The Goldstein view: state and non-state actors

The state and non-state actors are common elements when comparing various definitions of foreign policy. That means our discussion about foreign policy will be meaningless without these two actors.

“A state is a territorial entity controlled by a government and inhabited by a population. A state government answers to no higher authority; it exercises sovereignty over its territory – to make and enforce laws, to collect taxes, and so forth.”  (Goldstein, 2005: p. 10),

To Goldstein (ibid.) states are the most important actors in international relations. His view is supported by his statement that “a state government answers to no higher authority” and also his use of the word sovereignty.

His statement relates to the realist notion that ‘states are unitary actors’. Unitary in this context means the state is made up of different units and is bestowed with authority to act in the interest of the various units. Units compose of the population as the civil society and institutions created to aid in the function of society.

Goldstein sees sovereignty as a very important traditional norm. It gives a government the right, in principle, to do what it wants in its own territory. Because of anarchy states are autonomous and answer to no higher authority. Therefore, no other state has the right to interfere into the affairs of another sovereign state because in principle all states are equal in status and power

In addition, Goldstein argues that national governments may be the most important actor in international relations, but they are strongly conditioned, constrained, and influenced by a variety of actors that are not states.

The diagram below outlines Goldstein’s classification of non-state actors. Non-state actors are considered as a common element when one compares and contrast various definitions of foreign policy. The main reason is because they influence the state’s foreign policy.

Domestically, substate actors are groups with interest who try to influence foreign policy. Goldstein said the American automobile industry and tobacco industry have distinct interest in American foreign economic policy to sell cars or cigarettes abroad and to reduce imports of competing products made abroad. They do so through political action committees and lobbying.

“The actions of substate economic actors – companies, consumers, workers, investors – help to create the context of economic activity against which international political events play out, and within which governments must operate. Day in and day out, people extract natural resources and consume goods, buy and sell products and services. These activities of substate actors take place in what is now clearly a world economy – global exchange of goods and services woven together by a worldwide network of communication and culture.” (Goldstein, 2005: p. 12)

Transnational actors are actors who operate across borders. Goldstein said businesses that buy, sell, or invest in a variety of countries are good examples.

According to Goldstein, the decision of a company to do business with or in another state changes the relationship between the two states, making them more interdependent and creating a new context for the decisions the governments make about each other.

 “The thousands of multinational corporations (MNCs) are important transnational actors. The interests of a large company doing business globally do not correspond with any one state’s interests. Such a company many sometimes even act against its home government’s policies. MNCs often control greater resources, and operate internationally with greater efficiency, than many small states.”  (Goldstein, 2005: p.13)

Nongovernmental organizations are also classed as transnational actors. “Thousands of them pull and tug at international relations every day. These private organizations, some of considerable size and resources, interact with states, MNCs, and other NGOs. Increasingly NGO’s are being recognized, in the UN and other forums, as legitimate actors along with states, though not equal to them. Examples of NGO’s include the Catholic Church, Green Peace, and the International Olympics Committee.” (Goldstein, 2005: p. 13)

Goldstein (ibid.) claimed that “international terrorist might not call themselves NGOs, but they operate in the same manner - interacting both with states and directly with relevant population and institutions.” The attack on the world trade center in New York demonstrated the increasing power that technology gives to terrorist groups as non-state actors.

The last transnational actor is intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Goldstein (ibid.) claimed that “states often take actions through, within, or in the context of intergovernmental organizations – organizations whose members are national governments. The UN and its agencies are IGOs. So are most of the world’s economic coordinating institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). IGOs fulfill a variety of functions, and they vary in size from just a few states to virtually the whole UN membership.”

Goldstein’s explanation of state and non-state actors were used to explain why both actors are considered as common elements when trying to understand foreign policy. That does not mean that we should not consult other sources or scholars to see what they have to say about state and non-state actors. As seekers of knowledge, by all means, please read widely in order to test the merit of what has been presented to you.

References

Goldstein, J. (2005). International relations (6^th ed.). Beijing: Peking University Press.