Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of U... more Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
When ultimate authority in foreign policymaking is neither a predominant leader nor a single grou... more When ultimate authority in foreign policymaking is neither a predominant leader nor a single group, there is a third alternative decision unit: a "coalition" of politically autonomous actors. The defining feature of this type of decision unit is the absence of any single group or actor with the political authority to commit the state in international affairs. Foreign policy decision making in these settings is very fragmented and centers on the willingness and ability of multiple, politically autonomous actors to achieve agreement to enact policy. One premise of this essay is that, although typically ignored in the study of foreign policy decision making, coalition decision units are actually quite prevalent across a variety of institutional settings. They are prone to occur in parliamentary democracies with multiparty cabinets, in presidential democracies with opposing legislative and executive branches, in authoritarian regimes in which power is dispersed across factions and/or institutions, and finally in decentralized settings in which bureaucratic actors gain authority in collectively dealing with major policy issues.
Reviewers for Volume 27 The following colleagues have generously given their time and energy to r... more Reviewers for Volume 27 The following colleagues have generously given their time and energy to review papers for Law and Human Behavior in the last year. We are grateful for their contributions to this journal and the discipline. Asterisks indicate members of 2003 Editorial Board.
... Mommsen (1995) as well as general histories such as those by Ramm (1967), Holborn (1969), and... more ... Mommsen (1995) as well as general histories such as those by Ramm (1967), Holborn (1969), and Craig (1978). Kagan's (1995) analysis of WWI's origins begins with the fall of Bismarck and then addresses these subsequent leadership changes. 14 Sked (1989), Williamson ...
Preface Part I: Does Decision Making Matter? Joe D. Hagan. Part II: How Decision Units Shape Fore... more Preface Part I: Does Decision Making Matter? Joe D. Hagan. Part II: How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework: Margaret G. Hermann. Part III: Who Leads Matters: The Effects of Powerful Individuals: Margaret G. Hermann Thomas Preston Baghat Korany Timothy M. Shaw. Part IV: Resolve, Accept, or Avoid: Effects of Group Conflict on Foreign Policy Decisions: Charles F. Hermann Janice Gross Stein Bengt Sundelius Stephen G. Walker. Part V: Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy: Joe D. Hagan Philip P. Everts Haruhiro Fukui John D. Stempel. Part VI: People and Processes in Foreign Policymaking: Insights from Comparative Case Studies: Ryan K. Beasley Juliet Kaarbo Charles F. Hermann Margaret G. Hermann.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
One of the most prevalent ideas in the international relations (IR) literature is that domestic p... more One of the most prevalent ideas in the international relations (IR) literature is that domestic political patterns are linked to foreign policy via the concept of political regime (democracy, anocracy, and autocracy). Over the past two decades, the regime type-foreign policy nexus has gained ample theoretical and empirical credibility in IR theory. There are four areas of research on regime type and foreign policy: the first considers the “democratic peace” literature focused on authoritarian and democratic foreign policies; the second deals with the “democratization and war” literature that highlights the foreign policies of anocracies; the third uses the common large-N data sets and research design and “unpacks” democratic and authoritarian regimes (separately) to identify subtypes of each regime type; and the fourth is the so-called “politics and war” literature. The politics and war literature is rather fragmented, with authors pursuing separate and evidently incomplete lines of...
Diversionary explanations are a key FPA approach to understanding how domestic politics shape for... more Diversionary explanations are a key FPA approach to understanding how domestic politics shape foreign policy and, in particular, the resort to force and risk of war, arguing that increasingly vulnerable leaders manipulate foreign policy in order to enhance their domestic political position. This literature has emerged in major ways since Levy’s early critique in which he noted wide disparity between the lack of theoretical rigor and empirical findings in political science research and the richness of qualitative research by historians offering compelling cases of diversionary wars such as the First World War. Nearly three decades later, however, this situation has significantly changed. A vibrant political science literature has emerged that provides significant empirical evidence based on, first, longitudinal studies of mostly the U.S. case and the presidential use of force since World War II (WWII); and, second, cross-national studies that capture variance in the diversionary reso...
