INR 2002 Exam 2 Review Monday October 28th 2 30 PM Chapter 4 Domestic Politics and War National vs Particularistic Interests o National interests or general interests are interests that are so widely shared that they can be attributed to the state as a whole o Particularistic interests or narrow interests are interests that are held only by a relatively small number of actors within the country o Example Oil We have always acted on an interests in the Middle East to ensure a steady supply of oil Roosevelt declaring defense of Saudi Arabia Carter articulating the Carter Doctrine Persian Gulf War and Iraq War One national interest based argument believes that oil is vital to U S power and security because of modern military needs for oil and another states that our economy is dependent on oil supply The particularistic interest argument sees the pursuit of oil as benefiting a small group of businesses Institutions determine which actors have a seat at the table o Domestic institutions determine how decisions are made and therefore which actors interests are taken into account Collective Action Problem o This arises when a group of individuals with common interests seeks to act collectively to further that interest o Such efforts can fall short if each individual prefers to free ride on the efforts of other o Relatively small groups can be more effective at cooperating to further common interests than large groups Three Kinds of Actors o 1 Leaders who make foreign policy decisions Decide when to make threats what demands to issue and whether to wage war most important actors o 2 Groups within the country that have sufficient organization and resources to influence the decisions made by political leaders Bureaucratic groups and interest groups Bureaucracy the collection of organizations military diplomatic corps and intelligence agencies that carry out most tasks of governance within the state Interest groups groups of individuals with common interests that organize to influence public policy in a manner that benefits their members o 3 General Public Varies considerably with domestic institutions Democratic elections The Falklands War What do leaders want o Argentina sparked a war with Great Britain in 1982 when it invaded a set of nearby islands that had been in dispute for a century in a half o War was surprising for two reasons The islands were not valuable pieces of territory Large imbalance of military power between the two states o At the time leaders in both countries has pressing domestic problems to which military conflict may have seemed the perfect solution Argentine junta was seeking to solidify its hold on power Margaret Thatcher has to worry about political survival and her firm response to the Argentinians caused her poll numbers to soar o Some leaders may have very strong ideological beliefs that increase their willingness to pay costs or run risks in foreign policy or more prosaic personal beliefs o Politicians thinks a lot about how to obtain office and once in power how to secure their hold on it and therefore leaders have to be responsive to the interests of those who control their political fate o The Rally Effect is the tendency for people to become more supportive of their country s government in response to dramatic international events such as crises and war Approval ratings often jump up at the onset of a war or some international crisis Thatcher Falklands War 9 11 Why do people rally around the flag at times of international crisis Members often feel greater attachment and loyalty to the group when they experience conflict with outsiders It can create a diversion from problems that might otherwise drag down a leaders popularity It may give embattled leaders an opportunity to blame foreigners for the country s problems scapegoating The Rally Effect and the Diversionary Incentive o The diversionary incentive is the incentive that state leaders have to start international crises in order Wagging the Dog and Gambling for Resurrection o Gambling for Resurrection taking a risky action such a starting a war when the alternative is certain to be very bad o Scholars have found little consistent support for the hypothesis that leaders resort to force when they are in trouble domestically o International conflict is more likely to be initiated by leaders who are politically secure o Diversionary incentives account for only a small portion of the conflict behavior we observe Why don t we see this in practice o Domestic political benefits of war relative to peace have to be large perhaps unrealistically large in order to eliminate the possibility of a peaceful bargain o War can impose domestic political costs in addition to promising benefits How can the rally effect shift the bargaining range o Diagram on pg 140 o Shrinks the bargaining range o Even if the leader of one state expected large political benefits from waging war these benefits would be sufficient to cause war only if they outweighed the costs of war to both sides The political costs of war o Public support for war changes as the costs mount o President s approval rates suffer o War is a risky gamble The Military Industrial Complex o An alliance between military leaders and arms manufacturers who presumably have a vested interest in an aggressive foreign policy o The general thesis of Hobson s theory also president Eisenhower warned against the influence of this The impact of bureaucratic politics on the decision to go to war o Decisions about war and peace are shaped not only by state leaders but also by the interests of the bureaucratic organizations involved in the decision making process o Where you stand depends on where you sit the leaders of bureaucratic agencies often take policy stands that reflect their own organizations needs o Military influence Members of the military have ideological organizational and professional interests in policies that make war more likely Example Japan in the 1930s Pro Israel and anti Castro lobbies o Pro Israel A collection of individuals and groups who want the U S government to support and defend the state of Israel Main lobbying arm of this group is AIPAC considered one of the most effective lobbying groups in Washington o Anti Castro Cuban Americans opposed to the communist regime in Cuba Have lobbied the U S government to take strong actions to contain and undermine the Castro regime including embargos How can small groups influence national policy o The answer
View Full Document
Unlocking...