Recent Dissertations in Political Psychology: Imitation and Transition in World Politics: Observational Learning and the Formation of Foreign Policy Preferences

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 002200272110413
Author(s):  
Kathleen E. Powers ◽  
Joshua D. Kertzer ◽  
Deborah J. Brooks ◽  
Stephen G. Brooks

How do concerns about fairness shape foreign policy preferences? In this article, we show that fairness has two faces—one concerning equity, the other concerning equality—and that taking both into account can shed light on the structure of important foreign policy debates. Fielding an original survey on a national sample of Americans, we show that different types of Americans think about fairness in different ways, and that these fairness concerns shape foreign policy preferences: individuals who emphasize equity are far more sensitive to concerns about burden sharing, are far less likely to support US involvement abroad when other countries aren’t paying their fair share, and often support systematically different foreign policies than individuals who emphasize equality. As long as IR scholars focus only on the equality dimension of fairness, we miss much about how fairness concerns matter in world politics.


1991 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-188
Author(s):  
Glen Balfour-Paul

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 112-150
Author(s):  
S. K. Pestsov

Due to a rapid economic growth over the past several decades China has significantly strengthened its international positions. This growth in its own turn was to a large extent due to a pragmatic and sound foreign strategy that the country has been pursuing since mid-1970s. However, in recent years both within and outside China there has been an on-going debate on the alleged radical transformation of the PRC’s perceptions of its national interests, its place in world politics, and its foreign policy. The variety of opinions becomes increasingly complicated as the number of discussants grows and new arguments are adduced in support of different positions. Whereas outside China this debate structures around the narrative of the Chinese assertiveness, within the country the main dispute is between the advocates of a traditional policy of ‘keeping a low profile’ (taoguang yanghui) and proponents of a new ‘striving for achievements’ (fenfa youwei) strategy. The present paper aims to provide a framework for a systematization of debates on the contemporary foreign policy of China in the English language academic literature based on two criteria: whether a researcher admits that the Chinese foreign policy is changing and how he assesses implications of these changes. Such an approach undoubtedly entails certain schematization of the presented views and arguments. However, it differs favorably from traditional, more narrative approaches to conceptualization of the debate since it establishes a clear, transparent theoretical framework aimed to identify the substantive core of the presented views. This, in turn, can bring about a better understanding of the current state and possible evolution of Chinese foreign policy in general. The author concludes that although these debates are far from being over, most researchers admit the PRC’s foreign policy strategy is undergoing a radical transformation. Since the latter half of 2000s there has been a steady trend in the foreign policy of China towards greater assertiveness. At the same time this transformation ensures continuity of the basic principles of Chinese diplomacy. All this means that further debates on the Chinese foreign policy should focus primarily on potential implications of this transformation for the PRC, the regional dynamics and international relations system as a whole.


1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Barber

There is no better known judgement of Britain's post-war international position than Dean Acheson's view that: “Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role”. Acheson's words have echoed and reechoed through the corridors of Whitehall because they seem so true, capturing not only the uncertainty about Britain's role but the decline in her international status. The judgement has attracted the attention of scholars as well as officials and politicians, as was demonstrated in a recent number of this journal when Christopher Hill wrote about “Britain's Elusive Role in World Politics”. Hill warned against the dangers of seeing foreign policy making in terms of “role”, arguing that it suppressed contradictions in the interests of a predominant image, and encouraged the illusion that a state could plough a lone furrow in pursuit of its particular interests. “Unfortunately”, he argued, “the quest for a unique role, like the pursuit of the Holy Grail, is a fatal distraction to politicians with responsibility”, and later he warned of “role” degenerating into “the medium of limp metaphor and rhetoric”.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-452
Author(s):  
Vladimir Lukin

Abstract This article is about the challenges that face Russia when reflecting on her obligations to the UN system, and on the limits of what is possible in trying to ‘master’ globalization. These challenges are not simply practical questions about the choice of foreign policy. They are deeper questions about worldview and how best to understand and navigate contemporary world politics. Several schemes have been presented to help identify and explain the foundations of our contemporary world order: geopolitical frameworks, civilizational ones, and some that are explicitly ideological. In engaging with and critiquing some of the best-known of these frameworks, the article makes the case for a worldview for Russia that is realist and progressive. This worldview recognizes the hierarchy of states and the logic of power politics in a UN-centered world, but it also moves beyond this pragmatic focus to consider the possibilities for a global dialogue of ‘pluralistic convergence’ and peaceful change that is facilitated by Russia.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.


Res Publica ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-48
Author(s):  
Youri Devuyst

During the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) of1996, the European Union's institutional structure should be adapted, most notably in preparation for the Union's enlargement with the Central and Eastern European countries. The IGC's institutional debate will befar from easy. This is not surprizing since the institutional discussions during the IGC will reflect the grave substantive policy differences between the Member States on the Union's functions in the economy and on the Union's foreign policy role. The IGC is, indeed, largely a position game during which the Member States attempt to create a congenial institutional framework, favourable to their substantive policy preferences. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document