# Lateral Pressure Theory

Lateral Pressure Theory refers to any tendency (or propensity) of individuals and societies to expand their activities and exert influence and control beyond their established boundaries, whether for economic, political, military, scientific, religious, or other purposes.). Framed by Robert C. North and developed with Nazli Choucri, the theory addresses the sources and consequences of such a tendency.
Lateral Pressure theory seeks to explain the relationships between state characteristics and patterns of international behavior. The theory addresses the sources and consequences of transformation and change in international relations and provides a basis for analyzing potential feedback dynamics.
Lateral pressure is a relatively neutral concept similar to what Sorokin called economic expansion and Simon Kuznets (1966) referred to more broadly as outward expansion. The strength of a country's lateral pressure is generally taken to correlate positively with its power (a concept that is almost universally used but defined with difficulty). Lateral pressure theory provides a more detailed and nuanced view of the sources of power, the types of leverages used, and the behaviors that can be inferred. It suggests how certain types of international behaviors or activities appear to be more prevalent in some countries than others.

## Anchors of lateral pressure theory

Lateral pressure theory can best be understood in terms of its basic assumptions, its components and their interconnections. The theoretical properties include some notable departures from conventional theory in international relations. The properties serve as a parsing process, signaling the characteristic features of theory to date. The purpose is less to provide a discursive description than it is to focus on distinctive properties.

### System of interaction

Traditionally, international relations focused on power and purpose in the geospatial domain, with the state system as the dominant organizational principle. In contrast, lateral pressure theory takes the position that all actors and entities are embedded in three distinct, but interconnected systems, that is, the social domain of human interactions, the natural environment of life supporting properties, and now the constructed system of virtual interactions, namely cyberspace – an assumption that holds within and across all levels of analysis.

### Individual and 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, that is, the individual.
Lateral pressure theory sees the individual as an information processing and an energy using entity – endowed with cognition and expressed perceptions.
Second, the theory is anchored in the assumption that homo individualis – in contrast to homo economicus and homo politicus – is situated in an overarching social and natural, and now cyber, environment. This logic is at odds with the conventional view of economic man, the isolated individual entering an impersonal market at a particular point in time.
Embedded in the interactive social, natural, and cyber domains, homo individualis is at once an economic, social or political man, even a homo cybericus – depending on role and context at any point in time.

### Demands and capabilities

Lateral Pressure theory assumes that each statistic is an indicator of - and consequence of - a discreet decision by an individual human being governed by his or her preference. the larger the size of the community the greater are the demands, wants and needs. Population growth, for example, is in fact the outcome of a large number of discrete private decisions (due to volition or to coercion) over which policy makers or national governments are not likely to have direct control. In this connection, if there is any - determinism in this logic, it is one driven by individual decision.
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 to-be”, and possibly approach or establish a preferred condition – individuals and societies must possess the required capabilities.
Capabilities consist of the set of attributes that enable performance and al enable individuals, groups, political systems, and entire societies to manage their demands. Given that states vary extensively in their capabilities, so too their environmental effects will also vary, as will the attendant pressures on the social system, or the integrity of the natural environment.
The concepts of demands and capabilities – mediated by cognitions and perceptions – provide the transition from the individual to the broader social entity, notably, the state.
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
Capabilities consist of the set of attributes that enable performance and al enable individuals, groups, political systems, and entire societies to manage their demands. Given that states vary extensively in their capabilities, so too their environmental effects will also vary, as will the attendant pressures on the social system, or the integrity of the natural environment.

### Master variables

The theory assumes that the critical drivers of social activity can be traced to the interaction of 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. 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.
Population refers to the size, distribution, and composition of people, and to changes thereof.
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.
Resources are conventionally defined as that, which has value to include 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.

### State profiles

For lateral pressure theory, the master variables constitute the basis for identifying the state profile. At each point in time, a state is characterized by one set of “master variables” technology that define the parameters of the polity and provide the basis policy and purpose. Different combinations of master variables yield different state profiles – and different impacts on the natural environment.
The theory assumes that interactions among these variables within states affect power distributions and relations among states.

### Governance and government

Governance refers to forms of legitimate authority through which societies are managed, while government refers to institutional structures and processes for law and order, and serves as overarching 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, and in all periods of time.
The generic challenge for governance is how best to manage two countervailing processes: (a) pressures emanating from societal demand creating loads on the system, on the one hand, and (b) capacities of government to manage the loads, respond to pressures, while avoiding serious conflict and large-scale disruptions, on the other.

