Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity

Rosenau argues that global politics has undergone a fundamental structural transformation, bifurcating into two interactive worlds: the traditional state-centric world and an autonomous multi-centric world populated by non-state actors—corporations, NGOs, ethnic groups, and individuals. This bifurcation generates 'turbulence,' a condition of persistent complexity and change that is not merely disorder but a distinctive structural feature of the contemporary era. He rejects the realist premise that states remain the sole significant actors, showing instead how the expanding analytic skills of individuals at the micro level cascade into macro-level transformations, weakening state authority and redirecting loyalties.

Rosenau coined 'postinternationalism' to describe the trend in which more interactions sustaining world politics unfold without direct state involvement. The paradigm, sometimes called 'turbulence theory,' emphasizes non-state actors, international norms, globalization, and intrastate rather than interstate violence. It rejects many realist tenets while accepting that international politics remains anarchic. The concept has been widely adopted in international relations scholarship to analyze globalization's effects on state sovereignty, the proliferation of transnational networks, and the fragmentation of political authority.

Rosenau borrows the term from physics and organization sociology, where turbulence describes a system-level condition rather than random disorder. In his formulation, turbulence arises from the interaction between the state-centric and multi-centric worlds, producing simultaneous centralizing and decentralizing tendencies. It is a structural property of the global system, not a temporary aberration. This distinguishes his theory from pessimistic accounts of globalization as mere breakdown; for Rosenau, turbulence is the defining characteristic of a new epoch in world politics, one that requires new analytical tools rather than nostalgia for a lost era of state dominance.

Realism treats states as the primary actors in an anarchic system, with international politics driven by power and national interest. Rosenau rejects this state-centrism, arguing that the multi-centric world has become an autonomous competitor to the state-centric world. He also challenges realism's assumption of timeless, universal theory, contending that the postinternational era requires a new formulation that accounts for historical change. While he accepts that international politics remains anarchic, he denies that this anarchy is the defining feature; instead, he emphasizes bifurcation, interdependence, and the expanding role of non-state actors as the central dynamics of contemporary global politics.

Individuals are central to Rosenau's micro-foundations. He argues that the analytic skills of people everywhere have expanded, enabling them to interact with and within macro-level collectivities in ways that alter global agendas. Through managing transnational corporations, leading terrorist networks, mobilizing environmental causes, or participating in diaspora communities, individuals exercise influence once reserved for states. Their rising expectations and demands also lead to loyalty swings among different actors, complicating how world politics unfolds. This micro-to-macro linkage is a distinctive feature of Rosenau's approach, grounding structural transformation in changes in human capability and orientation.

Critics have noted that Rosenau's framework, while ambitious and insightful, lacks the parsimony of established paradigms, making it difficult to test empirically. Some argue that his rejection of state-centrism overstates the decline of state power, as states remain dominant in security, taxation, and territorial control. Others question whether 'turbulence' is analytically distinct from concepts like interdependence or globalization. A reviewer in the Review of International Studies observed that the book's fundamental contrast with other theoretical works signals the continuing lack of an agreed core in international relations. Nonetheless, the book is widely recognized for anticipating many features of post-Cold War global politics.