scholarly journals Foreign Policy: Public Opinion and Political Legacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-220
Author(s):  
Aaron T. Walter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Position ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Mutual Support ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Opinion Polling

Abstract To the degree that public opinion, as domestic variable, influences a leaders decision-making in the area of foreign affairs is significant. Political leaders use public opinion polling to support government position or in attempts to mold policy position(s) in the affirmative. The following article investigates how public opinion affects U.S. presidential foreign policy decisions and to the degree those decisions are the base for political legacy. The theoretical argument is that domestic variables and leaders decisions often act in mutual support of each others in complementary interests and when not the case, it is the leader whose agenda setting or creating a frame impacts public opinion.

scholarly journals Turkey’s “Zero Problems with the Neighbors” Policy: Was It Realistic?

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Askerov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
National Interests ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Government ◽  
Economic Developments

With the advancement of power in 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has introduced revolutionary policies in Turkey in various realms, including foreign affairs. The new trend in the foreign policy focused on not having problems with neighbors. This could be possible or nearly possible theoretically but eliminating century-long and deep-rooted conflicts with some of the neighbors would not be easy in practice. The new idealistic/moralistic approach necessitated new ways of policy formulation based on mutual gains and unthinkable concessions on the part of Turkey. Ankara’s new approach had given a special importance to building bridges of trust with the neighbors, which also seemed attractive to the political leaders of the neighboring states. This idealistic/moralistic approach was vulnerable to the dynamic political and economic developments in the region and the world in general. The policy did not have a power of sustainability due to the various old, new, and emerging problems around Turkey and hence, the government had to give it up gradually and take a new course of foreign policy based on realistic approaches to defend its national interests.

Public Opinion on Unites States-Canadian Relations

1974 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 637-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Sigler ◽  
Dennis Goresky
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relative Degree ◽  
Transnational Politics ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Unites States

Primary attention has been paid in much of the writing on public attitudes on foreign affairs to opinions about official interstate relations and foreign policy. One of the merits of the transnational politics paradigm is that it calls attention to the possibility that intersocietal relations may condition or influence the climate as well as the agenda of interstate relations. For the public opinion analyst, the paradigm invites attention to the relative degree of importance assigned by publics to intersocietal as contrasted to interstate relations and how changes in attitudes toward one sector may influence the climate in which relations in the other sector are conducted.

scholarly journals In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin E. Goldsmith ◽  
Yusaku Horiuchi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mass Publics ◽  
Voting Decisions

Does “soft power” matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of these countries? The authors examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US. They draw their basic conceptual framework from Joseph Nye, who uses various indicators of opinion about the US to assess US soft power. But the authors argue that his theory lacks the specificity needed for falsifiable testing. They refine it by focusing on foreign public opinion about US foreign policy, an underemphasized element of Nye's approach. Their regression analysis shows that foreign public opinion has a significant and large effect on troop commitments to the war in Iraq, even after controlling for various hard power factors. It also has significant, albeit small, effects on policies toward the International Criminal Court and on voting decisions in the UN General Assembly. These results support the authors' refined theoretical argument about soft power: public opinion about US foreign policy in foreign countries does affect their policies toward the US, but this effect is conditional on the salience of an issue for mass publics.

The Availability Heuristic, Political Leaders, and Decision Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Availability Heuristic ◽  
Systematic Biases ◽  
Data Point ◽  
Biasing Effects

The cognitive and emotional mechanics of the human brain have profound effects on when and what people and political leaders learn, and this can have significant effects on their causal beliefs, preferences, and policies. The existence of the availability heuristic and its biasing effects on political judgment is one of the most robust findings from decades of research in cognitive psychology. The core mechanism involves people being more likely to learn from the phenomena that are most easily recalled by memory, which tend to be dramatic and vivid events, rather than other, often more normatively probative sources. Most applications of this insight to foreign policy decision-making also tend to assume that an actor’s personal experiences will impact what tends to be more or less easily recalled and thus better predict who learns which lesson from which event. This heuristic enables leaders to deal with the vast amount of extant information but also can cause systematic biases in causal inference. Documenting the availability heuristic and its effects on political decision-making requires (usually archival) data on leaders beliefs’ over long periods of time, from their formative political lessons through decisions and nondecisions when in power, in order to reliably clarify which lessons were in fact learned, when and why a leader learned which lesson from what data point, why that data point happened to be cognitively available, and whether these lessons influenced policy. Ideally, studies should also assess these leaders’ associates where possible to determine whether they learned similar lessons from the same events. Studies can also apply statistical analysis to larger populations of leaders who are likely to have found different events cognitively available. This article focusses on decisions in the realm of foreign policy and international security, although availability certainly plays a role in other domains as well. Decades of scholarship have now shown the relevance of the availability heuristic in U.S., Soviet, Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani grand strategy and foreign policy, approaches to nuclear weapons, and extant alliances and threat perceptions. But much work remains to be done in these cases and elsewhere, as well as in other fields like international political economy and comparative politics.