### Expansion and interaction

In the management of loads and capabilities, and/or in the protection of its national interests, the state may find it necessary (or it 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.
Not all expansion leads to intersections of interests, nor do all intersections of interests harness a conflict spiral. The quantitative investigations of lateral pressure theory signal the challenges as well as the opportunities and contentions inherent in, and surrounding, quantitative empirical analyses.

### Corporate behavior and non-state actors

Lateral pressure theory suggests that the relationship between corporate actors and the sovereign state is framed by the characteristic features of the state’s profile, on the one hand, and the dynamics of corporate growth and expansion, on the other. Over time, as a state increases its capabilities and its private entities, it generates a range of cross-border activities and may even become a net outward investor.
Eventually, the capabilities of corporate actors, rather than the power and the profile of the home country, become more significant than the state interests. 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), 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 – with flows of information, communication, and knowledge building. By definition, these actors assume a physical presence in different jurisdictions—the nature of which depends on the types of products, processes, and services. Unless closely held, these entities are controlled by stockholders – at least in principle. Again, all of this narrative is consistent with tradition.

### International dynamics

By definition, international relations consist of 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. With exacerbating hostilities and unabated military competition, an adversarial provocation (or the perception of such) may trigger overt violence.
The theory draws on four important concepts in international relations theory:
* the conflict spiral (such as Holsti, 1967),
* the arms race dynamics (pioneered by Richardson, 1960),
* the security dilemma (notably Herz, 1950; Jervis, 1997),
* the peace paradox (Choucri and North, 1989)
When initiatives by one of the adversaries to reduce hostilities, are considered by the other as a sign of weakness and thus an opportunity for taking the offensive and making a move to gain advantage.
In this connection, almost everyone acknowledges the importance of deterrence and deterrence theory. However, there is less agreement about the underlying conditions that enable deterrence or the relevance of deterrence in the 21st century cyber arena.
Less fully developed in lateral pressure theory are the dynamics of international cooperation. The theory recognizes that 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).

### The global system

Lateral pressure theory extends the traditional levels by positing the global system as an overarching concept that encompasses its constitutive features – the individual, the state, and the international system – embedded in social system and the natural environment and, more recently, in the cyber domain.
Among the many challenges impeding ready understanding of the global system 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, are the intergenerational impacts of environmental change, whereby future generations incur the burdens created by the actions of past and present generations, exacerbated by the challenges associated with long lead times.
* Third, are the changing social, environmental and cyber processes that operate at different, unequal and sometimes overlapping time frames. All of this complicates temporality and the role of time in any assessments of global dynamics.
* Fourth are uncertainties due to irreversibility. Needless to say, neither patterns of environmental alterations nor developments of the cyber domain, can readily be “undone”. Underlying sources are not easily controlled or “eliminated” on short order – if at all.
* Fifth, the conjunction of changes in the cyber domain the natural environment and the social order create the nature of which cannot be readily assessed.

### Complexity of security

Much of the forgoing points to the emergent and dynamic complexity of security at all levels of along with the multiplicity of dilemmas.
An added complication is that the insecurity of one domain invariably “spills over” to other domains. Such spillover signals some distinct “cross-space” effects and degrees of intensity. Harkening back to the systems of interactions, it is evident that a new security calculus must follow accordingly.

## Empirical analysis: data & methods

Lateral pressure theory assumes that each statistic is an indicator of – and consequence of – a discrete decision by an individual human being governed by his or her preferences. The larger the size of the community the greater are the demands, wants and needs.
Population growth, for example, is in fact the outcome of a large number of discrete private decisions (due to volition or to coercion) over which policy makers or national governments are not likely to have direct control Indicators of technology, like those of population, are also the observed outcomes of a number of widely dispersed decisions by individual actors such as developers, inventors, scientists, investors, manufacturers, etc. The same holds for resource access and uses.
Empirical analyses of lateral pressure theory have gone through several phases with each phase providing grounds for further refinement of theory, and new challenges for quantitative analysis.

### Major power interactions, 1870–1914

The first phase, characterized in Nations in Conflict, consists of a large-scale cross-national multi-equation econometric investigation of six major power throughout the 45 years leading to World War I. Focusing on the evolution and consolidation of contentions and, eventually, the breakout of war among the six great powers from 1870 to 1914.

