Plan for Today:Domestic Politics &

Decisionmaking Approaches1. Completing democratic peace

debate.2. Evaluating domestic politics as

theory.3. Introduction to decisionmaking

approaches.

Controversies/ Counterarguments

Continued…3. Apparent relationship spurious:

pattern caused by other factors.1. Geographic distance: countries side by

side more likely to go to war than those far apart.

2. Necessary alliances against common enemies for strategic reasons, regardless of democratic norms.

Controversies/ Counterarguments

4. Democratization may not lead to peace in short-medium term (Mansfield & Snyder).

1. Regimes in transition more warprone than stable democracies or authoritarian regimes.

2. Reason: democratization process plagued by nationalism and weak domestic institutions.

Responses of Democratic Peace Proponents

1. Virtual absence of war among democracies is statistically significant.

Only very small set of pairs of states capable of going to war at any time, including most democracies.

So absence of war in overall history is significant.

Responses of Democratic Peace Proponents

2. Defend definitions of democracy as careful, consistent, and reasonable.

Apparent “exceptions” or “iffy cases” extremely rare among wars.

Even if we include cases such as Finland in WWII, these are very rare exceptions.

Implications of the Democratic Peace (If True)

1. Challenge to realist theory.1. Realism’s pessimism about prospects

for international peace. DP: democratic states can trust that there

will be no war among them. Possibility of reliable peace.

2. Realism’s emphasis on systemic factors to explain outcomes.

DP: different states will act differently due to domestic characteristics.

Implications of the Democratic Peace (If True)

2. As number of democracies in the world increases, so does “zone of peace.”

Number of democracies increased dramatically since 1970s.

Now well over 50% of all states. But large proportion not liberal

democracies.

Implications of the Democratic Peace (If True)

3. Implication for how democratic states should pursue national security: by promoting democracy in other states.

1. This is hard to do effectively.2. Caution from Mansfield & Snyder re:

dangerous halfway stage.

Conclusion Safe to say democracies very rarely

go to war with one another. Controversies remain over why, and

whether identified pattern is statistically significant, mere coincidence, or spurious.

Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory

1. Explanatory power: mixed. Doesn’t provide overall argument

about international politics at systemic level.

Only works on a state-by-state basis. Individual arguments explain

important gaps in realist and liberal explanations.

E.g. Humanitarian interventions.

Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory

2. Predictive power: mixed. Can’t predict a lot at system-wide

level. Specific predictions from some

arguments: E.g. Democratic peace.

Sometimes domestic politics perspective can be coupled with realism to enhance predictive ability.

US is hegemonic power; but how will it use power?

Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory

3. Intellectual consistency and coherence:

Not great: no paradigm with unified argument.

Sometimes scholars disagree on how to assess one country’s culture and anticipated behaviour.

E.g. US values abroad: laissez-faire capitalism throughout the world, or individual freedoms?

Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory

4. Scope: Not great: fairly piecemeal. Some exceptions with broad

explanations based on domestic regime-type – e.g. democratic peace.

Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory

5. Self-reflection and engagement with other theories: OK.

Domestic politics works well with constructivism.

Could work well with realism: What option will states choose among many possible options that satisfy security needs?

Decisionmaking Approaches:

Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics

Decisionmaking Approaches Looking inside state at how particular

domestic actors influence international events.

Focus on flaws and pathologies in organizations and biases of decisionmakers.

Decisionmaking Approaches:Assumptions

1. States not unitary – many conflicting actors and processes involved.

2. States not rational – do not make “decisions.”

States’ behaviour as “outputs” of battling actors, inadequate routines, or mistakes.

Rational decisions require complete information and thorough evaluation of all options.

Decisionmaking Approaches:Limits to Rationality

1. Personality disorders: decisionmakers may be nuts!!

E.g. Saddam Hussein as an egomaniac. George W. Bush as beholden to father or evangelical fanatic.

Decisionmaking Approaches:Limits to Rationality

2. Human cognition is limited. Human beings imperfect and biased in

processing information. Examples:

Prospect theory: people hate losses more than like gains.

Jervis: People overestimate extent to which others’ actions are a response to them.

Decisionmaking Approaches:Limits to Rationality

3. Huge complexity of decisions: parceled out to complex organizations.

1. Organizations act according to preset repertoires.

2. Organizations occupied by ambitious individuals.

Decisionmaking ApproachesTwo Branches of Theory

1. Organizational process theory. Focuses on the processes at work through standard operating procedures in government and even weapons systems.

2. Bureaucratic politics. Focuses on the clash among bureaucratic actors with conflicting interests.