Plan for Today:
Domestic Politics & Decisionmaking
Approaches
1.
2.
3.
Completing democratic peace debate.
Evaluating domestic politics as theory.
Introduction to decisionmaking
approaches.
Controversies/ Counterarguments
Continued…
3.
Apparent relationship spurious: pattern
caused by other factors.
1.
2.
Geographic distance: countries side by side
more likely to go to war than those far
apart.
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.
2.
Regimes in transition more warprone than
stable democracies or authoritarian regimes.
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.

2.
DP: democratic states can trust that there will be
no war among them. Possibility of reliable peace.
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.
2.
This is hard to do effectively.
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
Explanatory power: mixed.
1.

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
Predictive power: mixed.
2.


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
Intellectual consistency and coherence:
3.


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
Self-reflection and engagement with
other theories: OK.
5.


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.
2.
States not unitary – many conflicting
actors and processes involved.
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
Human cognition is limited.
2.


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
Huge complexity of decisions: parceled
out to complex organizations.
3.
1.
2.
Organizations act according to preset
repertoires.
Organizations occupied by ambitious
individuals.
Decisionmaking Approaches
Two Branches of Theory
1.
2.
Organizational process theory.
Focuses on the processes at work
through standard operating procedures
in government and even weapons
systems.
Bureaucratic politics. Focuses on the
clash among bureaucratic actors with
conflicting interests.