Parliaments in Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Case Study Research ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Arms Exports

Parliaments differ enormously in their foreign policy competences. This is best documented in the area of “war powers,” understood as decision-making on the use of force. In other issue areas, such as treaty-making, defense budgets, sanctions, or arms exports, differences across countries are far less researched. The available data, however, suggests that differences in those areas are no smaller than in the area of war powers. What is more, the data also show that parliamentary competences across issue areas within particular countries also differ a lot. Parliaments are not strong or weak across the full spectrum of foreign policy competences. Instead, parliamentary competences are country, as well as issue specific. A general trend toward a parliamentarization or deparliamentarization of foreign affairs is not discernible. Partly inspired by institutionalist versions of Democratic Peace Theory, numerous studies have examined whether parliamentary powers have any effect on countries’ propensity to use armed force. Case-study research tends to find that variation in parliamentary powers impacts on decision-making on the use of force but also emphasizes that the effects of institutional constraints need to be understood in conjunction with the preferences of the public, parliament, and government. Statistical studies have found some evidence for a “parliamentary peace,” but because of problematic indicators and a lack of controls, doubts remain as to robustness and significance of this effect. In any case, theories of legislative-executive relations in parliamentary systems suggest that open confrontations between parliament and government are exceptional. Instead of an institutional constraint in a system of checks and balances, parliamentary war powers can be understood as an additional reassurance against unpopular decisions to use force. Most studies of parliaments in foreign affairs are characterized by “methodological nationalism”—that is, the assumption that nation-states are the natural units of analysis. However, parliaments’ activities in foreign affairs are not exhausted by their monitoring and scrutiny of national executives. In addition, there is a long tradition of “parliamentary diplomacy” and engagement in interparliamentary institutions. The most powerful parliamentary actor beyond the nation-state is the European Parliament. Although its formal competences are limited, it has been very effective in using its powers to influence European foreign policy.

Response to Terrence Chapman's review of Paying Attention to Foreign Affairs: How Public Opinion Affects Presidential Decision Making.

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-147
Author(s):  
Thomas Knecht
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The Core ◽  
Constructive Criticism

I want to thank Terrence Chapman for his insightful comments. The core of our respective arguments is similar: We both find that public opinion can shape international affairs in important, and perhaps unexpected, ways. Nevertheless, he offers some constructive criticism that has prompted me to think more deeply about my work.

Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney Verba ◽  
Richard A. Brody ◽  
Edwin B. Parker ◽  
Norman H. Nie ◽  
Nelson W. Polsby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
National Elections ◽  
Life And Death

Foreign policy seems to command more public attention than domestic policy and yet—insofar as it has been, researched—public opinion on foreign policy seems to have less impact on governmental decisions than does opinion in most other issue areas. There are at least two reasons, one normative and one empirical, why public opinion can be regarded as pertinent to some foreign policy questions—especially those associated with “life and death.” Normatively, it is desirable for political leaders in a democracy to commit national resources in ways generally approved by the populace. Large scale military commtiments should, if at all possible, meet with the approval of public opinion. Empirically, if they do not, experience has shown there are circumstances in which public disapproval of the course of foreign policy may be registered in national elections. Specifically, our one recent experience with a situation of partial mobilization and a limited but large-scale and indefinite commitment to military action in Korea did in time produce a distribution of opinion that suggested the war was very unpopular. And though its precise impact on the 1952 presidential election is difficult to assess there is little doubt that the Korean issue contributed significantly to the Eisenhower landslide.Among the questions raised by the Korean experience is whether the American public will easily tolerate the prosecution of long drawn-out wars of partial mobilization. Therefore, it is not surprising that another such war, in Vietnam, has stimulated a concern with public opinion.

Publieke opinie, buitenlandse politiek en het einde van de Spaanse Successieoorlog

2014 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-694
Author(s):  
Donald Haks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Political Journalism ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
Early Modern Times ◽  
The Revolution

Abstract Public opinion, foreign policy, and the end of the War of the Spanish SuccessionDid public opinion have an impact on foreign policy in early modern times? States put in much effort publicly to legitimize their foreign policy. But they did not always prevent open discussion. England during the War of the Spanish Succession is a case in point. The revolution of 1688-9, the growing influence of parliament on foreign policy, opportunities for political journalism, and different views about how to end the war made public debate a matter of political importance. Pamphlets and public addresses expressed various opinions. May we call this ‘public opinion’? How should we define this concept? And were public opinion and decision-making in some way related? This case improves our understanding of public opinion and foreign policy: it seems after all that public opinion in England did indeed hasten the end of the War of the Spanish Succession.

scholarly journals The press and Brazilian Foreign Policy: Brazil’s participation at the 1962 Punta del Este Conference

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 348-373
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Marson
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
American States ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Press ◽  
Foreign Policy Issue

This paper seeks to comprehend how a portion of the Brazilian public opinion, specifically the press, understood Brazil’s participation in the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in January 1962 – the Punta del Este Conference. This was a decisive meeting since it culminated in the expulsion of Cuba from the Organization of American States (OAS), because of the pressure exerted by the United States. Brazil distinguished itself for leading a group of countries against Cuba’s expulsion, based on the principle of self-determination and non-intervention. Although some authors believe the Punta del Este Conference to be the first event to massively mobilize the Brazilian public opinion around a foreign policy issue, they are not clear about what they understand as the concept of public opinion or how it positioned itself about Brazil’s participation in the Conference. Thus, this paper focuses on the coverage of three newspapers of national circulation (Jornal do Brasil, O Estado de São Paulo and Última Hora) between November 1961 and March 1962 to understand, through a content analysis method, how the press evaluated Brazil’s participation in the Punta del Este Conference. The results point to a bigger support of the Brazilian position and the Independent Foreign Policy.       Recebido em: Agosto/2019. Aprovado em: julho/2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document