Teoria Polityki

Logotyp Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

Towards a Theoretical Synthesis: Supplementing Two-Level Games with Role Theory

Data publikacji: 19.09.2022

Teoria Polityki, 2022, Nr 6/2022, s. 123 - 146



Magdalena Kozub-Karkut
Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska, ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-6876 Orcid
Wszystkie publikacje autora →


The objective of this article is to present possibilities offered by a combination of two theories, that is role theory (Holsti, 1970; Thies, Breuning, 2012; Walker, 1981; 1987; 2004; 2017; Wehner, Thies, 2014) and two-level games framework (Putnam, 1988). Although this ‘combining’may still cause considerable difficulties, because various IR theories are based on different ontological and epistemological assumptions, theoretical syntheses, however, are not impossible and, offer myriad research possibilities of developing middle-range ways of solving research puzzles (Jorgensen, 2018, pp. 250–252). The article consists of four parts. In the first one, the essential assumptions of role theory and the two-level game framework will be presented. The second part will present how to combine assumptions of these two theories by following the strategy of ‘domain of application’. In the third one, the results of the synthesis will be elucidated. It will be done by referring to the three factors that the two-level games framework is based on and by showing how previous studies focused on role theory could be supplemented by Putnam’s framework. The fourth, concluding part, will present final reflections as well as sketch the turf of the proposed theoretical synthesis.


Beasley, R., Kaarbo, J., Solomon-Strauss, H. (2016). “To Be or Not to Be a State? Role Contestation in the Debate Over the Scottish Independence”. In: C. Cantir, J. Kaarbo (eds.). Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 122–139.
Beneš, V., Harnisch, S. (2015). “Role Theory in Symbolic Interactionism: Czech Republic, Germany and the EU”. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), pp. 146–165.
Bengtsson, R., Elgstrom, O. (2011). “Reconsidering the European Union’s Roles in International Relations: Self-Conceptions, Expectations, and Performance”. In:
S. Harnisch, C. Frank, H.W. Maull (eds.). Role Theory in International Relations Approaches and Analyses. London: Routledge.
Bennett, A. (2013). “The Mother of All Isms: Casual Mechanisms and Structured Pluralism in International Relations Theory”. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), pp. 462–464.
Bjola, C., Manor, I. (2018). “Revisiting Putnam’s Two-Level Game Theory in the Digital Age: Domestic Digital Diplomacy and the Iran Nuclear Deal”. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31(1), pp. 3–32.
Bjola, C., Pamment, J. (2016). “Digital Containment: Revisiting Containment Strategy in the Digital Age”. Global Affairs, 2(2), pp. 131–142.
Boyer, M.A. (2000). “Issue Definition and Two-Level Negotiations: An Application to the American Foreign Policy Process”. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 11(2), pp. 185–212.
Breuning, M. (2011). “Role Theory Research in International Relations: State of the Art and Blind Spots”. In: S. Harnisch, C. Frank, H.W. Maull (eds.). Role Theory in International Relations Approaches and Analyses. London: Routledge.
Cantir, C., Kaarbo, J. (2012). “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics”. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), pp. 5–24.
Cantir, C., Kaarbo, J. (2016). “Unpacking Ego in Pole Theory. Vertical and Horizontal Role Contestation and Foreign Policy”. In: C. Cantir, J. Kaarbo (eds.). Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. New York: Routledge.
Caporaso, J., Checkel, J.T., Jupille, J. (2003). “Introduction –Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism and the Study of the European Union”. Comparative Political Studies, 36(1–2), pp. 7–41.
Checkel, J.T. (2010). “Theoretical Synthesis in IR: Possibilities and Limits”. Simons Papers in Security and Development, 6, pp. 1–34.
Clark, W.R., Duchesne, E., Meunier, S. (2000). „Domestic and International Asymmetries in the United States-European Union Trade Negotiations”. International Negotiation, 5(1), pp. 69–95.
Deitelhoff, N. (2006). Überzeugung in der Politik. Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie Internationalen Regierens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Dunne, T., Hansen, L., Wight, C. (2013). “The End of IR Theory?”. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), pp. 405–425.
Fearon, J., Wendt, A. (2002). “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View”. In: W. Carlsnaes, Th. Risse, B. Simmons (eds.). Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications.
Foyle, D.C. (2004). “Leading the Public To War? The Influence of American Public Opinion on the Bush Administration’s Decision to go to War in Iraq”. International Public Opinion Research, 16(3), pp. 141–169.
Friedrichs, G.M. (2021). U.S. Global Leadership Role and Domestic Polarization: A Role Theory Approach. New York: Routledge.
Gaskarth, J. (2016). “Intervention, Domestic Contestation, and Britain’s National Role Conceptions”. In: C. Cantir, J. Kaarbo (eds.). Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. New York: Routledge.
Grossman, M., Schortgen, F., Friedrichs, G.M. (2022). National Role Conceptions in a New Millennium Defining a Place in a Changing World. New York: Routledge.
Hall, R.B. (1999). National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harnisch, S., Berstick, S., Gottwald, J. (2016). China’s International Roles. New York: Routledge.
Harnisch, S., Frank, C., Maull, H.W. (2011). “Conclusion: Role Theory, Role Change, and the International Social Order”. In: S. Harnisch, C. Frank, H.W. Maull (eds.). Role Theory in International Relations Approaches and Analyses. London: Routledge.
Hodson, D., Maher, I. (2014). “British Brinkmanship and Gaelic Games: EU Treaty Ratification in the UK and Ireland from a Two Level Game Perspective”. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(4), pp. 645–661.
Holsti, K.L. (1970). “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy”. International Studies Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 233–309.
Hopf, T. (2002). Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hudson, V.M. (1999). “Cultural Expectations of One’s Own and Other Nations’Foreign Policy Action Templates”. Political Psychology, 20(4), pp. 767–801.
Hug, S., Schulz, T. (2007). “Referendums in the EU’s Constitution Building Process”. The Review of International Organizations, 2(2), pp. 177–218.
Jorgensen, K.E. (2018). International Relations Theory: A New Introduction. London: Palgrave.
Kaarbo, J. (2015). “A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Turn in IR Theory”. International Studies Review, 17(2), pp. 189–216.
Kirste, K., Maull, H.W. (1996). “Zivilmacht und Rolletheorie”. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 3(2), pp. 283–312.
Knopf, J.W. (1993). “Beyond Two Level Games: Domestic-International Interaction in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Negotiations”. International Organization, 47(4), pp. 599–628.
Kragh, M., Asberg, S. (2017). “Russia’s Strategy for Influence Through Public Diplomacy and Active Measures: The Swedish Case”. Journal of Strategic Studies, 40(6), pp. 773–816.
Leventoglu, B., Tarar, A. (2005). “Prenegotiation Public Commitment in Domestic and International Bargaining”. American Political Science Review, 99(3), pp. 419–433.
Levine, D.J., McCourt, D.M. (2018). “Why Does Pluralism Matter When We Study Politics? A View from Contemporary International Relations”. Perspectives on Politics, 16(1), pp. 92–109.
Lisowski, M. (2002). “Playing the Two-Level Game: Us President Bush’s Decision to Repudiate the Kyoto Protocol”. Environmental Politics, 11(4), pp. 101–119. 
Malici, A., Walker, St.G. (2016). Role Theory and Role Conflict in U.S.-Iran Relations. New York: Routledge.
McCourt, D.M. (2020). “Domestic Contestation Over Foreign Policy, Role-based and Otherwise: Three Cautionary Cases”. Politics, 41(2), pp. 173–188. 
Milner, H.V., Rosendorff, B.P. (1996). “Trade Negotiations, Information and Domestic Politics: The Role of Domestic Groups”. Economics & Politics, 8(2), pp. 145–189.
Mo, J. (1995). “Domestic Institutions and International Bargaining: The Role of Agent Veto in Two-Level Games”. American Political Science Review, 89(4), pp. 914–924.
Moravcsik, A. (1993). “Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining”. In: P.B. Evans, H.K. Jacobson, R.D. Putnam (eds.). Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 3–42.
Moravcsik, A. (2003). “Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical”. International Studies Review, 5(1), pp. 123–153.
Morin, J.-F., Paquin, J. (2018). Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 
Putnam, R.D. (1988). “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”. International Organization, 42(3), pp. 427–460.
Rathbun, B.C. (2004). Partisan Interventions: European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ree, G. van der (2014). “Saving the Discipline: Plurality, Social Capital, and the Sociology of IR Theorizing”. International Political Sociology, 8(2), pp. 218–233.
Rengger, N. (2015). “Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three Questions”. International Studies Perspectives, 16, pp. 32–39.
Risse-Kappen, Th. (1991). “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies”. World Politics, 43(4), pp. 479–512.
Schoppa, L.G. (1993). “Two-Level Games and Bargaining Outcomes: Why Gaiatsu Succeeds in Japan in Some Cases but not Others”. International Organization, 47(3), pp. 353–386.
Shamir, J., Shikaki, K. (2005). “Public Opinion in the Israeli-Palestinian Two-level Game”. Journal of Peace Research, 42(3), pp. 311–328.
Sil, R., Katzenstein, P. (2010). Beyond Paradigms: Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. London–New York: Red Globe Press.
Simon, E. (2019). “When David Fights Goliath: A Two-Level Explanation of Small-state Role-taking”. Foreign Policy Analysis, 15(1), pp. 118–135.
Stryker, S. (2006). “Traditional Symbolic Interactionism, Role Theory, and Structural Symbolic Interactionism: To Road to Identity Theory”. In: J.H. Turner (ed.). Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Springer. 
Stryker, S., Statham, A. (1985). “Symbolic Interactionism and Role Theory”. In: G. Lindzey, E. Arosnson (eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House.
Thies, C.G. (2010). “Role Theory and Foreign Policy”. In: R. Denmark (ed.). The Internationals Studies Encyclopedia. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 6335–6356.
Thies, C.G. (2012). “International Socialization processes and Israeli National Role Conceptions”. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), pp. 25–46.
Thies, C.G., Breuning, M. (2012). “Integrating Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations through Role Theory”. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), pp. 1–4.
Trumbore, P.F. (1998). “Public Opinion as a Domestic Constraint in International Negotiations: Two-Level Games in the Anglo-Irish Peace Processes”. International Studies Quarterly, 42(3), pp. 545–565.
Walker, S., Schafer, M., Beieler, J. (2016). “Belief Systems and Foreign Policy Roles: Role Contestation in U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions”. In: C. Cantir, J. Kaarbo (eds.). Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. New York: Routledge.
Walker, St.G. (1979). “National Role Conceptions and Systemic Outcomes”. In: L. Falkowski (ed.). Models in International Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Walker, St.G. (1981). “The Correspondence between Foreign Policy Rhetoric and Behavior: Insights from Role Theory and Exchange Theory”. Behavioral Science, 26, pp. 272–281.
Walker, St.G. (1987). Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Walker, St.G. (1992). “Symbolic Interactionism and International Politics”. In: M. Cottam,  C. Shih (eds.). Contending Dramas: A Cognitive Approach to International Organizations. New York: Praeger.
Walker, St.G. (2004). “Role Identities and Operational Codes of Political Leaders”. In: M.G. Hermann (ed.). Advances in Political Psychology. London: Elsevier.
Walker, St.G. (2007). “Generalizing about Security Strategies in the Baltic Sea Region”. In: O.F. Knudsen (ed.). Security Strategies, Power, Disparity, and Identity: The Baltic Sea Region. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Walker, St.G. (2017). “Role Theory as an Empirical Theory of International Relations: From Metaphor to Formal Model”. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved 3 Dec. 2020, https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-286 (accessed: 31.08.2021).
Walker, St.G., Malici, A., Schafer, M. (2011). Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis. New York: Routledge.
Wehner, L., Thies, C.G. (2014). “Role Theory, Narratives and Interpretation: The Domestic Contestation of Roles”. International Studies Review, 16(3), pp. 411–436.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whyte, S. (2022). “A Tenuous Island: The Destabilization of Britain’s Role in the International System of the 21st Century”. In: M. Grossman, F. Schortgen, G.M. Friedrichs (eds.). National Role Conceptions in a New Millennium Defining a Place in a Changing World. New York: Routledge.


Informacje: Teoria Polityki, 2022, s. 123 - 146

Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy



Towards a Theoretical Synthesis: Supplementing Two-Level Games with Role Theory



Magdalena Kozub-Karkut
Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska, ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-6876 Orcid
Wszystkie publikacje autora →

Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska, ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków

Publikacja: 19.09.2022

Status artykułu: Otwarte __T_UNLOCK

Licencja: CC BY-NC-ND  ikona licencji

Udział procentowy autorów:

Magdalena Kozub-Karkut (Autor) - 100%

Korekty artykułu:


Języki publikacji:


Liczba wyświetleń: 773

Liczba pobrań: 426