Realist Environment, Liberal Process, and Domestic-Level Variables

Abstract

This article examines the deductive basis upon which domestic-level theorizing may be combined with liberal and realist systemic-level theory in order to account for international outcomes. It is particularly concerned with whether existing systemic theory can incorporate domestic-level variables in a causally consistent rather than ad hoc manner. In addressing such a concern, it confronts the widely held assumption in the IR theory literature that liberalism is more accommodating of domestic-level variables and their potential causal impact than is realism. When the deductive logic of systemic liberal and realist theory is examined, however, it becomes clear that domestic-level variables can be consistently causal in systemic realist theory, but are accorded little causal weight in systemic liberal theory. The article concludes that realism is actually more accommodating of domestic-level variables and theorizing than is liberalism. Given the common misconceptions within the field regarding the relationship between systemic theories and domestic-level theorizing, issues of theoretical causal compatibility must be considered if domestic-level variables are going to be incorporated in a rigorous rather than ad hoc manner.The theoretical literature on international conflict and cooperation has been dominated by the assumption of systemic determinacy in recent years. Domesticlevel variables have often been ignored or relegated to a secondary explanatory status in this literature, and an increasing number of scholars have begun to argue for a return to research on the role and impact of such variables. 1 Most have not called for the complete rejection of systemic explanations, but instead for some combination of existing systemic theory with domestic-level theorizing because, as Zakaria has observed, "a good account of a nation's foreign policy should include systemic, domestic, and other influences, specifying what aspects of the policy can be explained by what factors" and the editors of ISQ for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.

When Domestic Factors Matter

“…To this extent, there are major attempts to bring the state, or the second image, back into the discourse of foreign policy (Barnett and Levy 1991;Snyder 1991;Morrow 1993;Sterling-Folker 1997;Rose 1998;Bueno de Mesquita 2002). What seems most relevant encompasses two level games that demonstrate processes in which central decision makers reconcile both domestic and international imperatives (Putnam 1988).…”

Nationalism and Power Politics in Japan’s Relations with China: A Neoclassical Realist Interpretation

“…When the balancing becomes unmanageable, they may have to trade-off one for the other (Downs and Saunders 1998/9;Bong 2002), during which decision-making (rational, or otherwise) may decisively hinge on the intersubjective perception/calculation of state-elites and the prevailing domestic political process (see Sterling-Folker 1997;Schweller 2004). Such considerations underscore this thesis' NCR supposition regarding the primacy of power politics, and the intervening function of domestic-ideational variables in affecting state behaviour and the conduct of interstate diplomacy.…”

“…Zakaria (1992); Desch (1998);Sterling-Folker (1997);and Finel (2001/2); among others, have begun "paying more attention to interactions between international and domestic politics", and "integrating domestic political concerns into the realpolitik framework" (Sterling-Folker 1997:3) to enhance realism's explanatory power. Major neoclassical realist works (Gideon Rose 1998;Zakaria 1998;Taliaferro 2001;Schweller 2003;Cha 2000;Christensen 1996;Wohlforth 1993;and Nau 2003) (1998:146-147;Schweller 2004:164;Taliaferro 2006:485).…”

“…relative power distribution of states within the international system (Gideon Rose 1998:146 1998:146). More specifically, they argue that constraints and opportunities thrown up by the anarchic international system are "murky and difficult" to interpret (Gideon Rose 1998:152), and have to be filtered through the fuzzy and intersubjective prism of foreign policy-makers, or state-elites involved in the decision-making process, before being translated into policy outputs (Sterling-Folker 1997). State behaviour/actions are therefore, dependent on the perception of those individuals, or groups involved in foreign policy-making regarding the incentives/disincentives imposed by the international system, and their choosing of one option over the others, in the foreign policy menu (Taliaferro 2006:485-486 Desch opines as "the lag between structural change and alterations in state behaviour", and the "irrationality" of some states that fail "to adapt to the constraints of the international system" (1998:166).…”

A Neo-Classical Realist Account on External Security Behaviors of Weak Power towards Great Power

“…In Sterling-Folker' s words, little effort has been made for exploring "the theoretical basis upon which such a combination could take place or whether it is possible in anything but the most ad hoc manner." 18) In this vein, I advocate a neoclassical realist approach that employs a crossover of the levels of analysis in which interactive dynamics within world politics function as the independent variable while the domestic politics as the intervening variable.…”