Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:34:17.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Policy and Empirical Democratic Theory*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

David W. Moore
David W. Moore
Affiliation:
University of New Hampshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper compares the research on the determinants of domestic policy outcomes, primarily in American state governments, with similar research in the area of foreign policy. Using seven foreign policy measures, it then tests a hypothesis based on Cutright's cross-national analysis of social insurance programs, that political representativeness is more important in accounting for policy outcomes among developed than among undeveloped nations. Finally, it suggests what implications the reported findings may have on empirical democratic theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 1974 , pp. 1192 - 1197
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1974

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 Key, V. O. Jr.,, Southern Politics (New York: Vintage Books, 1949)Google Scholar.

2 Lockard, Duane, New England State Politics (Princeton, New Jersey; Princeton University Press, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Dawson, Richard E. and Robinson, James A., “Inter-Party Competition, Economic Variables and Welfare Policies in American States,” Journal of Politics, 25 (May, 1963), 265–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Jacob, H., “The Consequences of Malapportionment: A Note of Caution,” Social Forces, 43 (December, 1964), 256–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Dye, Thomas R., “Malapportionment and Public Policy in the States,” Journal of Politics, 27 (August, 1965), 586–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Hofferbert, R. I., “The Relation Between Public Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States,” American Political Science Review, 60 (March, 1966), 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Dye, Thomas R., Politics, Economics, and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States (Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1966)Google Scholar.

8 Robinson, James A., “A Review of Dye, Politics, Economics, and the Public,” in the American Political Science Review, 61 (December, 1967), 113–14Google Scholar.

9 Dye, Thomas R., “Income Inequality and American State Politics,” American Political Science Review, 63 (March, 1970), 157–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Fry, Brian R. and Winters, Richard F., “The Politics of Redistribution,” American Political Science Review, 64 (June, 1970), 508–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Sharkansky, I. and Hofferbert, R. I., “Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy,” American Political Science Review, 63 (September, 1969), 867–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Cnudde, Charles F. and McCrone, Donald J., “Party Competition and Welfare Policies in the American States,” American Political Science Review, 63 (September, 1969), 858–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Clarke, James W., “Environment, Process and Policy: A Reconsideration,” American Political Science Review, 63 (December, 1969), 1172–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Cnudde, Charles F. and Neubauer, Deane E., “New Trends in Democratic Theory,” in Empirical Democratic Theory, ed. Cnudde, and Neubauer, (Chicago: Markham, 1969)Google Scholar.

15 Cutright, Phillips, “Inequality: A Cross-National Analysis,” American Sociological Review, 32 (August, 1967), 562–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Political Structure, Economic Development and National Social Security Programs,” American Journal of Sociology, 70 (March, 1965), 537–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 The data used here were provided by the Comparative Analysis of Policy Environments (CAPE) Project under the direction of Philip M. Burgess, The Ohio State University. A report on the factor analysis is included in my “Governmental and Societal Influences on Foreign Policy in Open and Closed Nations,” in Comparing Foreign Policies: Theories, Findings, and Methods, ed. Rosenau, James N. (Sage, 1974)Google Scholar.

17 Of the 21 intercorrelations among the seven foreign policy measures, 13 are less than .30; only Cold War and Alignment correlate more than .50.

18 Moore, , “National Attributes and Nation Typologies: A Look at the Rosenau Genotypes,” in Comparing Foreign PoliciesGoogle Scholar.

19 For a report of these dimensions, see Russett, Bruce M., International Regions and the International System (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967)Google Scholar.

20 See Rummel, R. J., “Some Dimensions in the Foreign Behavior of Nations,” Journal of Peace Research, No. 3 (1966), 201–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Moore, , “Governmental and Societal Influences on Foreign Policy in Open and Closed Nations,” in Comparing Foreign PoliciesGoogle Scholar.

22 Cnudde, and Neubauer, , Empirical Democratic Theory, 511–34Google Scholar.

23 Rosenau, James N., “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed. Farrel, R. Barry (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

24 For the method used to classify nations as developed or undeveloped, see Burgess, Philip M., “Nation Typing for Foreign Policy Analysis: A Partitioning Procedure for Constructing Typologies,” in Methodological Concerns in International Studies, ed. Fedder, Edwin H. (St. Louis: University of Missouri, Center for International Studies Monograph Series, 1970), pp. 3–66Google Scholar. Of the 109 nations included in this study, 42 are classified developed, 67 undeveloped.

25 For a review of this literature and a creative attempt at devising a typology of foreign policy outputs, although based solely on WEIS events data, see Kegley, Charles W. Jr., A General Empirical Typology of Foreign Policy Behavior, Sage Professional Papers in International Studies (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1973)Google Scholar. For a description of WEIS events data, see McClelland, Charles A., “The World Event/Interaction Survey: A Research Project on Theory and Measurement of International Interaction and Transaction,” University of Southern California, Department of Political Science (mimeo), 1967Google Scholar.

26 Cnudde and Neubauer, p. 524.

27 For a review of much of the literature in this area as well as an illuminating study of the importance of public opinion to executive officials, see Cohen, Bernard C., The Public's Impact on Foreign Policy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973)Google Scholar.

28 Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr.,, “Hobbes and the Science of Indirect Government,” The American Political Science Review, 65 (March, 1971), 97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.