### War and peace - political economy

In second phase, characterized by The Political Economy of War and Peace (1980), Richard Ashley extends the lateral pressure logic, as well as the measures and metrics, into a system of simultaneous equations representing conflict dynamics among competing powers in the post-World War II era. Ashley focused on the interactions generated by differentials in growth of population, resource access, and levels of technology focusing on the United States, the Soviet Union, and China.
In his book, Ashley demonstrates the close interconnections among national growth, bilateral rivalry, and multilateral balance of power. It is also the first quantitative analysis of these three Powers in world politics.
The study shows how the dynamics of insecurity and the antagonizing processes contribute to the expansion of military competition, which in turn, creates serious impediments to the collective management of many dimensions of growth itself. Careful model development, empirical grounding and parameter estimation as well as simulation of sensitivity analysis revealed the overall security problematic surrounding major power interactions. Despite changes in world politics since 1914, fundamental features of lateral pressure retained powerful resonance during the post-World War II period.

### Japan growth and expansion: 1868–1970

The third phase consists of large-scale quantitative analyses of Japan over the span of one hundred years. With Robert C. North and Suzumu Yamakage, The Challenge of Japan Before World War II and After: A Study of National Growth and Expansion (1992). Also, in the form of large-scale, multi-equation econometric models, this work focused on growth, development, competition, warfare, and reconstruction, these one hundred years illustrate the ways in which Japan sought to manage its resource constraints, adopt internal and external policies to meet its core demands, and find itself engaged in competition with other states leading to conflict it viewed as essential for its survival. A combination of historical narrative and econometric analysis with a system of simultaneous equations traces the complex challenges throughout each period.
The country's uneven development—shaped by its population resources, constraints, technology advances, and population dynamics—posed serious challenges to the international order, leading to conflict and war, followed by periods of peace, and then more war, over a period of one hundred years or so. The demand for imports could only be met by the supply of exports, thus shaping a vicious cycle of reliance on external resources. Japan was caught between a rock (invariant resource levels) and a hard place (external constraints on resource access).
The Japan case indicates how a country’s profile can change over time and how these changes are associated with different patterns of international behavior. Each period demonstrated different structural features and alternative pathways for adjustments to internal and external constraints.
World War II created a major system break that required a re-specification and re-estimation of the entire system of simultaneous equations from 1945 to 1970.
In the decades preceding major international conflicts Japan fostered its eventual technology-dominant profile enabling it to engage in a wide range of expansionist activities to reduce its resource constraints. The book was long completed before analysts recognized the declining birth rate of Japan and the leveling of its population growth – thus potentially affecting the country’s profile.

### The master variables

The fourth phase overlaps with then ongoing initiatives, but with a distinct focus, hence considered as a distinct phase. It consists of detailed analyses focusing on the individual “master variables” separately – while recognizing their interactions – to obtain a close assessment of their characteristic features. The basic principle that it is the interactions of the three master variables (population, technology, resources) that define state profiles and the propensity for expansion.

### Global energy system dynamics

The fifth phase of lateral pressure research explores the use of system dynamics for modeling and simulation of international relations. The earliest system dynamics models of lateral pressure focused on the interconnections among the master variables that create internal sources of external conflict. (Choucri, Meadows, and Laird, 1972). As such they provide a major contrast in orientation, and a departure from the concurrent work with earlier phases of research.
Subsequently, the salience of the OPEC crisis provides the empirical referent for a study of global energy politics, reported International Energy Futures (1981), by Choucri with D. S. Ross and the collaboration of B. Pollins. The development of the International Petroleum Exchange Model (IPE), a set of system dynamics forecasting and simulation analyses of the global energy system, allows for simulating future prices, politics, and market configurations.
The analysis explores the cost and benefit of alternative policies for the oil companies. As such, it is an important extension of lateral pressure theory in its attention to corporate entities the international system.

### Natural environment

The sixth phase of lateral pressure research seeks to endogenize the natural environment in analyses of human interactions. As such, it constitutes a notable advance in theory development and empirical analysis.

