Skip to main content Accessibility help

Limits to Hegemonic Influence in the Organization of American States

  • Carolyn M. Shaw


Although powerful states have the ability to dominate the international system to achieve their policy preferences, such dominance has limits in the Organization of American States. Even though the United States, its most powerful member state, has considerable influence over OAS actions, institutional factors also affect decisionmaking and produce more varied outcomes than one might anticipate. Adapting three different perspectives from organizational sociology, this study constructs an analytical framework to explore the impact of structural, normative, internal relational, and environmental factors on the level of U.S. influence in the OAS. Four hypotheses are tested on 30 cases of regional conflict management from 1948 to 2002. The organizational variables also reveal incentives for the United States to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally in most instances in the post-Cold War era.



Hide All
Atkins, G. Pope. 1997. Encyclopedia of the Inter-American System. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Ball, M. Margaret. 1969. The OAS in Transition. Durham: Duke University Press.
Cyert, Richard M., and James, G. March. 1992. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. 2d ed. Cambridge: Blackwell Business.
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Franck, Thomas M. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haass, Richard. 1999. The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: How To Be Effective in Any Unruly Organization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Halperin, Morton H. 1974. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter, Mayer, and Volker, Rittenberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn, Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Muñoz, Heraldo. 1993. The Future of the Organization of American States. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
Organization of American States (OAS). General Secretariat. Department of Legal Affairs. Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance: Applications Washington, DC: OAS General Secretariat.
Organization of American States (Oas). 1979. Seventeenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. 3.
OAS News (Washington, DC). 1999. Strengthening Cooperation against Drugs. March-April.
Perrow, Charles. 1979. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 2d ed. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
Robinson, Linda. 1998. Is Colombia Lost to Rebels U.S. News and World Report, May 11.
Scott, W. Richard. 1998. Organization: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Villagrán, Francisco 1992a. The OAS and Democratic Development. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Villagrán, Francisco 1992b. The OAS and Regional Security. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Walker, Thomas W. ed. 1982. Nicaragua in Revolution. New York: Praeger.
Whitaker, Arthur P. 1954. The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wiarda, Howard J. 1995. After Miami: the Summit, the Peso Crisis, and the Future of U.S.-Latin American Relations. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 37, 1 (Spring): 169.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Limits to Hegemonic Influence in the Organization of American States

  • Carolyn M. Shaw


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.