Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:42:12.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral Theory and Policy Science: A New Look at the Gap Between Foreign and Domestic Affairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Irving Louis Horowitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the present bifurcation of policy-making into domestic and foreign components, and urges a theoretical effort aimed at unifying national policy by integrating its various components. Beyond such an urging, the article aims to show that the act of making policy invariably involves decisions about events that take place both within and outside of a nation. This is not a claim for the superiority of any one segment of policy making. What is important or trivial is determined within a means-ends continuum. In breaking down artificial barriers inherited from nationalist models, it is possible to institutionalize a policy process that takes into account “shrinkage” of the world that is a direct consequence of new information technologies, and at the same time, incorporates the wisdom of classical ethical theories on the nature of power.

Type
Articles
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 6 , March 1992 , pp. 81 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gowa, Joanne, “Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and Free Trade,” American Political Science Review 83 (1989), pp. 1245–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Hansen, Wendy L., “The International Trade Commission and the Politics of Protectionism,” American Political Science Review 84 (1990), pp. 21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Sorensen, Theodore C., “Rethinking National Security,” Foreign Affairs 69 (1990), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Podhoretz, Norman, “Enter the Peace Party,” Commentary 91 (1991), pp. 17–22Google Scholar; and Maynes, Charles William, “A Necessary War?” Foreign Policy 82 (Spring 1991), pp. 159–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Bowsher, Charles A., Comptroller General's 1990 Annual Report (Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, 1991).Google Scholar

6 Woolen, Thomas F., Research Triangle Institute Report 1990 (Research Triangle Park: RTI, 1991).Google Scholar

7 Holsti, Ole R. and Rosenau, James N., “The Emerging U.S. Consensus on Foreign Policy,” Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs 344 (1990), pp. 579–94Google Scholar.

8 Clark, John G., The Political Economy of World Energy: A Twentieth Century Perspective (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990), p. 376Google Scholar.

9 Hyland, William G., “Downgrade Foreign Policy,” The New York Times, May 20, 1991, p. A15.Google Scholar While the Hyland statement puts a different spin on the subject of foreign and domestic priorities, his discomfort with the present positivist mood is noteworthy.

10 See Smith, William C., “Democracy, Distributional Conflicts and Macroeconomic Policymaking in Argentina, 1983–89,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 32 (1990), pp. 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Teichman, Judith A., Policymaking in Mexico: From Boom to Crisis (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1989).Google Scholar

11 Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Smith, Norman Kemp (1781; London: Macmillan Publishers, 1929), pp. 56–57.Google Scholar For a critical but useful analysis of the Kantian and Hegelian visions, see Kaufman, Walter, Goethe, Kant and Hegel: Discovering the Mind (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp. 82–156Google Scholar.