MIT white logo

Global CyberPolitics

Properties of Theory

The major principles, or properties, of lateral pressure theory – twelve in all – are presented here at a high level of abstraction or aggregation. While this sequential rendering highlights specific features, it obscures the ways in which the individual “pieces” constitute the “whole”. It also obscures their interaction and the feedback dynamics. At the same time, however, the listing below signals the dynamic processes and their constituent elements.

1. Systems of Interaction

Introduced earlier, the theory assumes all human activity is embedded in three distinct but closely coupled systems, that is, the social domain of human interactions, the natural environment of life supporting properties, and now the constructed environment, namely, cyberspace—an assumption that holds within and across all levels of analysis, as defined below.

While the logic of lateral pressure theory argues for their joint or co-dependence (even co-evolution), only social systems are characterized by fully articulated decision systems, as we understand them. Early on, lateral pressure dynamics were considered largely in terms of social interactions in an international context. It gradually became apparent that the propensity to expand is manifested in environmental traces of all human activity and, more recently, in the cyber arena.

Clearly, humans make decisions that have impacts on life supporting properties, directly or indirectly, and the feedback effects are subject to the decision mechanisms of nature. The cyber arena, created by human intelligence, assumes properties of its own that are seldom entirely subject to social decision or control.

2. Levels of Analysis

The notion of “Images”, or levels of analysis, so fundamental in international relations is an important element of lateral pressure theory, subject to major three departures from tradition.

Here, the first departure is the introduction of a fourth level of analysis, namely the overarching global system encompassing the individual, the state, and the international levels. Second is the situation of the levels within three distinct but interconnected systems of interaction. And the third relates to aggregation issues.

The conventional practice is to point to the levels of analysis—beginning with the individual and moving up the level of aggregation. We shall follow this practice in the remainder of this section in order to highlight the lateral pressure logic.

At the same time, feedback dynamics may generate “reversal effects”—that is, from the global system—to the international, state, or individual level. While not fully articulated, the theory highlights the potential and possibility of generativity – in this and other ways – a feature that remains to be explored in international relations theory.

3. Individuals & Aggregates

At the base of the social order are the core activities undertaken by individuals in their efforts to meet their needs and demands. Aggregated at the level of the state, the international system, and the global context, the most fundamental individual needs and wants are driven by the quest for security and survival. This is consistent with tradition in international relations theory. But the view of the individual differs from that posited by convention for the “First Image” in international relations theory.

To begin with, lateral pressure theory sees the individual as an information processing and an energy using entity. Second, the theory is anchored in the assumption that homo individualis is situated in an overarching social, natural, and now cyber system. This view is in contrast to homo economicus and homo politicus that are both solidly anchored in the social system.

Both the market and the polity are well understood with respect to properties and modes of behaviors, but they retain an exclusively social view of man. Embedded in the interactive social, natural, and cyber domains, homo individualis is at once an economic, social, and/or political man, even a homo cybericus—depending on role and context at any point in time.

4. Demands & Capabilities

The transition from the individual to the broader social entity, notably, the state is provided for, and manifested in, the concepts of demand and capability.

A demand is a determination that derives from a perceived (or felt) need, want, or desire for the purpose of narrowing or closing the gap between a perception of fact (what is) and a preference or value (what ought to be).

Basic demands are usually for resource access, better living conditions, physical safety, and security, all of which are generally considered under the rubric of utility by economists. To meet demands—and to close the gap between the “is” and the “ought” or preferred condition—individuals and societies must possess the required capabilities.

Capabilities consist of the set of attributes that enable performance and allow individuals, groups, political systems, and entire societies to manage their demands. Given that states vary extensively in their capabilities, their environmental effects will also vary, as will the attendant pressures on the integrity of social systems or the viability of the natural system.

5. Master Variables

The theory assumes that the critical drivers of social activity—in all contexts and at all levels of development—can be traced to the interaction among three master variables: population, resources, and technology. Measurement of the master variables is usually a first step in quantitative analysis and grounds the theory in an empirical context.

