The second image reversed: the international sources of domestic politics | International Organization | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The international system is not only an expression of domestic structures, but a cause of them. Two schools of analysis exploring the impact of the international system upon domestic politics (regime types, institutions, coalitions, policies) may be distinguished: those which stress the international economy, and those which stress political-military rivalry, or war. Among the former are such arguments as: late industrialization (associated with Gershenkron); dependencia or core-periphery arguments (Wallerstein); liberal development model (much American writing in the 50s and 60s); transnational relation-modernization (Nye, Keohane, Morse); neo-mercantilists (Gilpin); state-centered Marxists (Schurmann). Arguments stressing the role of war include those which focus on the organizational requirements of providing security (Hintze, Anderson), the special nature of foreign relations (classical political theory), territorial compensation (diplomatic history), and strains of foreign involvement (analysis of revolutions). These arguments provide the basis for criticism of much of the literature which uses domestic structure as an explanation of foreign policy, in particular those which (such as the strong-state weak-state distinction) tend, by excessive focus on forms, to obscure the connection between structures and interests, and the role of politics. These arguments also permit criticism of the notion of a recent fundamental discontinuity in the nature of international relations.

References

1 Allison, Graham, Essence of Decision (Boston: Little Brown, 1971)Google Scholar.

2 Waltz, Kenneth, “Theory of International Relations,” in Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson, eds., Handbook of Political Science international Relations (Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, 1975), vol. 8, pp. 1–86Google Scholar.

3 Schumann, Franz, The Logic of World Power (New York: Pantheon, 1974)Google Scholar.

4 Gourevitch, Peter, “International Trade, Domestic Coalitions and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873–1896,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, VIII: 2 (Autumn 1977): 281–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Huntington, Samuel, “Transnational Organizations,” World Politics, 25 (04 1973): 338–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective,” in Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1963)Google Scholar. See Kurth's, James very brilliant extension of Gershenkron, combining his with other lines of reasoning, “The Political Consequences of the Product Cycle: Industrial History and Comparative Politics,” International Organization (forthcoming) and his equally brilliant essay “Delayed Development and European Politics” (mimeo, 1977)Google Scholar part of which will appear as an essay in a forthcoming volume on Latin America, edited by David Collier, sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of the Social Science Research Council.

7 Hobsbawm, E.J., Industry and Empire (Baltimore: Penguin, 1970)Google Scholar; Landes, D.J., The Unbound Prometheus (Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1969)Google Scholar.

8 Carsten, F., The Origins of Prussia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Hamerow, T., Revolution, Restoration, Reaction (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clapham, J.H., Economic Development of France and Germany, 4th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1935)Google Scholar.

9 Moore, Barrington Jr, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), pp. 413–44Google Scholar. For a critique of Moore directed at the failure to develop sufficiently an “intersocial perspective,” see Skocpol, Theda, “A Critical Review of Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy,” Politics and Society (Fall 1973): 1–34Google Scholar.

10 Hirschman, Albert, “The Political Economy of Import Substituting Industrialization in Latin America,” in A Bias for Hope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 85–123Google Scholar, and “The Turn to Authoritarianism in Latin America and the Search for Its Economic Determinants,” in the forthcoming volume on Latin America edited by Collier, David, and “A Generalized Linkage Approach to Development, with Special Reference to Staples,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 25 (Supplement 1977): 67–98Google Scholar.

11 O'Donnell, Guillermo, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (Berkeley: University of California, Institute for International Studies, Politics of Modernization Series, no. 9, 1973) and “Reflections on the General Tendencies of Change in Bureaucratic-Authoritarian States,” Latin American Research Review, forthcomingGoogle Scholar.

12 Kurth, James, “Patrimonial Authority, Delayed Development, and Mediterranean Politics,” American Political Science Association (New Orleans, 1973)Google Scholar and “Political Consequences of the Product Cycle,” and “Delayed Development and European Politics.”.

13 Frank, Andre Gunder, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

14 Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System (New York: The Academic Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

15 Gourevitch, Peter, “The International System and Regime Formation: A Critical Review of Anderson and Wallerstein,” Comparative Politics (04 1978): 419–438Google Scholar. See American Journal of Sociology 82 (03 1977)Google Scholar for reviews of Anderson by Michael Hechter and Wallerstein by Theda Skocpol, and my review for a large number of other citations.

16 Cardoso, Ferdinand Enrique, “Associated Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” in Stepan, Alfred, ed., Authoritarian Brazil (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar, and ”Industrialization, Dependency and Power in Latin America,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, XVII (1972)Google Scholar. The most frequently cited of Cardoso's untranslated works is that written with Faleto, E., Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (Santiago: II Pes, 1967)Google Scholar. An interesting “dependentdevelopment” literature on non-Third World countries has also developed, such as that on Canada. See Naylor, Tom, “The Third Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence,” in Teeple, Gary, ed., Economics and the National Question (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), pp. 1–42Google Scholar; Laux, Jeanne, “Global Interdependence and State Intervention,” in Tomlin, Brian, ed. Canada's Foreign Policy: Analysis and Trends (Toronto: Methuen, 1978), pp. 110–135Google Scholar; Levitt, Kari, The Silent Surrender (Toronto: Macmillan, 1970)Google Scholar.

