Partisan polarization and US foreign policy: Is the centre dead or holding?

Hurst, Steve; Wroe, Andrew

doi:10.1057/s41311-016-0002-z

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysis of party positions on foreign policy issues has generally found less polarization than on domestic issues (44). There is nevertheless evidence for a broad left-right split on foreign policy issues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

National polarization and international agreements

Perrings

Hechter

Mamada

2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The network of international environmental agreements (IEAs) has been characterized as a complex adaptive system (CAS) in which the uncoordinated responses of nation states to changes in the conditions addressed by particular agreements may generate seemingly coordinated patterns of behavior at the level of the system. Unfortunately, since the rules governing national responses are ill understood, it is not currently possible to implement a CAS approach. Polarization of both political parties and the electorate has been implicated in a secular decline in national commitment to some IEAs, but the causal mechanisms are not clear. In this paper, we explore the impact of polarization on the rules underpinning national responses. We identify the degree to which responsibility for national decisions is shared across political parties and calculate the electoral cost of party positions as national obligations under an agreement change. We find that polarization typically affects the degree but not the direction of national responses. Whether national commitment to IEAs strengthens or weakens as national obligations increase depends more on the change in national obligations than on polarization per se. Where the rules governing national responses are conditioned by the current political environment, so are the dynamic consequences both for the agreement itself and for the network to which it belongs. Any CAS analysis requires an understanding of such conditioning effects on the rules governing national responses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

National polarization and international agreements

Perrings

Hechter

Mamada

2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 Az eltérő vélemények részben a különböző vizsgálati fókuszra vezethetők vissza. A Kongresszus egészét vizsgáló tanulmányok szerint a külpolitikai polarizáció mértéke alacsonyabb volt, mint a belpolitikaié, 38 míg a Szenátus kapcsán ezt többen vitatták. 39 A hidegháború időszakában gyökerező gyakorlat volt, hogy külügyi kérdésekben a két nagy párt mérsékeltjei az elnöki adminisztráció támogatása mellett, egyik vagy mindkét párt radikálisai elleni szavazatukkal segítették a döntéshozást.…”

Section: Külpolitikai Ideológiai Törésvonalak Az Amerikai Politikában...unclassified

Külpolitikai törésvonalak az Amerikai Egyesült Államokban az orosz–ukrán háború kapcsán

Holányi,

Sebők

2023

Külügyi Szemle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2022 óta zajló orosz–ukrán háborúban az Egyesült Államok Ukrajna kulcsfontosságú gazdasági és katonai szövetségeseként lépett fel. Bár a Biden-adminisztráció határozottan kiállt Ukrajna győzelemig tartó támogatása mellett, döntését a politikai eliten belül nem övezte teljes konszenzus. Tanulmányunk az amerikai külpolitikai ideológiák és politikai polarizáció szakirodalmára építve a politikai eliten belüli geopolitikai törésvonalakat vizsgálja. Ennek kapcsán a 2024-es elnökjelöltek megszólalásait, valamint a 118. Kongresszus Ukrajnával kapcsolatos törvényjavaslatait és törvényjavaslat-módosításait elemezzük. A jelöltek és képviselők három fő csoportját azonosítjuk a háború kapcsán (héják, mérsékeltek, izolacionisták), valamint a Republikánus Pártra jellemző alacsonyabb külpolitikai frakciófegyelem és nagyobb ideológiai eltérések okait is értékeljük.

show abstract

“…Moreover, first evidence suggests that partisan conflicts over foreign policy structure the political behavior in collective decision-making bodies such as national parliaments (Hurst and Wroe 2016; Kupchan and Trubowitz 2007) and the UNGA (Mattes et al, 2016). Here, too, the relevance of partisanship has been stronger in foreign aid and trade votes than in votes on security and defense matters (Hildebrandt 2013).…”

Section: Parties Ideologies and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Party ideologies and UN debates

Finke

2022

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I analyze the importance of party ideologies for foreign policy priorities as revealed in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). In doing so, I contribute to an increasing number of studies on the relevance of the partisan theory of public policy for foreign policy making. On the theoretical side, I expect liberal governments to direct more diplomatic efforts towards global development cooperation, that is, the fight against poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and discrimination. By comparison, I argue that the foreign policy of conservative governments emphasizes immediate conflicts and threats to national sovereignty. On the empirical side, I present the statistical analysis of all plenary speeches held by the representatives of 38 stable democracies before the UNGA between 1993 and 2016. OMy empirical analysis reveals that liberal, internationalist governments are significantly more engaged in UNGA debates on global development cooperation, whereas conservative governments allocate more speaking time to debates on the international law and institutions, including issues of national sovereignty. These results are confirmed when zooming in to UN General Debates. Importantly, I find that all of these effects are conditional on governing parties commanding substantive majorities in their national parliament.

show abstract

Partisan polarization and US foreign policy: Is the centre dead or holding?

Cited by 14 publications

References 32 publications

National polarization and international agreements

National polarization and international agreements

Külpolitikai törésvonalak az Amerikai Egyesült Államokban az orosz–ukrán háború kapcsán

Party ideologies and UN debates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About