Population refers to the size, distribution, and composition of people, and to changes thereof. Each of these variables can be differentiated along a number of sub-factors or variables—depending on the issues at hand or the interest of the analyst. The same can be said about resources and technology.

Resources are conventionally defined as that which has value, including all elements critical to human existence (such as water, air, etc.) provides a perspective on the concept of resources intimately connected to requisites for basic survival. The specific metric or metrics used in any investigation is usually driven by the research design and its purpose.

Technology refers to all applications of knowledge and skills in mechanical (equipment, machinery, etc.) as well as organizational (institutional) terms. This concept of technology encompasses both soft and hard dimensions, and often the former is as important as the latter.

Normalization of the selected indicator ensures that the master variables are (i) of same order of magnitude, and (ii) independent of their units of measure. This step ensures that lateral pressure profiles of different states are comparable and meaningful (Choucri & Agarwal, 2017). The normalization method used is the fractional share of a state i in the global aggregate value (“world” total) of the indicator in year t.

Thus, we can define the master variables as follows:

Master Variables

where, 

Pi,j, Ri,j, and Ti,j are  population-, resource- and technology- master variables for country i at time j respectively, and 

pi,j, ri,j, and ti,j are the measures of population, resources, and technology respectively for country i in year j.

The master variables constitute the basis for identifying the state profile and for calculating a state’s profile type. At each point in time, a state is characterized by one set of “master variables” that define the empirical parameters of the polity and provide the basis for policy.

Reference:

  • Choucri, N., & North, R. C. (1987). Roots of war: The master variables. In R. Väyrynen, D. Senghaas, & C. Schmidt (Eds.), The Quest for peace: Transcending collective violence and war among societies, cultures, and states (pp. 204–216). International Social Science Council.

6. State Profiles

Lateral pressure theory signals that all states can be characterized by combinations of population, resources, and technology (the master variables) and that different combinations yield different state profiles and different impacts on the natural environment.

The theory articulates a direct connection between internal attributes and external behavior, thereby leading to a wide range of international consequences. It anticipates that interactions among these variables within states affect power distributions and relations among states. In other words, different state profiles manifest different propensities for external behaviors. (Choucri & North 1989; North 1990; Wickboltd & Choucri, 2006). The state profile is also a good predictor of power-indicators on the one hand and, as we have shown, patterns of environmental impacts on the other (Choucri and North 1993a).

The formal specification of state profiles in the Table below presents the definitional inequalities. In this Table, state profiles are displayed from of a technology-driven perspective, indicated by the T-variable along the diagonal. The relational alignment of the master variables is central to the concept of profiles. The selection of dominant variables is presented here for largely display purposes, and with the recognition that, in most cases, technology is likely to change more rapidly than population or resources.

State Profiles Defined:

ProfileFormal Specification
IResources > Population > Technology
IIPopulation > Resources > Technology
IIIPopulation > Technology > Resources
IVResources > Technology > Population
VTechnology > Resources > Population
VITechnology > Population > Resources
Source: Choucri, N. (2012). Cyberpolitics in international relations. MIT Press.

The reorganization of each profile location in this table by leading variable would yield, by definition, a population-driven display, or alternatively, a resource-driven display (each with the P- or the R- variables along the diagonals). See Choucri & North (1993a) and Lofdahl (2002) for the original specification, Wickboldt & Choucri (2006) and Choucri & Agarwal (2017) for extension of the logic to differentiate empirically among countries within each profile group.

References:

7. Lateral Presure Index

Most of the empirical work on lateral pressure theory address the propensity for expansion of behavior outside territorial boundaries with reference to actual behavior (rather than propensity). While this is entirely consistent with the theory, it bypasses the thorny problem of metricizing the propensity variable and then examines its connections to actual behavior.

