Foreign Policy Dimensions: A Comparison Between the United States and Sweden

Abstract

In this article we compare the structuring of citizens' attitudes on foreign policy issues in the U.S.A. and Sweden. Most of the studies in this area have been carried out on U.S. data, which have made any generalization of the findings to other states difficult. The material is the 1995 SOM study, with a sample of 2,800 individuals. Swedish citizens' foreign policy attitudes were structured along two dimensions. The first dimension showed similarities with Wittkopf's “militant internationalism” dimension; the second dimension showed similarities with Chittick, Billingsley, and Travis's “multilateralism‐unilateralism” dimension. As in the United States, ideology has a high explanatory power on individuals' placement on the first dimension, but in Sweden gender and attitudes on “green issues” have some additional explanatory power. On the second dimension education has high explanatory power in both Sweden and the U.S.A., but in Sweden attitudes on “green issues” are also of importance. In the article we argue for a plausible theoretical interpretation of the Swedish foreign policy dimensions that is somewhat different from the one offered in the American case.

Politics or the Economy? Domestic Correlates of Dispute Involvement in Developed Democracies

“…Scholars have found evidence of the difference in voters’ preferences as well as party platforms. Swedish left voters are more likely to be accommodationist and right voters hard‐liner (Bjereld and Ekengren 1999). Both European and American left voters are less supportive of defense spending and less militant regarding security (Eichenberg 1989).…”

Foreign policy beliefs and support for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party

“…Hurwitz et al 1993) and Sweden (Bjereld and Ekengren 1999). These studies document cross-national differences in the structure and distributions of such beliefs.…”

Foreign Policy Ideology and Conflict Preferences: A Look at Afghanistan and Libya

“…While there is no universal agreement on what this multidimensional foreign policy ideological structure looks like, scholarship has tended to focus on two dominant dimensions that derive from Wittkopf's () militant internationalism and cooperative internationalism (MI/CI) dimensions (one concerning a more militant‐ or security‐based dimension and a second concerning a cooperative or community‐based dimension; Wittkopf ; Chittick et al. ; Bjereld and Ekengren ; Chanley ; Herrmann et al. ; Holsti )…”

“…The question then becomes, what are the relevant dimensions that a foreign policy ideology should be based on? While there is no universal agreement on what this multidimensional foreign policy ideological structure looks like, scholarship has tended to focus on two dominant dimensions that derive from Wittkopf's (1990) militant internationalism and cooperative internationalism (MI/CI) dimensions (one concerning a more militant-or security-based dimension and a second concerning a cooperative or community-based dimension ;Wittkopf 1990;Chittick et al 1995;Bjereld and Ekengren 1999;Chanley 1999;Herrmann et al 1999;Holsti 2004). 2 Theoretically, these two dimensions to a foreign policy ideology make sense in that they effectively cover the most dominant and basic views of global politics.…”