bilities that influences a nation s balancing behavior. The actor that attaches most importance to material factors necessarily acts on the basis of certain knowledge and information. That an individual strives to achieve an objective within a limited scope of choice is supported by rational choice theory. On this basis, the individual chooses the action it perceives as most helpful in achieving its objective, and it is rational behaviour that guides the way to the goal in question. Such an actor will always strive to achieve the optimum result. Yet, rational choices are all made under a set of constraints, cognition of which is an essential aspect of the decision making process within the rational choice model. Actors require certain knowledge and information in order to be able to evaluate the likely costs and benefits of their actions. For example, if Country A has 50 cannon, while its rival, Country B, has 100, Country A will be disinclined to instigate conflict. If, however, faulty information leads Country A mistakenly to believe that its rival has only ten cannon, Country A s knowledge of its adversary s capabilities may have significant ramifications as regards changes in its behavior. Using similar reasoning, cognitive material explanations view the actual power discrepancy between China and the West as less important than the Qing government s perceptions of the balance of power when interpreting its foreign policy decisions.making within cognitive material explanations is nonetheless based on consideration of material factors rather than ideational interests. In this view, the only variables that lead a nation to change its behavior are those of information and knowledge. In other words, varying evaluations of material factors on the part of a nation can lead to differences in its behavior.the distinction between material cognitive strength and material explanations becomes blurred. Material cognitive strength explanations adhere to the logic whereby it is a nation s consideration of its material interests that leads to perception of relevant material factors that acts as the catalyst for a change in national behavior. Within this type of analysis, material factors remain the fundamental cause of action. It could consequently be interpreted as a material explanation. Consider, for example, the following seemingly straightforward material explanation: the thief came by so everyone ran away. This explanation implies that everyone recognizes the thief for what he is and is able to predict his behaviour. In other words, even though the background knowledge and common sense that allow everyone to make inferences about the thief are not explicitly stated, knowledge clearly plays a role in the group s reasoning process. In international relations, coercive behaviour follows a similar logic. For instance, weak nations often yield to their stronger counterparts even when these dominant states do not resort to force. This situation is fundamentally different from one in which a weaker state is forced to bend to the will of its rival. In the former scenario, the weaker state still has the choice of whether or not to comply (even though the potential alternative is extremely undesirable). Coercive behaviour, therefore, is made possible by virtue of the weaker party s knowledge and expectations. As in the example of the thief, however, the role of knowledge and expectations is often overlooked. This is because the unequal strength of rivals plays such a decisive role in the latter example of coercive behaviour that the submissive behaviour of states under coercion is generally attributed to strictly material factors.cognitive material explanations, the actor s choice of mode of behaviour is rationally instrumental as regards the logic of expected consequences. The actors preferences being constant, the main issue is that of choice of mode, while it is variances in an actor s perceived knowledge of the outside world that influence its evaluation of the cost and benefits of different modes of behaviour.type of explanation is based on the following form of cognition: Not that an actor s interests are completely material, certain of them are built on ideas, which lead its behaviour and constitute an independent variable when explaining behaviour. This kind of explanation involves changes in the actor s preferences and sense of identity and values. A change in the actor s interests causes a corresponding change in its behaviour that can not be explained by purely material factors. Ideas involve desires and knowledge; purely ideational explanations focus on the influence of a change in the actor s desires (or aspirations) on state behaviour. Within such an explanation, it is the logic of appropriateness, and not rational logic that is inferred as instrumental in the effect. Academic use of conceptual explanations is illustrated in the following example. In his analysi...
