Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811869.006

6 - Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Norrin M. Ripsman

Edited by

Steven E. Lobell ,

Norrin M. Ripsman and

Jeffrey W. Taliaferro

Show author details

Norrin M. Ripsman: Affiliation:
Concordia University
Steven E. Lobell: Affiliation:
University of Utah
Norrin M. Ripsman: Affiliation:
Concordia University, Montréal
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro: Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts

Book contents

Get access

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 - 193

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 32–9.Google Scholar

Ripsman, Norrin M., 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

Hermann, Margaret G., Hermann, Charles F., and Hagan, Joe D. “How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy Behavior,” in Hermann, Charles F., Kegley, Charles W., and Rosenau, James N., eds., New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987), pp. 309–36, at p. 309.Google Scholar

Eden, Anthony, Full Circle: The Memoirs of Sir Anthony Eden (London: Cassell, 1960), p. 5.Google Scholar

Myers, Ramon H., Oksenberg, Michel C., and Shambaugh, David, eds., Making China Policy: Lessons from the Bush and Clinton Administrations (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).Google Scholar

Levy, Jack S., “The Diversionary Theory of War,” in Midlarsky, Manus I., ed., The Handbook of War Studies (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), pp. 259–88.Google Scholar

Rose, Gideon, “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics 51, no. 1 (October 1998), pp. 144–72.CrossRef Google Scholar

Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), pp. 118–28Google Scholar

Waltz, , Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), pp. 306–11.Google Scholar

Zakaria, Fareed, “Realism and Domestic Politics: A Review Essay,” International Security 17, no. 1 (summer 1992), pp. 177–98CrossRef Google Scholar

Taliaferro, Jeffrey W., “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited,” International Security 25, no. 3 (winter 2000), pp. 128–61CrossRef Google Scholar

Friedlander, Melvin A., Sadat and Begin: The Domestic Politics of Peacemaking (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1983), pp. 2–9.Google Scholar

Ripsman, Norrin M., “The Curious Case of German Rearmament: Democracy and Foreign Security Policy,” Security Studies 10, no. 2 (winter 2001), pp. 1–47.CrossRef Google Scholar

Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 232.Google Scholar

Legro, Jeffrey W. and Moravcsik, Andrew, “Is Anyone Still a Realist?” International Security 24, no. 2 (fall 1999), pp. 5–55CrossRef Google Scholar

Feaver, Peter D. et al., “Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?)” International Security 25, no. 1 (summer 2000), p. 181.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schweller, Randall L., “The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism,” in Elman, Colin and Elman, Miriam Fendius, eds., Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), pp. 311–47.Google Scholar

Levy, Jack S., “Domestic Politics and War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (spring 1988), pp. 653–73, at p. 653.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Alastair, “Diversionary Foreign Policy in Democratic Systems,” International Studies Quarterly 40, no. 1 (1996), pp. 133–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

Peterson, Susan, “How Democracies Differ: Public Opinion, State Structure, and the Lessons of the Fashoda Crisis,” Security Studies 5, no. 1 (autumn 1995), pp. 3–37CrossRef Google Scholar

Peterson, Susan, Crisis Bargaining and the State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996).CrossRef Google Scholar

Elman, Miriam Fendius, “Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Theories of Democratic Peace,” Security Studies 9, no. 4 (summer 20001), pp. 91–126.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fordham, Benjamin O., Building the Cold War Consensus: The Political Economy of US National Security Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998)CrossRef Google Scholar

Trubowitz, Peter, Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)Google Scholar

Solingen, Etel, Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

Lobell, Steven E., The Challenge of Hegemony: Grand Strategy, Trade, and Domestic Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003).CrossRef Google Scholar

Schweller, Randall L., “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing,” International Security 29, no. 2 (fall 2004), pp. 159–201CrossRef Google Scholar

Schweller, Randall L., Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Wohlforth, William Curti, The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Smith, Martin J., Pressure, Power, and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and the United States (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Kolko, Gabriel, The Roots of American Foreign Policy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969).Google Scholar

Christensen, Thomas, Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 17.Google Scholar

Skidmore, David and Hudson, Valerie M., eds., The Limits of State Autonomy (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993), pp. 127–47.Google Scholar

Wilson, James Q., “The Politics of Regulation,” in Wilson, James Q., ed., The Politics of Regulation (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pp. 357–94Google Scholar

Lowi, Theodore J., “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32, no. 4 (July/August 1972), pp. 298–310.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wittkopf, Eugene R., Kegley, Charles W. and Scott, James M., American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process, 6th en, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003), p. 298.Google Scholar

Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

Slater, Jerome and Nardin, Terry, “The Concept of the Military-Industrial Complex,” in Rosen, Steven, ed., Testing the Theory of the Military-Industrial Complex (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1973), pp. 27–50Google Scholar

Tsebelis, George, Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002).CrossRef Google Scholar

Haas, Ernst, When Knowledge is Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Haas, Peter M., “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization 46, no. 1 (winter 1992), pp. 1–36.CrossRef Google Scholar

Trice, Robert H., “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

Milbrath, Lester W., “Interest Groups and Foreign Policy,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1967), pp. 231–51Google Scholar

McCormick, James, “Interest Groups and the Media in Post-Cold War US Foreign Policy,” in Scott, James M., 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

Lebow, Richard Ned, “Miscalculation in the South Atlantic: The Origins of the Falklands War,” in Jervis, Robert, Lebow, Richard Ned, and Stein, Janice Gross, eds., Psychology and Deterrence (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), pp. 89–124Google Scholar

Evans, Peter, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

Morgenthau, Hans J., Dilemmas of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958), p. 326Google Scholar