The limits of neoclassical realism: additive and interactive approaches to explaining foreign policy preferences

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811869.009

9 - The limits of neoclassical realism: additive and interactive approaches to explaining foreign policy preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Benjamin O. Fordham

Edited by

Steven E. Lobell ,

Norrin M. Ripsman and

Jeffrey W. Taliaferro

Show author details

Benjamin O. Fordham: Affiliation:
Binghamton University (SUNY)
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

The central purpose of this volume is to evaluate the relative weight of domestic and international factors in determining the national security behavior of states. The neoclassical realist agenda that Jeffrey Taliaferro, Steven Lobell, and Norrin Ripsman lay out in their introductory essay seeks to accomplish this task by viewing domestic interests and institutions as an imperfect transmission belt that can frequently ignore or distort objective international circumstances, thereby affecting national policy. As I will argue in this chapter, however, their neoclassical assumption that domestic and international pressures are easily separable and identifiable is problematic. The nature of international threats is determined to a great extent by the interests of the domestic coalition that governs the state, and domestic political and economic interests are affected by international circumstances. Therefore, it makes little sense to treat domestic and international variables in an additive manner, by assuming an objective set of national interests and seeing how domestic political actors respond to them. Instead, I propose an interactive model that considers how the interaction between domestic interests and the international political environment determines foreign security policy choices. My model considers the interaction between subnational political actors and the international environment when theorizing about the preferences of domestic political actors, including state policy-makers. I will illustrate the explanatory advantages of this approach by examining the changing positions of domestic political factions on American national security policy during the Cold War era.

Type: Chapter
Information: Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy , pp. 251 - 279

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869.009 [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

Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1979), p. 122Google Scholar

Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991)Google Scholar

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

Cronin, Patrick and Fordham, Benjamin O., “Timeless Principles or Today's Fashion? Testing the Stability of the Linkage between Ideology and Foreign Policy in the Senate,” Journal of Politics 61, no. 4 (November 1999), pp. 967–98CrossRef Google Scholar

Carmines, Edward and Stimson, James, Issue Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 93Google Scholar

Posen, Barry R., The Sources of Military Doctrine (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984)Google Scholar

Walt, Stephen M., The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987)Google Scholar

Leffler, Melvyn P., A Preponderance of Power (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar

Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954)Google Scholar

Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John, “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965,” in Russett, Bruce, ed., Peace, War, and Numbers (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1972), pp. 19–48Google Scholar

Singer, J. David, “Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985,” International Interactions 14, no. 2 (1988), pp. 115–32CrossRef Google Scholar

Wells, Samuel F., Jr., “Sounding the Tocsin: NSC 68 and the Soviet Threat,” International Security 4, no. 2 (autumn 1979), pp. 116–58CrossRef Google Scholar

Bartels, Larry M., “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup,” American Political Science Review 85, no. 2 (June 1991), pp. 457–74CrossRef Google Scholar

Mueller, John E., “Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and Vietnam,” American Political Science Review 65, no. 2 (June 1971), pp. 358–75CrossRef Google Scholar

Black, Earl and Black, Merle, The Rise of Southern Republicans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Condit, Doris M., History of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, vol. II (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1988), pp. 224–40Google Scholar

Huntington, Samuel P., The Common Defense (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 55Google Scholar

Gaddis, John L., Strategies of Containment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 90–5Google Scholar

Block, Fred L., The Origins of International Economic Disorder (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar

Block, Fred L., “Economic Instability and Military Strength: The Paradoxes of the 1950 Rearmament Decision,” Politics and Society 10, no. 1 (1980), pp. 35–58CrossRef Google Scholar

Gaddis, John Lewis and Nitze, Paul H., “NSC-68 and the Soviet Threat Reconsidered,” International Security 4, no. 4 (spring 1980), pp. 164–80, at p. 171CrossRef Google Scholar

Burch, Philip H., Elites in American History, vol. III (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc, 1980)Google Scholar

Collins, Robert M., “The Economic Crisis of 1968 and the Waning of the ‘American Century,’” American Historical Review 101, no. 2 (April 1996), pp. 396–422, at p. 415CrossRef Google Scholar

Hogan, Michael, A Cross of Iron (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 315–65CrossRef Google Scholar

Pierpaoli, Paul G., Truman and Korea (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Lo, Clarence Y. H., “Theories of the State and Business Opposition to Increased Military Spending,” Social Problems 29, no. 4 (April 1982), pp. 424–38CrossRef Google Scholar

Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar

Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973)Google Scholar

Krasner, Stephen D., “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” World Politics 28, no. 3 (April 1976), pp. 317–47CrossRef Google Scholar

Pollard, Robert A., Economic Security and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945–1950 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985)Google Scholar

Fordham, Benjamin O., “Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era US Foreign Policy,” International Organization 52, no. 2 (spring 1998), pp. 359–96CrossRef Google Scholar

Weingast, Barry R., Goldstein, Judith, and Bailey, Michael A., “The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade,” World Politics 49, no. 3 (April 1997), pp. 309–38Google Scholar

Irwin, Douglas A. and Kroszner, Randall S., “Interests, Institutions, and Ideology in Securing Policy Change: The Republican Conversion to Trade Liberalization after Smoot-Hawley,” Journal of Law and Economics 42, no. 2 (October 1999), pp. 643–73CrossRef Google Scholar

Trubowitz, Peter, Defining the National Interest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)Google Scholar

Trubowitz, Peter, “Sectionalism and American Foreign Policy: The Political Geography of Consensus and Conflict,” International Studies Quarterly 36, no. 2 (June 1992), pp. 173–90CrossRef Google Scholar

Fordham, Benjamin O. and McKeown, Timothy J., “Selection and Influence: Interest Groups and Congressional Voting on Trade Policy,” International Organization 57, no. 3 (summer 2003), pp. 519–49CrossRef Google Scholar

Hiscox, Michael J., International Trade and Political Conflict (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Rogowski, Ronald, Commerce and Coalitions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar