Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T07:53:59.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From domestic to international justice: the welfare state and foreign aid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Alain Noël  and
Jean-Philippe Thérien
Alain Noël
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal, Québec.
Jean-Philippe Thérien
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal, Québec.
Get access

Abstract

Foreign aid often is interpreted as an international projection of domestic income redistribution mechanisms, and many authors suggest that differences between welfare states account for variations in donor behavior. A new understanding of the welfare state can improve traditional explanations of this linkage. Existing studies of the welfare–aid relationship use two welfare state indicators: domestic spending and partisan politics. We propose a third type of indicator—the institutional attributes of the welfare state—and demonstrate its relevance. The level of foreign aid provided by a country varies with social spending, but even more so with the degree to which its welfare state embodies socialist attributes. This finding helps explain how domestic political institutions influence the evolution of international cooperation and, specifically, how welfare principles institutionalized at the domestic level shape the participation of developed countries in the international aid regime.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 523 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1995

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.)

References

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, l–t September 1994. We are grateful to Bernard Cantin for his important contribution as a research assistant. We also wish to thank André Blais, Andrew F. Cooper, Stéphane Dion, Stephen D. Krasner, Pierre Martin, Richard Nadeau, Cranford Pratt, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts. This research project was supported by grants from the Fonds FCAR (Quebec) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

1. The most systematic studies of the relationship between aid and welfare state institutions include: Imbeau, Louis-Marie, Donor Aid-The Determinants of Development Allocations to Third World Countries: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Peter Lang, 1989)Google Scholar; Pratt, Cranford, ed., Internationalism Under Strain: The North-South Policies of Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Stokke, Olav, ed., Western Middle Powers and Global Poverty: The Determinants of the Aid Policies of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden (Uppsala, Sweden: The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1989)Google Scholar; and Lumsdaine, David H., Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime 1949–1989 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

2. United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 1992 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 7Google Scholar.

3. The notion of aid regime is discussed in Ruggie, John Gerard, “Political Structure and Change in the International Economic Order: The North-South Dimension,” in Ruggie, John Gerard, ed., The Antinomies of Interdependence: National Welfare and the International Division of Labor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), pp. 423–87 and p. 435Google Scholar in particular; Wood, Robert E., From Marshall Plan to Debt Crisis: Foreign Aid and Development Choices in the World Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar; and Lumsdaine, Moral Vision in International Politics.

4. For a recent survey of the various aspects covered by the literature on foreign aid, see Holdar, Sven, “The Study of Foreign Aid: Unbroken Ground in Geography,” Progress in Human Geography 17 (12 1993), pp. 453–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. This article is thus not directly concerned with the debate on the aid distribution, which opposes the donor interest and the recipient need models. For an overview of this major debate, see McKinlay, Robert D. and Little, Richard, “The U.S. Aid Relationship: A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Models,” Political Studies 27 (06 1979), pp. 236–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. See Russett, Bruce, Controlling the Sword: The Governance of National Security (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Russett, Bruce, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

7. This typology is used by Keohane, Robert O., “International Liberalism Reconsidered,” in Dunn, John, ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 165–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. The following works were inspired by a realist perspective: Morgenthau, Hans J., “A Political Theory of Foreign Aid,” American Political Science Review 56 (06 1962), pp. 301–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bauer, Piter Tamas, Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Arnold, Guy, Aid and the Third World: The North-South Divide (London: Robert Royce, 1985)Google Scholar; Conteh-Morgan, Earl, American Foreign Aid and Global Power Projection: The Geopolitics of Resource Allocation (Aldershot, Great Britain: Dartmouth, 1990)Google Scholar; and Hook, Steven W., “Development Assistance and Foreign Policy in the 1980s,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Acapulco, 03 1993Google Scholar.

9. Works influenced by a Marxist perspective include: Hayter, Teresa, Aid as Imperialism (London: Penguin, 1971)Google Scholar; Payer, Cheryl, The World Bank (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Hayter, Teresa and Watson, C., Aid: Rhetoric and Reality (London: Pluto, 1985)Google Scholar; Linear, Marcus, Zapping the Third World: The Disaster of Development Aid (London: Pluto, 1985)Google Scholar; and Griffin, Keith, “Foreign Aid After the Cold War,” Development and Change 22 (10 1991), pp. 645–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. For examples of works that stress the role of conceptions of justice, see Commission, Brandt, North-South-A Program for Survival: Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Riddell, Robert, Foreign Aid Reconsidered (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Lumsdaine, Moral Vision in International Politics; and Zimmerman, Robert, Dollars, Diplomacy, Dependency: Dilemmas of U.S. Economic Aid (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1993)Google Scholar.

11. Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “Introduction: The End of the Cold War in Europe,” in Keohane, Robert O., Nye, Joseph S., and Hoffmann, Stanley, eds., After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 1–19Google Scholar. The quotation is drawn from p. 4.

12. Ibid.

13. According to Blair, for example, “[the] rationale for attacking poverty is much the same at home and abroad though better recognized domestically.” See Blair, Patricia W., “The Dimension of Poverty,” International Organization 23 (Summer 1969), pp. 683–704 and p. 683CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular. For similar viewpoints, see Myrdal, Gunnar, Against the Stream: Critical Essays on Economics (New York: Pantheon, 1973), pp. 45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Singer, H. W., Lessons of Post-war Development Experience: 1945–1988, discussion paper no. 260 (Sussex: Institute of Development Studies, 1989), p. 5Google Scholar; and Miller, Lynn H., Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics, 2d ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1990), pp. 168–69Google Scholar. For dissenting views on the same question, see Goldwater, Barry, The Conscience of a Conservative (Shepherdsville, Ky.: Victor Publishing, 1960), p. 95Google Scholar; and Bauer, , Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion, pp. 116–17Google Scholar.

14. See Silcock, T. H., “Aid: National or International Policy?” Australian Outlook 24 (04 1970), pp. 37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sumberg, Theodore A., “Foreign Aid as Moral Obligation?” The Washington Papers, vol. 1, no. 10, 1973, pp. 1–72Google Scholar; Cassen, Robert, Jolly, Richard, Sewell, John, and Wood, Robert D., eds., Rich Country Interests and Third World Development (New York: St. Martin's, 1982)Google Scholar; Little, Ian M. D., Economic Development: Theory, Policy, and International Relations (New York: Basic Books, 1982), p. 329Google Scholar; and Norbye, Koht O. D., “Mass Poverty and International Income Transfers,” in Parkinson, J. R., ed., Poverty and Aid (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), pp. 15–39Google Scholar.

15. Silcock, , “Aid” p. 39Google Scholar.

16. See Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, p. 121Google Scholar. Also see Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Twenty-five Years of Development Co-operation: A Review (Paris: OECD, 1985), pp. 131–32Google Scholar.

17. Imbeau, , Donor Aid-The Determinants of Development Allocations to Third World Countries, pp. 149–64Google Scholar.

18. For early examples of this argument, see Bergesen, Helge O., Holm, Hans H., and McKinlay, Robert D., eds., The Recalcitrant Rich: A Comparative Analysis of the Northern Responses to the Demands for a New International Economic Order (London: Frances Pinter, 1982)Google Scholar; and Stokke, Olav, “European Aid Policies: Some Emerging Trends,” in Stokke, Olav, ed., European Development Assistance, vol. 1, Policies and Performance (Tilburg-Oslo: The European Association of Development Research and Training Institute and The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 1984), pp. 9–64Google Scholar.

19. See Pratt, Internationalism Under Strain; and Stokke, Western Middle Powers and Global Poverty.

20. Stokke, Olav, “The Determinants of Aid Policies: Some Propositions Emerging from a Comparative Analysis,” in Stokke, , Western Middle Powers and Global Poverty, pp. 275–322Google Scholar. The quotation is drawn from p. 284.

21. Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, pp. 41–42 and 268Google Scholar.

22. See Kohl, Jürgen, “Trends and Problems in Postwar Public Expenditures Development in Western Europe and North America,” in Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold J., eds., The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1981), pp. 307–14 and p. 342Google Scholar in particular. See also Therborn, Göran and Roebroek, Joop, “The Irreversible Welfare State: Its Recent Maturation, its Encounter with the Economic Crisis, and its Future Prospects,” International Journal of Health Services, vol. 16, no. 3, 1986, pp. 319–38 and pp. 321–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed in particular; and Castles, Francis G. and Mitchell, Deborah, “Identifying Welfare State Regimes: The Links Between Politics, Instruments, and Outcomes,” Governance 5 (01 1992), pp. 1–26 and pp. 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

23. OECD, Development Co-operation: 1992 Report (Paris: OECD, 1993), pp. A10–A11Google Scholar.

24. A good chronology of the institutionalization of the aid regime is provided in OECD, Twenty-five Years of Development Co-operation, pp. 65–88Google Scholar.