More recently developed, is the Lateral Pressure Index designed to quantify the degree of propensity for expansion and, to the extent possible, to highlight the relative salience of individual drivers. (Choucri and Agarwal, 2017) After some experimentation, we framed the Lateral Pressure Index as a function of the geographic mean of its master variables.

References:

8. Expansion & Intersection

In the management of loads and capabilities, and/or in the protection of its national interests, the state may find it necessary (or may have the capacity) to extend its behavior outside territorial boundaries. To the extent that states extend their behavior outside territorial boundaries, they are likely to encounter other states similarly engaged.

The intersection of spheres of influence as a significant point at which interactions are likely to evolve into competition, which in turn shapes hostilities that, once set in place, can rapidly evolve into spiraling conflicts, leading to military competition and eventually to violence and warfare—usually triggered by an overt act that is perceived as a provocation.

Clearly not all expansion leads to intersections of interests, nor do all intersections of interests harness a conflict spiral. This stylistic sketch is remarkably consistent with the historical record of the industrial West and the narratives developed over time to explain the outbreak of World War I and World War II (North, 1990). The quantitative investigations of lateral pressure theory, signal the challenges as well as the opportunities and contentions inherent in and surrounding quantitative empirical analyses. (Choucri & North 1975; Choucri, North and Yamakage 1992)

References:

9. Governance & Government

Governance refers to legitimate structures and processes through which societies are managed. Government refers to the specific mechanisms for management. Simple as this might seem, we shall note further along how important they are for interactions in the cyber domain.

Government is the lead decision, policy, and enforcement entity. Initially framed in the context of the sovereign state, these definitions are generic in form, applicable to all countries at all levels of development, in all periods of time. Some similar mechanisms operate in other contexts and entities, such as corporations and non-profit entities.

Here we return to the notion of capabilities introduced above. Especially relevant are the contributions of Almond and Powell (1966) who defined government activities as extractive, distributive, responsive, regulative, and symbolic in nature. It is not difficult to see the connection between this view of capabilities and most of the variables in the state’s national budget. Less obvious is the reconciliation of these capabilities with one of the most fundamental functions of government, not explicitly addressed by Almond and Powell, namely, the provision of national security.

The generic governance challenge is how best to manage two counter pervasive processes:

  1. demands emanating from the social system creating loads on the system, 
  2. capabilities of government to manage the loads and respond to pressures while avoiding any serious and large-scale disruptions.

Efforts to meet demand—or to expand capacity for purposes of meeting demands—often creates unintended consequences that may undermine the government‘s own position. Thus, the management of demands and capabilities is the intervening process relating state profiles and their characteristic features to propensities for external behavior.

References:

10. Corporate Behavior & Non-State Actors

Lateral pressure theory argues that the relationship between corporate entities and the sovereign state is framed by the characteristics of the state’s profile, on the one hand, and the dynamics of corporate expansion, on the other. For example, in early phases of development a country generates neither outward nor inward and organizational capability. Over time, as a country increases its capabilities and its private organizations, it generates a range of cross-border activities and may even become a net outward investor.

Eventually, the capabilities of corporate entities rather than the power and the profile of the home country become more significant. In this process, the firm’s strategies are increasingly decoupled from the home state and its profile. Corporate policy is now framed largely within the firm’s “organizational field” (Fligstein 1990, p.5–11), a concept that carries much of the expansionist core of lateral pressure.

The horizontal reach of the traditional commercial private sector is well known, as are the various transformations in response to changing market and other conditions. These features are embedded in emergent vertical linkages—connecting global and local—for information, communication, and knowledge building to and from the grass roots. By definition, these actors assume a physical presence in different jurisdictions—the nature of which depends on the nature of products, processes, and services.

Unless closely held, these entities are controlled by stockholders—at least in principle. Again, all of this falls largely into the domain of tradition. The same cannot be said of the private sector for the cyber arena—largely due to the salience of not-for-profit segments and on consolidation of stakeholders.

