POLI 243 Chapter Notes - Chapter Fearon: Microeconomics, Rational Agent, Marginal Cost
27 Apr 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of IR
James D. Fearon
• Reductionist neorealism argues that domestic politics isn't important or necessary to explain
significant foreign policy decisions or international political outcomes
• What counts as domestic-political explanation of foreign policy depends on the way we conceive
of systemic theories
• Systemic IR theories:
o S1: envisions states as unitary and purposive actors that consider what other states will or
might do when they choose foreign policies
• Structural realism
• Not enough for a systemic theory for Waltz
o S2: the same but adds conditions on which explanatory variables can operate or how they
operate in a properly systemic theory
• For waltz, not systemic theory if characteristics of particular states not the system are
relevant to the explanation offered
• If I need to know who is the leader not a systemic theory
▪ Reductionist, now looking at FP of one state
• Domestic-political explanations of foreign policies:
o D1: explain how domestic-political interactions lead a state to choose bad or foolish foreign
policies, relative to some normative standard
o D2: same assumption of unitary, rational actor states but also argues that other states'
particular characteristics (other than power) are relevant to explaining foreign policy choices
• Liberalism, constructivism
In What Sense is a Systemic Theory a Theory of Foreign Policy?
• Structural realism holds that one can understand the important features of states' foreign policies
w/out looking at domestic politics
• Waltz claims though that neorealism is a theory of international politics (systemic) not a theory of
foreign policy
• Yet, a theory of foreign policy is any theory in which some aspect of states' foreign policies, or
their direct results, are the things being explained
• A theory of the domestic-political process generating foreign policies
o To waltz, theory of foreign policy analyzes bureaucratic or political process within states that
generates foreign policies
o To waltz, systemic theory is similar to neoclassical microeconomic theory of markets which
treats firms as "black boxes" w/out considering details of their internal processes
• Theory of foreign policy looks inside those black boxes
o Neoclassical economic theory is a theory of the "foreign policies" of firs though…
• it explains why firms choose to produce certain quantities and sell at certain prices
under different market structures
o Principal-agent theory is analogous to how different domestic-political and bureaucratic
institutions affect who controls foreign policy with what results
o Waltz argues that states in anarchy must value survival bc only if survival is assured can they
safely seek other goals like tranquility, profit, and power
o Neoclassical firms just want to max profits and if merge does this then they will gladly go out
of business as that firm
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o That states desire to survive as independent political units is a reasonable IR theory
assumption but not a consequence of anarchy or international structure
o Systemic IR theory like Waltz's address question of what explains states' foreign policies and
their results but not why world politics is organized, how this organization should be
characterized, and how its changing
• A Theory to Account for States' Foreign Policy Goals
o Waltz argues that systemic IR theory explains not foreign policy but international political
outcomes or patterns
o Sees the fact that results often differ from intentions as "system effects"
o Theory of foreign policy is a theory of why states have particular desires or goals in the
realm of foreign policy
o Systemic explaining of balancing is still a theory of foreign policies in the core sense, even if
it needn't be a theory of all foreign policy intentions or goals
• A theory to explain particular foreign policy moves
o Waltz argues that systemic IR theory not a theory of foreign policy bc a state's foreign policy
is determined by hundreds of highly variable factors that lie outside the realm of structural
theory
o Theory of foreign policy explains why particular states make particular foreign policy moves
at particular times
o Systemic IR theory explains general tendencies and regularities
o If theory explains general tendencies concerning foreign policy, must have some predictive
or explanatory value regarding states' foreign policy choices
• A theory of deliberate state choice making
o Could be argued that systemic IR theory isn't a theory of foreign policy choices bc systemic
theory relies on evolutionary mechanism that doesn't assume that agents choose strategies
at all
• Theory of foreign policy is a theory of state choice making
o Fully evolutionary account presumes that states are programmed to play particular foreign
policies
o But even Waltz admits that states are at least adaptive learners
• A theory to explain differing choices by similarly placed states
o Waltz argues that systemic IR theory not foreign policy theory bc explains why states
similarly placed behave similarly despite internal differences
• Despite "unit-level" properties
o Foreign policy theory would explain why states similarly placed in a system behave in
different ways
• Relies on unit-level differences to explain pursuing different policies
o Still theories of foreign policy at the core though bc explain behavior of states (foreign
policy)
o When waltz refers to a state's placement in system, referring to relative military and
economic power
• Level of power is a property of the system --> relational property
o Author argues that subject of systemic theories in their original domain is and should be
states' foreign policies and their consequences
o Waltz suggests a number of narrower, more specific constructions of theories of foreign
policy that remove systemic theory from this camp
• Systemic theory shouldn't be expected to explain all aspects of them
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Domestic politics, foreign policy, and theories of ir. Systemic ir theories: s1: envisions states as unitary and purposive actors that consider what other states will or might do when they choose foreign policies. Structural realism: not enough for a systemic theory for waltz, s2: the same but adds conditions on which explanatory variables can operate or how they operate in a properly systemic theory. For waltz, not systemic theory if characteristics of particular states not the system are relevant to the explanation offered. Systemic theory shouldn"t be expected to explain all aspects of them: too much on particular states" foreign policies and systemic theory too sparse to cover it all. S1 systemic theories --> states treated as persons w/ goals and rationality unitary and at least one such states pursues suboptimal foreign policy due to interaction of actors represented within the state.
