Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction: Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy
- 2 Threat assessment, the state, and foreign policy: a neoclassical realist model
- 3 Neoclassical realism and strategic calculations: explaining divergent British, French, and Soviet strategies toward Germany between the world wars (1919–1939)
- 4 Neoclassical realism and identity: peril despite profit across the Taiwan Strait
- 5 Neoclassical realism and the national interest: presidents, domestic politics, and major military interventions
- 6 Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups
- 7 Neoclassical realism and resource extraction: State building for future war
- 8 Neoclassical realism and state mobilization: expansionist ideology in the age of mass politics
- 9 The limits of neoclassical realism: additive and interactive approaches to explaining foreign policy preferences
- 10 Conclusion: The state of neoclassical realism
- Index
- References
6 - Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction: Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy
- 2 Threat assessment, the state, and foreign policy: a neoclassical realist model
- 3 Neoclassical realism and strategic calculations: explaining divergent British, French, and Soviet strategies toward Germany between the world wars (1919–1939)
- 4 Neoclassical realism and identity: peril despite profit across the Taiwan Strait
- 5 Neoclassical realism and the national interest: presidents, domestic politics, and major military interventions
- 6 Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups
- 7 Neoclassical realism and resource extraction: State building for future war
- 8 Neoclassical realism and state mobilization: expansionist ideology in the age of mass politics
- 9 The limits of neoclassical realism: additive and interactive approaches to explaining foreign policy preferences
- 10 Conclusion: The state of neoclassical realism
- Index
- References
Summary
Neorealists, with their focus on the international structure and the relative capabilities of the great powers, have tended to neglect the impact of domestic political forces – such as public opinion, the legislature, and privileged interest groups – on foreign security policy. Recently, however, a new generation of realists has begun to draw upon the comparative political economy literature to account for the impact of domestic political considerations and to introduce the problematique of state autonomy to security studies. As chapter 1 indicates, though, this neoclassical realist literature is still underdeveloped. In particular, it needs to address five critical questions about the role of domestic actors in determining policy: (1) Which domestic actors matter most in the construction of foreign security policy? (2) Under what international circumstances will they have the greatest influence? (3) Under what domestic circumstances will domestic actors have the greatest influence? (4) In what types of states will they matter most? (5) How is their influence likely to manifest itself? In this chapter, I provide preliminary answers to these questions with the goal of building a theory of domestic actors and the national security state, although I do not build such a theory here. Specifically, I explain when domestic political factors affect foreign security policy and which domestic groups and actors matter most.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy , pp. 170 - 193Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, Peacemaking by Democracies: The Effect of Structural Autonomy on the Post-World-War Settlements (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2002), pp. 43–4Google Scholar
, , and “How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy Behavior,” in , , and , eds., New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987), pp. 309–36, at p. 309.Google Scholar
, , and , eds., Making China Policy: Lessons from the Bush and Clinton Administrations (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).Google Scholar
, “The Diversionary Theory of War,” in , ed., The Handbook of War Studies (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), pp. 259–88.Google Scholar
, “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics 51, no. 1 (October 1998), pp. 144–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), pp. 306–11.Google Scholar
, “Realism and Domestic Politics: A Review Essay,” International Security 17, no. 1 (summer 1992), pp. 177–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited,” International Security 25, no. 3 (winter 2000), pp. 128–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Sadat and Begin: The Domestic Politics of Peacemaking (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1983), pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
, “The Curious Case of German Rearmament: Democracy and Foreign Security Policy,” Security Studies 10, no. 2 (winter 2001), pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “Is Anyone Still a Realist?” International Security 24, no. 2 (fall 1999), pp. 5–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
et al., “Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?)” International Security 25, no. 1 (summer 2000), p. 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism,” in and , eds., Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), pp. 311–47.Google Scholar
, “Domestic Politics and War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (spring 1988), pp. 653–73, at p. 653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Diversionary Foreign Policy in Democratic Systems,” International Studies Quarterly 40, no. 1 (1996), pp. 133–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “How Democracies Differ: Public Opinion, State Structure, and the Lessons of the Fashoda Crisis,” Security Studies 5, no. 1 (autumn 1995), pp. 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Crisis Bargaining and the State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Theories of Democratic Peace,” Security Studies 9, no. 4 (summer 20001), pp. 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Building the Cold War Consensus: The Political Economy of US National Security Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)Google Scholar
, Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
, The Challenge of Hegemony: Grand Strategy, Trade, and Domestic Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing,” International Security 29, no. 2 (fall 2004), pp. 159–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
, The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
, Pressure, Power, and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and the United States (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993)Google Scholar
, Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 17.Google Scholar
, “The Politics of Regulation,” in , ed., The Politics of Regulation (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pp. 357–94Google Scholar
, “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32, no. 4 (July/August 1972), pp. 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process, 6th en, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003), p. 298.Google Scholar
and , “The Concept of the Military-Industrial Complex,” in , ed., Testing the Theory of the Military-Industrial Complex (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1973), pp. 27–50Google Scholar
, Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization 46, no. 1 (winter 1992), pp. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process: US Policy in the Middle East,” Sage Professional Paper in International Studies 4, no. 02–047 (1976), p. 8.Google Scholar
, “Interest Groups and Foreign Policy,” in , ed., Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1967), pp. 231–51Google Scholar
, “Interest Groups and the Media in Post-Cold War US Foreign Policy,” in , ed., After the End: Making US Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), pp. 170–98.Google Scholar
, “Miscalculation in the South Atlantic: The Origins of the Falklands War,” in , , and , eds., Psychology and Deterrence (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), pp. 89–124Google Scholar
, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
- 47
- Cited by