Reference:

11. International Conflict

By definition, the international system consists of sovereign states; and international relations are interactions among sovereign entities, intergovernmental organizations, non-state entities for-profit and not-for-profit, non-governmental organizations, and many others.

As a result, the sovereign state is embedded in a wide range of networks, formal and informal. Given that competition for power and influence is a generic feature of politics among nations, lateral pressure theory points to intersections among spheres of influences as a mechanism for setting hostility, potentially setting into place the dynamics of military competition, leading to a set of well-known outcomes, notably:

  • conflict spiral (such as Holsti, 1967), 
  • arms race dynamics (pioneered by Richardson, 1960), 
  • security dilemma (notably Herz 1950; Jervis, 1997).

In this connection, while everyone acknowledges the importance of deterrence, and deterrence theory, there is limited agreement about the underlying conditions that enable effective deterrence in the 21st century cyber world—an issue we shall address later on.

Less fully developed in lateral pressure theory are the dynamics of international cooperation, which we shall address later in the context of global accord on the environment. (Choucri, 1993). The theory draws upon concepts of multilateralism, as a form of coordinated behavior among states designed to reduce disorder and anarchy in the international system. 

Stated differently, as coordinated action among sovereign states, multilateralism emerged as a means of protecting the interests and activities of states in the international system in their pursuit of core goals, namely, wealth and power (Gilpin, 1987).

Much of the foregoing is applicable at the regional level, however defined, and is relevant to any delineation or aggregation of entities.

References:

12. The Global System

Recall that lateral pressure theory extends the traditional levels of analysis by positing the global system as an overarching concept that encompasses its constitutive features—the individual, the state, and the international system—all embedded in the social system and the natural environment and, more recently, in the cyber domain.

The theory also views the globalization processing in overarching terms—as fundamental transformations in economic and social structures and processes worldwide, shaped by the large-scale movements of people, resources, and technologies across boundaries—along with all attendant by-products. Such cross-border mobility influences the nature of national societies and economies and, under certain circumstances, may even alter them in fundamental ways. Inevitably, they also shape and reshape international exchanges and interactions.

To the extent that these processes are sufficiently pervasive and call for changes in dominant policy thrusts, it is reasonable to argue that the essence of globalization lies in the forging of common and overlapping policy spaces.

Globalization generally leads to new arenas of interaction. Earlier globalizations, which had created new spaces of interaction due to control or conquest (colonies, the Polar Regions, and outer space, for example), provided opportunities for the few and the powerful. Over time, the global system and the attendant globalization processes become more complex and assume new properties of unprecedented scale and scope. Later in this paper we shall turn to the cyber domain and illustrate the ways in which lateral pressure theory addresses this constructed domain.

Among the many challenges associated with the global system and its globalization, at least five are especially compelling (Choucri, 1993).

First, the basic biogeochemical characteristics of the global environment are broadly recognized, but uncertainties about feedback effects on both the geophysical and social processes remain daunting.

Second, the social, environmental, and cyber-based processes operate at unequal and sometimes overlapping time frames, thus complicating notion of temporality and the role of time.

Third are the intergenerational impacts of environmental change, whereby future generations incur the environment burden created by the actions of past and present generations, with the challenges associated with long lead times.

Fourth are uncertainties due to irreversibility. Patterns of environmental alterations cannot readily be “undone.” Underlying sources are not easily be controlled or “eliminated” on short order—if at all.

Fifth are the potentials for generativity and other features created by the construction of cyberspace. [19]

Jointly, these challenges anticipate, even signal, different facets of transformation and change that create new complexities for policy and decision at all levels of aggregation.

In conclusion, LOGIC & THEORY, the First Global Imperative, provides an overarching conceptual framework for all of the Imperatives and constituent research projects. To be addressed later on in this Compendium is the operational model of the joint cyberspace-international relations system.

We now turn to CYBERSECURITY, the Second Global Imperative.

Reference: