Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T19:09:47.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limits to Hegemonic Influence in the Organization of American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Carolyn M. Shaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although powerful states have the ability to dominate the international system to achieve their policy preferences, such dominance has limits in the Organization of American States. Even though the United States, its most powerful member state, has considerable influence over OAS actions, institutional factors also affect decisionmaking and produce more varied outcomes than one might anticipate. Adapting three different perspectives from organizational sociology, this study constructs an analytical framework to explore the impact of structural, normative, internal relational, and environmental factors on the level of U.S. influence in the OAS. Four hypotheses are tested on 30 cases of regional conflict management from 1948 to 2002. The organizational variables also reveal incentives for the United States to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally in most instances in the post-Cold War era.

Type
Research
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , Fall 2003 , pp. 59 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2003

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

Atkins, G. Pope. 1997. Encyclopedia of the Inter-American System. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Ball, M. Margaret. 1969. The OAS in Transition. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, Richard M., and James, G. March. 1992. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. 2d ed. Cambridge: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Thomas M. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haass, Richard. 1999. The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: How To Be Effective in Any Unruly Organization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Halperin, Morton H. 1974. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter, Mayer, and Volker, Rittenberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn, Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Heraldo. 1993. The Future of the Organization of American States. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press.Google Scholar
Organization of American States (OAS). General Secretariat. Department of Legal Affairs. Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance: Applications Washington, DC: OAS General Secretariat.Google Scholar
Organization of American States (Oas). 1979. Seventeenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. 3.Google Scholar
OAS News (Washington, DC). 1999. Strengthening Cooperation against Drugs. March-April.Google Scholar
Perrow, Charles. 1979. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 2d ed. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Robinson, Linda. 1998. Is Colombia Lost to Rebels U.S. News and World Report, May 11.Google Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. 1998. Organization: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Villagrán, Francisco 1992a. The OAS and Democratic Development. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
Villagrán, Francisco 1992b. The OAS and Regional Security. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas W. ed. 1982. Nicaragua in Revolution. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Arthur P. 1954. The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wiarda, Howard J. 1995. After Miami: the Summit, the Peso Crisis, and the Future of U.S.-Latin American Relations. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 37, 1 (Spring): 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar