Breaking the Equilibrium? New Leaders and Old Structures in the India-Pakistan Rivalry

Ahmad, Ishtiaq; Ebert, Hannes

doi:10.1080/00927678.2015.999518

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They cited the election of new governments in each state in 2013 and 2014, whose leaders initially seemed agreeable to friendlier relations, to examine the possibility for rapprochement. However, they find “rivalry de‐escalation and eventual termination” were quickly prohibited by “structural impediments caused by domestic politics” (Ishtiaq and Ebert 2015, 56). Chief among these impediments has been the dominance of Pakistani foreign policy by its military class, which is deeply suspicious of India and highly resistant to change.…”

Section: Policy Process Framework and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This contribution has primarily been made within the context of enduring rivalries, or “long‐standing militarized competitions between the same pairs of states” marked by “the persistent, fundamental, and long‐term incompatibility of goals between two states” (Ishtiaq and Ebert 2015). Enduring rivalries arise from states’ unfavorable psychological perceptions of one another and result in potential or actual violent clashes over a long period of time (Cioffi‐Rivella 1998; Ishtiaq and Ebert 2015). PET shows that the characteristics of enduring rivalries are mostly determined at the outset of competition during a quick “lock‐in” phase and that little change occurs beyond this phase (Diehl and Hensel 1998).…”

Section: Policy Process Framework and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Domestic politics are included in the discussion of enduring rivalries because such rivalries will persist despite the numerous domestic political changes that inevitably occur over time (Cioffi‐Rivella 1998). Enduring rivalries are framed within the PET jargon: they are said to be in stable equilibrium until they are uprooted by factors within both the domestic and systemic levels (Ishtiaq and Ebert 2015). This linkage makes it relevant to this discussion.…”

Section: Policy Process Framework and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two‐Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory

Noone

2019

World Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International relations scholars have struggled to adequately link domestic and international levels in theoretical models and causal analyses of foreign policy, despite widespread acknowledgment of the need to do so. This study elaborates on this challenge by assessing the utility of several policy process frameworks that have so far been underutilized in foreign policy analysis. The assumptions of one particularly fruitful method, the Two-Level Game, will be compared with those of three policy process frameworks: the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. When analyzing three specific concepts (the question of rationality, the dynamics of agenda setting, and the strategic action of relevant actors), it is apparent that the assumptions of the policy process frameworks largely clash with those of the Two-Level Game, raising the potential for their augmentation of the field of foreign policy analysis despite their relative underuse.

show abstract

Section: Policy Process Framework and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Policy Process Framework and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Policy Process Framework and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two‐Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory

Noone

2019

World Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Power, Territory, and Learning: Explaining Pakistan’s Persistent Contestation

Ebert

Blarel

2018

Regional Powers and Contested Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

President Jokowi and the 2014 Obor Rakyat controversy in Indonesia

Tyson

Purnomo

2016

Critical Asian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the 2014 presidential election in Indonesia two diametrically opposed candidates appeared to abide by an informal set of rules whereby neither candidate challenged the other's integrity in public. Privately, however, campaign advisors devised ways to attack their opponents, primarily by using media contacts to spread rumors and allegations. As a result, the 2014 presidential race in the world's third largest democracy became in many ways the most negative and polarizing witnessed since the fall of Suharto's authoritarian regime in 1998. We argue that the Obor Rakyat media scandal, a major political event in 2014 that remains understudied, represents a new manifestation of rumor politics and smear campaigning that might also reveal some half-truths about President Jokowi, who is widely hailed as a novel reformist politician because of his relatively clean record and lack of direct association with the Indonesian political establishment. The Obor Rakyat reports contain serious allegations against Jokowi, and for the purposes of this article we will focus on the three most prominent allegations: (1) Jokowi is a bad Muslim, (2) he is a puppet president, and (3) he is in the pocket of Chinese financiers known as cukong.

show abstract

Breaking the Equilibrium? New Leaders and Old Structures in the India-Pakistan Rivalry

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Two‐Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory

Two‐Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory

Power, Territory, and Learning: Explaining Pakistan’s Persistent Contestation

President Jokowi and the 2014 Obor Rakyat controversy in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About