17 For an excellent discussion of liberal “diffusion” and “dependencia” or colonial models, see Hechter, Michael, Internal Colonialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

18 Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, eds., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1971)Google Scholar, and Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little Brown, 1977)Google Scholar; Morse, Edward, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: Free Press, 1976)Google Scholar. For criticism, see Waltz, Kenneth, “The Myth of National Interdependence,” in Kindleberger, Charles P., ed., The International Corporation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

19 Allison, Graham, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Political Science Review LXIII (09 1970)Google Scholar. Not surprisingly, these debates relate to changes in reality: realism dominated in a period of war and military confrontations; the easing of Cold War tensions and greater fluidity in international relations meant the system was less plausibly constraining, hence the disaggregating of the state through bureaucratic analysis; the salience of international economic issues in the seventies led to even further disaggregation, and even further downgrading of military and state-centered views.

20 Nye and Keohane, Power and Interdependence.

21 Morse, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations.

22 Gilpin, Robert, US Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilpin, , “Three Models of the Future,” International Organization, 29 (Winter 1975): 37–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, Steven, “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” World Politics XXVIII (04 1976): 317–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is not clear as to the balance between economic and military dimensions in the definition of a hegemonic power.

23 Magdoff, Harry, The Age of Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Baran, Paul and Sweezy, Paul, Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

24 Franz Schurmann, The Logic of World Power.

25 Krasner, Steven, “The Great Oil Sheikdown,” Foreign Policy 13 (Winter 1973–1974): 123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Hintze, Otto, “Military Organization and the Organization of the State,” in The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, Gilbert, Felix, ed. (New York: Oxford, 1975), pp. 178–215Google Scholar.

31 Anderson, Perry, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism and Lineages of the Absolutist State (LondonNew Left Books, 1974)Google Scholar.

32 Rokkan, Stein, “Dimensions of State Formation and State-Building,” in Tilly, Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1975), pp. 562–600Google Scholar.

33 Finer, Samuel, “State Building, State Boundaries and Border Control,” Social Sciences Information, 13 (4/5): 79–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Rokkan, Stein and Lipset, S.M., “Introduction,” Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: Free Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

35 Hirschman, Albert, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1970)Google Scholar.

36 Hoffmann, Stanley, Primacy of World Order: American Foreign Policy Since the Cold War (New York: McGraw Hill, 1978)Google Scholar.

37 Kaiser, Karl, German Foreign Policy in Transition (London: Oxford U.P., 1968)Google Scholar.

38 See the excellent study by Skocpol, Theda, “France, Russia, China: A Structural Analysis of Social Revolutions,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 18 (04 1976): 175–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also her book on revolutions to be published by Oxford University Press.

39 Kenneth Waltz, “Theory of International Relations.” By non-reductionist, Waltz means an explanation of international politics at the system level, third rather than second image. Here I am extending the word to distinguish between endogenous and exogenous explanations of regime type.

40 Besides works already cited, see: Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperceplion in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U.P., 1976)Google Scholar; Steinbrunner, John, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U.P., 1974)Google Scholar; Brecher, Michael, The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Setting, Images, Processes (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1972)Google Scholar; Brecher, Michael, Decisions in Israel's Foreign Policy (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1975)Google Scholar. See also Wagner, R. Harrison, “Dissolving the State: Three Recent Perspectives on International Relations,” International Organization 28 (Summer, 1974): 335–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Krasner, Stephen, Raw Materials Investment and American Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter, “Introduction” and “Conclusion” to “Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States,” International Organization 31 (Autumn 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States,” International Organization 30 (Winter 1976)Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Stanley, “The State: For What Society,” Decline or Renewal (New York: Viking Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Andrews, Bruce, “Surplus Security and National Security: State Policy as Domestic Social Action,” International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., 02 22–26, 1978Google Scholar. John Zysman has some astute comments about the connection between institutional form and the content of policy toward international competition in his study of the French electronics industry: Political Strategies for Industrial Order (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

42 Katzenstein, International Organization articles.

43 Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, “Decisions and Non-decisions: An Analytic Framework,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Whether being open or closed, or having strength or weakness can be systematically linked to the content of politics is much less clear. Attention to such variables makes the most sense in looking at the characteristics of decisions other than their actual content: coherence of a series of decisions, say, about tariffs, rather than the actual level.

45 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich “Bismarck's Imperialism, 1862–1890”, Past and Present 48 (1970): 119–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Leopold Ranke is the most noted exponent of the primacy of “foreign policy” school. See von Laue, Theodore, Ranke, Leopold, The Formative Years (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1970)Google Scholar. Also the comments by Morse in Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations.

46 Smith, Paul, Disraelian Conservatism and Social Reform (London: 1967)Google Scholar; Blake, Robert, Disraeli (New York: 1966)Google Scholar. Kahler, Miles, “Decolonization: Domestic Sources of External Policy, External Sources of Domestic Politics,” Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, 1977Google Scholar.

47 Franz Schurmann, The Logic of World Power.

48 See the very interesting and growing neo-Marxist literature on the state such as: Bloch, Fred, “The Ruling Class does not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State,” Social Revolution 33 (05–06 1977): 6–28Google Scholar; Gold, David, Lo, Clarence, and Wright, Erik Olin, “Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State,” parts 1 and 2, Monthly Review (10 and 11 1975)Google Scholar; Offe, Klaus, “Structural Problems of the Capitalist State,” von Beyme, Klaus, ed., German Political Studies, (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976)Google Scholar; Offe, Klaus and Ronge, Volker, “Theses on the Theory of the State,” New German Critique 6 (Fall 1975)Google Scholar; O'Connor, James, Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Craig, Gordon, The Politics of the Prussian Army (Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1964)Google Scholar.