380 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION gies.By and large,however,I would hypothesize that as transnational pro- cesses increase in number and in scope for a specified set of states,the level of interdependence among them similarly increases.Although subject to empiri- cal verification this would seemingly be the case because state objectives would become increasingly a function of intersocietal interdependence. I treat this hypothesis as an assumption in the discussion below.Even though the focus on international economic interdependence raises operational difficulties which are as intractable as those of transnational economic rela- tions,the concept is useful for two reasons.First,much of the debate over changes in international economic relations has revolved around the question of whether there has been a secular increase in the level of international eco- nomic interdependence over the past century.Second,given the hypothesis stated above a number of questions about transnational economic processes are covered in a discussion of international interdependence. The discussion of international interdependence is controversial even before an attempt is made to measure the phenomenon or to trace longitudinal trends in its growth.Arguments against the usefulness of conceptualizing interna- tional politics in terms of notions of interdependence have recently been brought together in an essay by Kenneth Waltz,"The Myth of National In- terdependence."An analysis of Waltz's argument,therefore,serves as a useful foil for the present discussion.Waltz argues that "a comparison of the con- ditions of internal and external interdependence will make it clear that in international relations interdependence is always a marginal affair."1 While Waltz's analogy may be an apt one,his conclusion does not follow from his assumption.This is apparently a result of Waltz's bias against"the mistaken conclusion...that a growing closeness of interdependence would improve the chances of peace."Waltz's view that an increase in international inter- dependence would be destabilizing for international society as a whole is probably correct.Yet,his bias against the concept results in a failure to define it explicitly and also in the complacent belief that international affairs are more "stable"than other views might imply. The concept of interdependence ought to be viewed in neutral terms with- out the value judgments of optimists who invoke a harmony of interest theory or of pessimistic prophets of doom.Even here the analogy between interna- tional and domestic society remains appropriate.This distinction,however, need not imply that in international society interdependence is always mar- ginal.What it does imply is that the level of political integration outside the state is,by definition,lower than that within it.Interdependence,as defined above,has to do with the ability of statesmen to achieve those goals which have been set for them when goal attainment is contingent upon activities 15 Waltz,in Kindleberger,p.206. 16Ibid,P.205