25. Therborn, and Roebroek, , “The Irreversible Welfare State,” pp. 320 and 323Google Scholar.

26. OECD, Twenty-five Years of Development Co-operation, p. 136Google Scholar.

27. For useful surveys, see Larkey, Patrick D., Stolp, Chandler, and Winer, Mark, “Theorizing About the Growth of Government: A Research Assessment,” Journal of Public Policy 1 (05 1981), pp. 157–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pierson, Christopher, Beyond the Welfare State? The New Political Economy of Welfare (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), pp. 14–24Google Scholar.

28. Cameron, David R., “The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis,” American Political Science Review 72 (12 1978), pp. 1243–61 and pp. 1251–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

29. Uusitalo, Hannu, “Comparative Research on the Determinants of the Welfare State: The State of the Art,” European Journal of Political Research 12 (12 1984), pp. 403–22 and pp. 405–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

30. See Skocpol, Theda and Amenta, Edwin, “States and Social Policies,” Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1986), pp. 131–57 and p. 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular; Pierson, , Beyond the Welfare State? pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

31. See Castles, Francis, ed., The Impact of Parties (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982)Google Scholar; Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr, The Political Economy of Industrial Democracies (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Korpi, Walter, The Democratic Class Struggle (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983)Google Scholar; and Stephens, John D., The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism (London: Macmillan, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Blais, André, Blake, Donald, and Dion, Stéphane, “Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (02 1993), pp. 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. For a qualitative comparative analysis that identifies a partisan effect, see Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, pp. 119 and 161–67Google Scholar.

34. Blais, , Blake, , and Dion, , “Do Parties Make a Difference?” pp. 40–62Google Scholar. The quotation is drawn from p. 47.

35. Huber, Ragin, and Stephens, for instance, introduce a distinction for Christian parties that proves useful to account for the welfare state and may be relevant for foreign aid. See Huber, Evelyne, Ragin, Charles, and Stephens, John D., “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure, and the Welfare State,” American Journal of Sociology 99 (11 1993), pp. 711–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hicks, Alexander and Misra, Joya, “Political Resources and the Growth of Welfare in Affluent Capitalist Democracies, 1960–1982,” American Journal of Sociology 99 (11 1993), pp. 668–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, p. 125Google Scholar.

37. Contrary to usual DAC statistics, our averages are not weighted. Tables for total spending are presented elsewhere as part of the same research project. See Thérien, Jean-Philippe and Noel, Alain, “Welfare Institutions and Foreign Aid: Domestic Foundations of Canadian Foreign Policy,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 27 (11 1994), pp. 529–58Google Scholar.

38. See Skuhra, Anselm, “Austria: Economic Egoist, Diplomatic Activist, and Political Conciliator,” in Bergesen, , Holm, , and McKinlay, , The Recalcitrant Rich, pp. 22–36 and p. 34Google Scholar in particular; Alessandrini, Sergio, “Italian Aid: Policy and Performance,” in Stokke, , European Development Assistance, vol. 1, pp. 262–87 and pp. 264–65Google Scholar in particular; Posner, Alan R., “Italy: Dependence and Political Fragmentation,” in Katzenstein, Peter J., ed., Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), pp. 225–54Google Scholar; and Spotts, Frederic and Wieser, Theodor, Italy: A Difficult Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 263–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. These authors are surveyed briefly in Pierson, , Beyond the Welfare State? pp. 96–101Google Scholar.

40. Esping-Andersen, Gπsta, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

41. The Austrian Socialist Party (SPÖ) participated in coalition governments from 1949 to 1966 as well as after 1983; it formed one-party cabinets from 1970 to 1983.

42. Esping-Andersen, , The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, pp. 53 and 60Google Scholar.

43. The quotations are drawn from p. 194 of Esping-Andersen, Gπsta and Korpi, Walter, “Social Policy as Class Politics in Post-war Capitalism: Scandinavia, Austria, and Germany,” in Goldthorpe, John H., ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism: Studies in the Political Economy of Western European Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 179–208Google Scholar. On Austria's ungenerous foreign policy record, which parallels its ambivalent social democracy, see Skuhra, Anselm, “Austrian Aid: Policy and Performance,” in Stokke, , European Development Assistance, vol. 1, pp. 65–87 and p. 84Google Scholar in particular.

