markets, are individualist in origin, spontaneously generated, and unin-tended. In both systems, structures are formed by the coaction of theirunits. Whether those units live, prosper, or die depends on their ownefforts. Both systems are formed and maintained on a principle of self-help that applies to the units. To say that the two realms are structurallysimilar is not to proclaim their identity. Economically, the self-help prin-ciple applies within governmentally contrived limits. Market economiesare hedged about in ways that channel energies constructively. One maythink of pure food-and-drug standards, antitrust laws, securities andexchange regulations, laws against shooting a competitor, and rules for-bidding false claims in advertising. International politics is more nearly arealm in which anything goes. International politics is structurally simi-lar to a market economy insofar as the self-help principle is allowed tooperate in the latter (Waltz, 1979, p. 91
Both are made up of independent units. In the economy, it’s businesses. In world politics, it’s countries (or in the past, city-states or empires).
These units don’t sit down and plan out a system together. Instead, the “system” just naturally forms as they all act in their own self-interest. That’s what it means when it says “spontaneously generated, and unintended.”
Each country (or business) has to look out for itself. Whether it survives or thrives depends mostly on its own efforts (self-help).
But there’s one big difference: in markets, governments put rules and limits in place to keep things from going totally wild (like no poisoning food, no lying in ads, no killing competitors).
In international politics, though, there’s no world government to set rules. So it’s much closer to a “wild west” situation — where countries do whatever they can get away with.
So the main idea: International politics is like a free market where everyone fends for themselves — but unlike markets, there aren’t strong rules to keep things fair or safe.