Setting a Course: Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs In Post-World War II U.S. Foreign Policy

Abstract

“Congressional foreign policy entrepreneurs” are those legislators who initiate their own foreign policy agendas. These individuals seek to frame policy discussions and mobilize public and interest group interest; to direct congressional agendas toward specific foreign policy issues; to structure and influence the formulation of foreign policies by the executive branch; to revise, refocus, or reformulate foreign policies; to generate alternative and replacement foreign policies; and to fill policy vacuums with their own preferred foreign policies. This paper examines the evolution and impact of such entrepreneurs across the periods of the Cold War Consensus (1946–1967), the Cold War Dissensus (1968–1989), and the Post‐Cold War (1990–2000). The paper first provides an overview of the concept of foreign policy entrepreneurs. It then turns to case studies of entrepreneurial initiatives from three prolific entrepreneurs whose careers span the post‐World War II era: Senators Jacob Javits, Edward Kennedy, and Christopher Dodd. Together, the overview and cases shed light on the different avenues and activities that entrepreneurs use to address their preferred issues and the impact entrepreneurs have on policy, as well as highlight changes in both over time.

Running on Foreign Policy? Examining the Role of Foreign Policy Issues in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 Congressional Campaigns

“…These later two results are not surprising given that one possible motivation for entrepreneurial activity is constituent interests (Carter et al. ). When we look at variables capturing other candidate characteristics, we find that incumbents in 2002 were more likely to talk about troops or veterans than challengers, but that challengers were more likely to raise the outsourcing of jobs as a campaign issue.…”

“…Drawing on the work of Carter and Scott () and Carter et al. (), we hypothesize that foreign policy entrepreneurs will be more likely to mention foreign policy in their appeals during an election (H1). Several characteristics of these individuals make them likely to focus on foreign policy.…”

“…These deficits in the literature are particularly surprising given that scholars in the field of foreign policy analysis have in recent years highlighted the increasingly intermestic character of foreign policy (Manning ) and the significant impact of Congress on American foreign policy both as an institution (McCormick and Wittkopf ; Lindsay ; Scott ; Scott and Carter ; Howell and Pevehouse ; DeLaet and Scott ) and perhaps more importantly as the result of the foreign policy activism of individual members acting as policy entrepreneurs (Carter and Scott ; Carter, Scott and Rowling ).…”

“…To summarize this work, it is argued that foreign policy entrepreneurs in the Congress are motivated by a combination of individual‐specific factors such as formative experiences, core values, and family background, as well as externally derived motivations such as constituency interests and partisanship (Carter et al. :280–281). In short, members of Congress may take activist roles on foreign policy issues in response to the demands of both their constituents and their party.…”

Les entrepreneurs de la prise de décision : l'exemple des politiques de sécurité nationale de l'administration G. W. Bush (2001–2004)

“…D'autres auteurs ont expressément étudié la notion d'entrepreneur de politique étrangère, dans le contexte toutefois de l'action des législateurs du Congrès américain. Ainsi, John Kingdon~2010!, de même que Ralph Carter et James Scott~2004 ;2010!, théorisent En dernière analyse qu'est-ce qu'un entrepreneur ? La meilleure définition est offerte par Michael Mazarr, adoptant une position constructiviste : « Les entrepreneurs peuvent être décrits comme la personnification humaine de la construction sociale de la politique @...# Des avocats déterminés, pour une raison ou une autre, à combattre l'inertie, la bureaucratie, les intérêts divergents, et tout ce qui se trouve sur leur voie qui les empêche de promouvoir leurs idées, afin que celles-ci bénéficient des fenêtres d'opportunité et aboutissent à l'adoption de lois ou de politiques »~Mazarr, 2007 : 16!.…”