to a less important place in international affairs, and had elevated economic strength to the highest importance. Many concluded that as a result, the new international order of the late 1990s and beyond would be one of competing regional economic blocs. Critics of this perspective maintain that it overlooks the continuing importance of military capabilities and national aspirations in contemporary international relations.

A Multipolar World

Still other observers believe that the next international system will be an extremely diffuse world order, with the United States, the European Community, Japan, and China all continuing to play major roles, but with other states and other types of international actors also, on occasion, rising to prominence on a case-by-ease or issue-by-issue basis.

Proponents of this perspective more often than not see economic strength growing in importance in the next few years. However, they also believe that military strength will continue to play an important role in contemporary international affairs. Often, they point to the collapse of the Soviet Union as proof of the growing importance of economies, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War as proof of the continuing importance of military power. But they also stress that measures of national power in addition to economic capabilities and military strength are extremely important. Sometimes termed soft power, these other measures include but are not necessarily limited to beliefs, ideas, and culture. Proponents of this perspective emphasize that "soft power" dimensions of national strength can not be overlooked.³

As already noted, this third perspective of the emerging international order is extremely diffuse. Some of its critics assert that it underplays the importance of economic capabilities and military strength, as well as the continued importance of traditional actors and issues in contemporary international affairs. Other critics argue that it is so diffuse a model of the emerging international order that it is not really a model at all, but rather a refusal to create a model of what the new international order will become. Nevertheless, its proponents believe that it provides the most accurate representation of what the emerging international system will be like.

READINGS:

Rolf, C., Systems Modeling and System Dynamics: A Tutorial Guide.

Papp, Daniel S., "Contemporary International Relations", Systemic Change.