44. Esping-Andersen, , The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, p. 74Google Scholar.

45. Since Esping-Andersen's scores are based on 1980 data, we used 1980 data for other variables as well. Ideally, the analysis should be replicated for other years. Given the structural character of welfare state attributes, however, the results would probably be congruent with those presented here, as is suggested by the discussion of the cases that follows Table 2. [To make sure data for 1980 were not unrepresentative, we also tested the equations with a 1971–89 aid average. The results were essentially the same, with adjusted R2 of.61,.31, and.76, for socialist score, social transfers, and their combination, respectively. Regressions for the independent variables not included in Table 2 (total spending and party composition of government) and for various combinations of independent variables also confirmed the findings presented above. To guarantee the robustness of our results, we ran sixteen regressions where, each time, a different case was omitted. Again, the findings proved stable.]

46. Huber, , Ragin, , and Stephens, , “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure, and the Welfare State,” p. 740Google Scholar.

47. Spotts, and Wieser, , Italy, p. 140Google Scholar. For pensions alone, Italy has 120 occupationally distinct funds. See Esping-Andersen, , The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, p. 61Google Scholar.

48. See Esping-Andersen, Gøsta and Korpi, Walter, “From Poor Relief to Institutional Welfare States: The Development of Scandinavian Social Policy,” in Erikson, Robert, Hansen, Erik Jørgen, Ringen, Stein, and Uusitalo, Hannu, eds., The Scandinavian Model: Welfare States and Welfare Research (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1987), pp. 39–74Google Scholar; and Haavisto, Tarmo and Kokko, Ari, “Politics as a Determinant of Economic Performance: The Case of Finland,” in Blomstrom, Magnus and Meller, Patrick, eds., Diverging Paths: Comparing a Century of Scandinavian and Latin American Economic Development (Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, 1991), pp. 181–212Google Scholar.

49. Andersson, Jan Otto, “Controlled Restructuring in Finland?” Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, 1989, pp. 373–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotation is from pp. 385–86. See also Mjøset, Lars, “Nordic Economic Policies in the 1970s and 1980s,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 403–56 and p. 443CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

50. Finnish International Development Agency, Finland's Development Assistance 1989 (Helsinki: FINNIDA, 1990), pp. 1–2Google Scholar. See also Kiljunen, Kimmo, “Finnish Development Cooperation: Policy and Performance,” in Stokke, , European Development Assistance, vol. 1, pp. 149–77Google Scholar.

51. See Katzenstein, Peter J., Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics of Industry (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 111Google Scholar and Castles, and Mitchell, , “Identifying Welfare State Regimes,” p. 22Google Scholar.

52. See Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, pp. 86 and 243Google Scholar; Hugon, Philippe, “French Development Cooperation: Policy and Performance,” in Stokke, , European Development Assistance, vol. 1, pp. 178–205 and p. 189Google Scholar in particular; and Adda, Jacques and Smouts, Marie-Claude, La France face au Sud: le miroir brisé (France facing south: The broken mirror) (Paris: Karthala, 1988), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

53. Ambler, John S., “Ideas, Interests, and the French Welfare State,” in Ambler, John S., ed., The French Welfare State: Surviving Social and Ideological Change (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pp. 1–31 and pp. 20–22Google Scholar in particular. The quotation is from p. 22.

54. See Ashford, Douglas E., The Emergence of the Welfare States (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 284 and 307–8Google Scholar; and Paugam, Serge, La société française etsespauvres (French society and its poor) (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1993), pp. 85–101Google Scholar.

55. Ashford, Douglas E., “Advantages of Complexity: Social Insurance in France,” in Ambler, , The French Welfare State, pp. 32–57 and pp. 44–51Google Scholar in particular. The quotation is drawn from p. 44. D'Intignano, Beatrice Majnoni, La protection sociale (Social protection) (Paris: Editions de Fallois, 1993), pp. 30–37Google Scholar.

