Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:50:28.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States Policy Responses to the Mexican Revolution: A Partial Application of the Bureaucratic Politics Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

John W. Sloan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of United States foreign policy has recently been invigorated by the introduction of Graham Allison's bureaucratic politics model (BPM). The basic unit of analysis of the BPM is governmental action viewed as political resultant. In Allison's words, the actions of governments are ‘resultants in the sense that what happens is not chosen as a solution to a problem but rather results from compromise, conflict, and confusion of officials with diverse interests and unequal influence…’. The BPM assumes that different players will have different perspectives toward similar problems, that is, they will each see different ‘faces’ of the same issue. The basic assumption of the BPM as it is applied to United States foreign policy toward Latin America by scholars such as Abraham Lowenthal is that United States decision-makes, who share power in both the formulation and implementation of policy, have differing points of view because of their differing organizational and personal perspectives.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 1978 , pp. 283 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

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

2 Ibid., p. 163.

3 Art, Robert. ‘Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique’, Policy Sciences, No. 4 (1973), p. 476.Google Scholar

4 Petras, James and LaPorte, Robert Jr., ‘Chile: No’, Foreign Policy No. 7 (Summer 1972), p. 135.Google Scholar

5 Lowenthal, Abraham F., ‘Bureaucratic Politics and United States Policy Toward Latin America: An Interim Research Report’, Paper delivered at the American Political Science Convention, Chicago, Illinois, 1974.Google Scholar

6 Wilkins, Mira, The Emergence of Multinational Enterprise (Cambridge: Mass., Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 124.Google Scholar

7 Schmitt, Karl M., Mexico and The United States, 1821–1973: Conflict and Coexistence (N.Y., John Wiley, 1974), p. 119.Google Scholar

8 Calvert, Peter, The Mexican Revolution, 1910–1914: The Diplomacy of Anglo-Anserican Conflict (Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 41.Google Scholar

9 Haley, P. Edward, Revolution and Intervention: The Diplomacy of Taft and Wilson with Mexico, 1910–1917 (Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

10 Quirk, Robert E., An Affair of Honor: Woodrow Wilson and The Occupation of Veracruz (N.Y., McGraw Hill, 1964), p. 2.Google Scholar

11 Link, Arthur, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (N.Y., Harper, 1954), p. 108.Google Scholar

12 Smith, R. F., The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico, 1916–1932 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 34.Google Scholar

13 The U.S. had lost 19 killed and 71 wounded; the Mexicans had suffered about 200 killed and 300 wounded. See Quirk, op. cit., p. 24.

14 Wilkins, op. cit., p. 134.

15 Quirk, op. cit., p. 18.

16 Smith, op. cit., p. 36.

17 Ibid., p. 51.

18 Ibid., p. 64.

19 Nicolson, Harold, Dwight Morrow (N.Y., Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1935), p. 305.Google Scholar

20 Smith, op. cit., p. 117.

21 Ibid., p. 44.

22 Ibid., p. 95.

23 Haley, op. cit., p. 245.

24 Smith, op. cit., p. 106.

25 Ibid., p. 97.

26 Ibid., p. 117.

27 Ibid., p. 118.

28 Ibid., p. 123.

29 Ibid., p. 163.

30 Ibid., p. 168.

31 Ibid., p. 181.

32 Glad, Betty, Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of Innocence (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1966), p. 313.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., p. 311.

34 Schmitt, op. cit., p. 162.

35 Smith, op. cit., P. 191.

36 Ibid., p. 194.

37 Schmitt, op. cit., p. 164.

38 Feis, Herbert, The Diplomacy of The Dollar: First Era, 1919–1932 (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1950), p. 29.Google Scholar

39 Smith, op. cit., p. 231.

40 Ellis, L. Ethan, Frank R. Kellogg and American Foreign Relations, 1925–1929 (New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press, 1961), p. 27.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., p. 251.

42 Ross, Stanley Robert, ‘Dwight Morrow and The Mexican Revolution,’ Hispanic American Historical Review, 38 (11 1958), p. 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 The New York Times, 13 09, 1930.

44 Ross, op. cit., p. 511.

45 Ibid., p. 514.

46 Smith, op. cit., p. 265.

47 Cronon, E. David, Josephus Daniels in Mexico (Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), p. 115.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., p. 58.

49 Ibid., p. 66.

50 Ibid., p. 80.

51 Ibid., p. 147.

52 Ibid., p. 126.

53 Ibid., p. 171.

54 Wood, Bryce, The Making of The Good Neighbor Policy (N.Y., Norton, 1961), p. 203.Google Scholar

55 Cronon, op. cit., p. 192.

56 Wood, op. cit., p. 218.

57 Ibid., pp. 222–225.

58 Wilkins, Mira, The Maturing of Multinational Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1974), p. 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Wood, op. cit., p. 258.