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of U... more Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
When ultimate authority in foreign policymaking is neither a predominant leader nor a single grou... more When ultimate authority in foreign policymaking is neither a predominant leader nor a single group, there is a third alternative decision unit: a "coalition" of politically autonomous actors. The defining feature of this type of decision unit is the absence of any single group or actor with the political authority to commit the state in international affairs. Foreign policy decision making in these settings is very fragmented and centers on the willingness and ability of multiple, politically autonomous actors to achieve agreement to enact policy. One premise of this essay is that, although typically ignored in the study of foreign policy decision making, coalition decision units are actually quite prevalent across a variety of institutional settings. They are prone to occur in parliamentary democracies with multiparty cabinets, in presidential democracies with opposing legislative and executive branches, in authoritarian regimes in which power is dispersed across factions and/or institutions, and finally in decentralized settings in which bureaucratic actors gain authority in collectively dealing with major policy issues.
Reviewers for Volume 27 The following colleagues have generously given their time and energy to r... more Reviewers for Volume 27 The following colleagues have generously given their time and energy to review papers for Law and Human Behavior in the last year. We are grateful for their contributions to this journal and the discipline. Asterisks indicate members of 2003 Editorial Board.
... Mommsen (1995) as well as general histories such as those by Ramm (1967), Holborn (1969), and... more ... Mommsen (1995) as well as general histories such as those by Ramm (1967), Holborn (1969), and Craig (1978). Kagan's (1995) analysis of WWI's origins begins with the fall of Bismarck and then addresses these subsequent leadership changes. 14 Sked (1989), Williamson ...
Preface Part I: Does Decision Making Matter? Joe D. Hagan. Part II: How Decision Units Shape Fore... more Preface Part I: Does Decision Making Matter? Joe D. Hagan. Part II: How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework: Margaret G. Hermann. Part III: Who Leads Matters: The Effects of Powerful Individuals: Margaret G. Hermann Thomas Preston Baghat Korany Timothy M. Shaw. Part IV: Resolve, Accept, or Avoid: Effects of Group Conflict on Foreign Policy Decisions: Charles F. Hermann Janice Gross Stein Bengt Sundelius Stephen G. Walker. Part V: Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy: Joe D. Hagan Philip P. Everts Haruhiro Fukui John D. Stempel. Part VI: People and Processes in Foreign Policymaking: Insights from Comparative Case Studies: Ryan K. Beasley Juliet Kaarbo Charles F. Hermann Margaret G. Hermann.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
One of the most prevalent ideas in the international relations (IR) literature is that domestic p... more One of the most prevalent ideas in the international relations (IR) literature is that domestic political patterns are linked to foreign policy via the concept of political regime (democracy, anocracy, and autocracy). Over the past two decades, the regime type-foreign policy nexus has gained ample theoretical and empirical credibility in IR theory. There are four areas of research on regime type and foreign policy: the first considers the “democratic peace” literature focused on authoritarian and democratic foreign policies; the second deals with the “democratization and war” literature that highlights the foreign policies of anocracies; the third uses the common large-N data sets and research design and “unpacks” democratic and authoritarian regimes (separately) to identify subtypes of each regime type; and the fourth is the so-called “politics and war” literature. The politics and war literature is rather fragmented, with authors pursuing separate and evidently incomplete lines of...
Diversionary explanations are a key FPA approach to understanding how domestic politics shape for... more Diversionary explanations are a key FPA approach to understanding how domestic politics shape foreign policy and, in particular, the resort to force and risk of war, arguing that increasingly vulnerable leaders manipulate foreign policy in order to enhance their domestic political position. This literature has emerged in major ways since Levy’s early critique in which he noted wide disparity between the lack of theoretical rigor and empirical findings in political science research and the richness of qualitative research by historians offering compelling cases of diversionary wars such as the First World War. Nearly three decades later, however, this situation has significantly changed. A vibrant political science literature has emerged that provides significant empirical evidence based on, first, longitudinal studies of mostly the U.S. case and the presidential use of force since World War II (WWII); and, second, cross-national studies that capture variance in the diversionary reso...
Uploads
Papers by Joe Hagan