56. Paugam, , La société française et sespauvres, pp. 105–6Google Scholar.

57. On Canada, for instance, see Thérien and Noël, “Welfare Institutions and Foreign Aid.”

58. Hall, Peter A., Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France (Oxford: Polity Press, 1986), pp. 273–83Google Scholar. See also Elster, Jon, “The Possibility of Rational Politics,” Archives européennes de sociologie, vol. 28, no. 1, 1987, pp. 67–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. On the notion of causal mechanism, see Sayer, Andrew, Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (London: Hutchison, 1984), pp. 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Elster, Jon, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60. Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 51Google Scholar. Keohane's definition is commonly accepted: see Milner, Helen, “International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses,” World Politics 44 (04 1992), pp. 466–96 and p. 467CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular. On the importance of “international norms and standards” with respect to foreign aid, see Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, p. 69Google Scholar.

61. Milner, , “International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations,” p. 496Google Scholar.

62. See, for instance, Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence, 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1989), p. 267Google Scholar. On the “second image” tradition in international relations, see Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), pp. 80–158Google Scholar. For a recent realist discussion of the same question, see Zakaria, Fareed, “Realism and Domestic Politics: A Review Essay,” International Security 17 (Summer 1992), pp. 177–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. Milner, , “International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations,” p. 489Google Scholar.

64. Putnam, Robert D., “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 427–60 and p. 430CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

65. See, for instance, Wittkopf, Eugene R., Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Milner, Helen, Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Cowhey, Peter F., “Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitments: Japan and the United States,” International Organization 47 (Spring 1993), pp. 299–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. See Putnam, , “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics,” pp. 459–60Google Scholar; Milner, , “International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations,” pp. 494–96Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” in Keohane, Robert O., ed., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 158–79 and p. 173Google Scholar in particular.

67. See Holsti, Ole R., “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippman Consensus,” International Studies Quarterly 36 (12 1992), pp. 439–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jentleson, Bruce W., “The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force,” International Studies Quarterly 36 (03 1992), pp. 49–74 and pp. 71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular; and Hill, Kevin A., “The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policymaking: Congressional Voting and American Mass Attitudes Toward South Africa,” International Studies Quarterly 37 (06 1993), pp. 195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Zaller, John and Feldman, Stanley, “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences,” American Journal of Political Science 36 (08 1992), pp. 579–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. See Ikenberry, G. John, Lake, David A., and Mastanduno, Michael, “Introduction: Approaches to Explaining American Foreign Economic Policy,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), pp. 1–14 and pp. 7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular; Gourevitch, Peter, Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Maier, Charles S., In Search of Stability: Explorations in Historical Political Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; and Gill, Stephen, ed., Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69. A recent statement of the statist viewpoint is presented in Ikenberry, , Lake, , and Mastanduno, , “Introduction: Approaches to Explaining American Foreign Economic Policy,” pp. 9–14Google Scholar. More specific institutional hypotheses are explored in Milner, Helen, “Maintaining International Commitments in Trade Policy,” pp. 345–69Google Scholar; Kolodziej, Edward A., “Nuclear Weapons and Policy Stability,” pp. 370–411Google Scholar; and Bobrow, Davis B., “Military Security Policy,” pp. 412–44Google Scholar; all in Weaver, R. Kent and Rockman, Bert A., eds., Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 345–444Google Scholar. See also Zysman, John, Governments, Markets, and Growth: Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; and Cowhey, Peter F., “Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitments,” pp. 299–326Google Scholar.

70. Risse-Kappen, Thomas reaches a similar conclusion in “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies,” World Politics 43 (07 1991), pp. 479–512 and pp. 510–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

71. See Cox, Robert W., “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Keohane, Robert O., ed., Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 204–54Google Scholar.

72. Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, p. 120Google Scholar.

73. Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O., “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework,” in Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O., eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 3–30 and p. 23Google Scholar in particular.

74. Ruggie, John Gerard, “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution,” International Organization 46 (Summer 1992), pp. 561–98 and pp. 565–67 and 597–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular. See also Strang, David and Chang, Patricia Mei Yin, “The International Labor Organization and the Welfare State: Institutional Effects on National Welfare Spending, 1960–80,” International Organization 47 (Spring 1993), pp. 235–62 and p. 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

75. In international relations, institutionalism is particularly present in the study of international cooperative arrangements such as regimes or epistemic communities. See Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; and Haas, Peter M., ed., “Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination,” special issue of International Organization 46 (Winter 1992)Google Scholar. For recent surveys of institutionalism in comparative politics, see Thelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 1–32Google Scholar; and Weaver, R. Kent and Rockman, Bert A., “Assessing the Effects of Institutions,” in Weaver, and Rockman, , Do Institutions Matter? pp. 1–41Google Scholar.