### Sustainable development

In phase seven, the concept of sustainable development crystallizes as an important element of the lateral pressure logic. Motivated by the work of Marvin Minsky – the founding Director of MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory – the approach in Mapping Sustainability: Knowledge e-Networking and the Value Chain Sustainability (Choucri ed., et al., 2007) finds it useful to think of a frame as “a sort of skeleton, something like an application form with many blanks or slots to be filled” (Minsky, 1986).

## Lateral pressure and cyberspace

For Lateral Pressure Theory cyberspace is a global domain of human interaction. Its construction heralded phase seven of theory and analysis. This domain is created by:
* Interconnections of billions of computers by a global network, today the Internet, and all of its derivatives;
* built as a layered construct where physical elements enable a logical framework of interconnection;
* permits the processing, manipulation exploitation, augmentation of information, and the interaction of people and information;
* enabled by institutional intermediation and organization; and
* characterized by decentralization and interplay among actors, constituencies, and interests.
Until recently cyberspace was considered largely a matter of low politics – the term used to denote background conditions and routine decisions and processes. By contrast, high politics is about national security, core institutions, and decision systems that are critical to the state, its interests, and its underlying values. Cyberspace is now a matter of high politics.
* ↑ Choucri, N., & North, R. C. "In Search of Peace Systems: Scandinavia and the Netherlands, 1870-1970.” In Russett, B. M., & American Political Science Association. (1972). Peace, war, and numbers. Beverly Hills
* 1 2 Choucri, N., & North, R. C. (1975). Nations in conflict: National growth and international violence. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
* 1 2 Ashley, R. K. (1980). The political economy of war and peace: The Sino-Soviet-American triangle and the modern security problematique. London: F. Pinter.
* ↑ Choucri, N., & North, R. C. (1989). “Lateral Pressure in International Relations: Concept and Theory.” In Midlarsky, M. I. (1989). Handbook of war studies. Boston [U.A: Unwin Hyman.
* ↑ North, R. C. (1990). War, peace, survival: Global politics and conceptual synthesis. Boulder: Westview Press.
* ↑ Lofdahl, C. L. (2002). Environmental impacts of globalization and trade: A systems study. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
* ↑ Sorokin, P. A. (1957). Social and cultural dynamics: A study of change in major systems of art, truth, ethics, law, and social relationships. London Routlage.
* ↑ Kuznets, S. (1966). Modern economic growth: rate, structure, and spread. New Haven: Yale University Press.
* ↑ Choucri, N., & North, R. C. (1989). “Lateral Pressure in International Relations: Concept and Theory.” In Midlarsky, M. I. (1989). Handbook of war studies. Boston [U.A: Unwin Hyman.
* ↑ North, R. C. (1990). War, peace, survival: Global politics and conceptual synthesis. Boulder: Westview Press.
* ↑ Wickboldt, Anne-Katrin, & Choucri, N. (2006). “Profiles of States as Fuzzy Sets: Refinement of Lateral Pressure Theory”. International Interaction, 32, 153-181.
* ↑ Choucri, N. (1993). “Introduction: Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Perspectives.” In Choucri, N. (1993). Global accord: Environmental challenges and international responses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
* ↑ Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
* ↑ Holsti, K. J. (1967). International politics: A framework for analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
* ↑ Richardson, L. F. (1960). Arms and insecurity: A mathematical study of the causes and origins of war. Pittsburgh: Boxwood Press.
* ↑ Herz, J. H. (January 18, 1950). “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” In World Politics, vol.2, issue 2, pp.157-180.
* ↑ Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
* ↑ Choucri, N., & North, R. C. (1989). “Lateral Pressure in International Relations: Concept and Theory.” In Midlarsky, M. I. (1989). Handbook of war studies. Boston [U.A: Unwin Hyman.
* ↑ Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
* ↑ Choucri, N. (1993). “Introduction: Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Perspectives.” In Choucri, N. (1993). Global accord: Environmental challenges and international responses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
* ↑ Choucri, N., North, R. C., & Yamakage, S. (1992). The challenge of Japan before World War II and after: A study of national growth and expansion. London: Routledge.
* ↑ Choucri, N. M., Laird, M., & Meadows, D. L. (1972). Resource scarcity and foreign policy: A simulation model of international conflict. Cambridge, Mass: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* ↑ Choucri, N., Mistree, D., Haghseta, F., Mezher, T., Baker, W. and Ortiz, C. (2007). Mapping sustainability: Knowledge e-networking and the value chain. Dordrecht: Springer.
* ↑ Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.