INTERDEPENDENCE AS AN ANALYTIC CONCEPT
In common parlance, dependence means a state of being determined or significantly affected by external forces. Interdependence, most simply defined, means mutual dependence. Interdependence in world politics refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries.
These effects often result from international transactions – flows of money, goods, people, and messages across international boundaries. Such transactions have increased dramatically since World War II; "Re¬cent decades reveal a general tendency for many forms of human interconnectedness [p.404] across national boundaries to be doubling every ten years." Yet this interconnectedness is not the same as interdepen¬dence. The effects of transactions on interdependence will depend on the constraints, or costs, associated with them. A country that imports all of its oil is likely to be more dependent on a continual flow of petroleum than a country importing furs, jewelry, and perfume (even of equivalent monetary value) will be on uninterrupted access to these luxury goods. Where there are reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) costly effects of transactions, there is interdependence. Where interac¬tions do not have significant costly effects, there is simply interconnec¬tedness. The distinction is vital if we are to understand the politics of interdependence.
Costly effects may be imposed directly and intentionally by another actor – as in Soviet-American strategic interdependence, which derives from the mutual threat of nuclear destruction. But some costly effects do not come directly or intentionally from other actors. For example, collec¬tive action may be necessary to prevent disaster for an alliance (the members of which are interdependent), for an international economic system (which may face chaos because of the absence of coordination, rather than through the malevolence of any actor), or for an ecological system threatened by a gradual increase of industrial effluents.
We do not limit the term interdependence to situations of mutual bene¬fit. Such a definition would assume that the concept is only useful analyti¬cally where the modernist view of the world prevails: where threats of military force are few and levels of conflict are low. It would exclude from interdependence cases of mutual dependence, such as the strategic in¬terdependence between the United States and the Soviet Union. Further¬more, it would make it very ambiguous whether relations between indus¬trialized countries and less developed countries should be considered interdependent or not. Their inclusion would depend on an inherently subjective judgment about whether the relationships were "mutually beneficial."
Because we wish to avoid sterile arguments about whether a given set of relationships is characterized by interdependence or not, and because we seek to use the concept of interdependence to integrate rather than further to divide modernist and traditional approaches, we choose a broader definition. Our perspective implies that interdependent rela¬tionships will always involve costs, since interdependence restricts au¬tonomy; but it is impossible to specify a priori whether the benefits of a relationship will exceed the costs. This will depend on the values of the actors as well as on the nature of the relationship. Nothing guarantees that relationships that we designate as "interdependent" will be character¬ized by mutual benefit.
Two different perspectives can be adopted for analyzing the costs and benefits of an interdependent relationship. The first focuses on the joint gains or joint losses to the parties involved. The other stresses relative [p.405] gains, and distributional issues. Classical economists adopted the first approach in formulating their powerful insight about comparative ad¬vantage: that undistorted international trade will provide overall net benefits. Unfortunately, an exclusive focus on joint gain may obscure the second key issue: how those gains are divided. Many of the crucial politi¬cal issues of interdependence revolve around the old question of politics, "who gets what?"
It is important to guard against the assumption that measures that in¬crease joint gain from a relationship will somehow be free of distribu¬tional conflict. Governments and nongovernmental organizations will strive to increase their shares of gains from transactions, even when they both profit enormously from the relationship. Oil-exporting governments and multinational oil companies, for instance, share an interest in high prices for petroleum; but they have also been in conflict over shares of the profits involved.
We must therefore be cautious about the prospect that rising inter¬dependence is creating a brave new world of cooperation to replace the bad old world of international conflict. As every parent of small children knows, baking a larger pie does not stop disputes over the size of the slices. An optimistic approach would overlook the uses of eco¬nomic and even ecological interdependence in competitive international politics.
The difference between traditional international politics and the poli¬tics of economic and ecological interdependence is not the difference be¬tween a world of "zero-sum" (where one side's gain is the other side's loss) and "nonzero-sum" games. Military interdependence need not be zero-sum. Indeed, military allies actively seek interdependence to pro¬vide enhanced security for all. Even balance of power situations need not be zero-sum. If one side seeks to upset the status quo, then its gain is at the expense of the other. But if most or all participants want a stable status quo, they can jointly gain by preserving the balance of power among them. Conversely, the politics of economic and ecological interdepen¬dence involve competition even when large net benefits can be expected from cooperation. There are important continuities, as well as marked differences, between the traditional politics of military security and the politics of economic and ecological interdependence.
We must also be careful not to define interdependence entirely in terms of situations of evenly balanced mutual dependence. It is asymme¬tries in dependence that are most likely to provide sources of influence for actors in their dealings with one another. Less dependent actors can often use the interdependent relationship as a source of power in bar¬gaining over an issue and perhaps to affect other issues. At the other ex¬treme from pure symmetry is pure dependence (sometimes disguised by calling the situation interdependence); but it too is rare. Most cases lie between these two extremes. And that is where the heart of the political bargaining process of interdependence lies […]

в тексте выше и их своих знаний ответить на вопросы ниже, вставь цитаты из текста по необходимости ( на русском) ответы давай объемные и обширные 

1. Как определяют авторы сущность «комплексной взаимозависимости»? 
2. В чем отличие «взаимозависимости» от «взаимосвязанности»?
3. Почему, с точки зрения авторов, не следует отождествлять взаимозависимость с взаимной выгодой? Какие аргументы они приводят? 
4. Предполагает ли взаимозависимость взаимную симметричную зависимость? Как Вы думае-те, почему это принципиально важно в рассуждениях о мировой политике?