76. Work on international regimes,” note Strang and Chang, “makes many of the same causal and ontological assumptions as sociological institutionalism.” See “The International Labor Organization and the Welfare State,” p. 238.

77. Compare Thelen, and Steinmo, , “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” pp. 1–32Google Scholar; and Keohane, Robert O., “Multilateralism: An Agenda for Research,” International Journal 45 (Autumn 1990), pp. 731–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Young, Oran R., “International Regimes: Toward a New Theory of Institutions,” World Politics 29 (10 1986), pp. 104–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78. Thelen, and Steinmo, , “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” p. 3Google Scholar. A similar understanding is presented in Keohane, Robert O., “Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics,” in Keohane, , International Institutions and State Power, pp. 1–20 and p. 2Google Scholar in particular.

79. See Keohane, Robert O., “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” in Keohane, , International Institutions and State Power, pp. 158–79Google Scholar; Caporaso, James A., “International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for Foundations,” International Organization 46 (Summer 1992), pp. 599–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thelen, and Steinmo, , “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” p. 8Google Scholar.

80. Thelen, and Steinmo, , “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” p. 9Google Scholar. From this point of view, Caporaso explains, institutions are not “something that agents ‘bump into’ or ‘run up against’ as they interact with one other.” They are “constitutive of the identities and powers of the agents in the first place.” See Caporaso, , “International Relations Theory and Multilateralism,” p. 626Google Scholar.

81. Myrdal, Gunnar, Beyond the Welfare State: Economic Planning and its International Implications (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960), pp. 162–76Google Scholar.

82. See Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism and the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, pp. 195–231 and p. 209Google Scholar in particular; Cox, Robert W., Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), pp. 164–89Google Scholar; and Gill, Stephen, “Epistemology, Ontology, and the ‘Italian School',” in Gill, , Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations, pp. 21–48 and pp. 32–33Google Scholar in particular.

83. Krasner, Stephen D., Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 118 and 127–28Google Scholar.

84. See Stokke, , “The Determinants of Aid Policies,” pp. 275–322Google Scholar; and Lumsdaine, Moral Vision in International Politics.

85. Kratochwil, Friedrich, “The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism as the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics,” Review of International Studies 19 (01 1993), pp. 63–80 and p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular. See also Gaddis, John Lewis, “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,” International Security 17 (Winter 1992/1993), pp. 5–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86. See Keohane, , “International Liberalism Reconsidered,” pp. 165–94Google Scholar; and Kegley, Charles W. Jr, “The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and the New International Realities,” International Studies Quarterly 37 (06 1993), pp. 131–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87. J. Joffe, quoted in Kegley, , “The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies,” p. 141Google Scholar.

88. Lumsdaine, , Moral Vision in International Politics, p. 4Google Scholar.

89. Waltz discusses the similarities between the liberal and the Marxist understandings of international politics. See Waltz, , Man, the State, and War, pp. 80–158Google Scholar.

90. Thelen, and Steinmo, , “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” p. 14Google Scholar.

91. See ibid., pp. 14–26; Wendt, Alexander and Duvall, Raymond, “Institutions and International Order,” in Czempiel, Ernst-Otto and Rosenau, James N., eds., Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1980s (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989), pp. 51–73Google Scholar; and Jacobs, Lawrence R., “Institutions and Culture: Health Policy and Public Opinion in the U.S. and Britain,” World Politics 44 (01 1992), pp. 179–209 and pp. 182–91 and 207–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular.

92. See Elster, “The Possibility of Rational Politics”; and Stoker, Laura, “Interests and Ethics in Politics,” American Political Science Review 86 (06 1992), pp. 369–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93. Ferguson, Yale H. and Mansbach, Richard W., “Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Theory,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (12 1991), pp. 363–86 and pp. 373–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar in particular; and Gill, , “Epistemology, Ontology, and the ‘Italian School',” pp. 32–33Google Scholar.

94. United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 1992, p. 8Google Scholar.