What’s Fair in International Politics? Equity, Equality, and Foreign Policy Attitudes

Abstract

How do concerns about fairness shape foreign policy preferences? In this article, we show that fairness has two faces—one concerning equity, the other concerning equality—and that taking both into account can shed light on the structure of important foreign policy debates. Fielding an original survey on a national sample of Americans, we show that different types of Americans think about fairness in different ways, and that these fairness concerns shape foreign policy preferences: individuals who emphasize equity are far more sensitive to concerns about burden sharing, are far less likely to support US involvement abroad when other countries aren’t paying their fair share, and often support systematically different foreign policies than individuals who emphasize equality. As long as IR scholars focus only on the equality dimension of fairness, we miss much about how fairness concerns matter in world politics.

When to Not Respond in Kind? Individuals’ Expectations of the Future and Their Support for Reciprocity in Foreign Policy

“…Our results contribute to the flourishing literature that explores the role of behavioral norms and social preferences in driving individual foreign policy attitudes (e.g., Brutger & Rathbun, 2021 ; Kreps & Maxey, 2017 ; Powers et al, 2022 ; Yeung & Quek, 2022 ). Speaking to this body of research, our findings suggest that the effect of such norms, i.e., reciprocity, is not uniform across individuals, but rather vary based on their future assessments.…”

“…Two, morally, reciprocal behavior yields positive judgments about the fairness of a country’s interactions with others (Brutger & Rathbun, 2021 ; Powers et al, 2022 ). Research has established that humans have a psychological preference for fairness and prefer decisions that minimize inequity in payoffs (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999 ).…”

“…Negative material expectations may also trigger psychological motivations that inhibit reciprocal behavior. Previous research identifies equity as a potent psychological motivation that drives foreign policy positions among particular segments of populations, and these equity-oriented individuals tend to be more attentive to the costs of cooperation (Powers et al, 2022 ). Following this line, we expect economic worries to amplify concerns over countries’ relative shares of contributions.…”

Questioning a Fair Settlement as The Legal Resolution of Global Interests

“…Within the scope of corporate organizations, Bao and Wu (2017) link equality and equity with compensation [8]. Powers (2020) states that when discussing foreign policy matters, consideration of justice in global politics is intricately linked to our comprehension of equity, equality, and the attitudes we hold towards foreign policy [9]. Minow M (2021) suggests that the concepts of 'equality' and 'equity' have the potential to shed light on profound societal issues, presenting us with valuable tools to shape a more diverse and improved world.…”

Asymmetrical fairness in trade preferences

“…While the normative concept of asymmetrical fairness is seldom discussed in particular, general discourse about fairness is prevalent (for a more detailed discussion, see Appendix 1). IR scholars have emphasized the role of fairness in bargaining games and diplomatic exchanges (e.g., Kertzer and Rathbun 2015), and how equity and equality considerations may shape foreign policy attitudes (Powers et al 2022). Trade representatives, worker unions, corporations, and NGOs have advanced a variety of ideas about fairness in trade, and there is now a large literature on the concept of “fair trade.” Despite the prevalence of fairness concerns, however, asymmetrical fairness in particular has not been directly empirically examined, and the importance of fairness in general remains understudied in non-democratic polities.…”