Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:16:22.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domestic conflict and foreign policy: the contribution of some undeservedly neglected historical studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1985

Fred H. Lawson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How to conceptualize the relationship between domestic political conflict and foreign policy has been a perennial problem of international relations. Quantitative studies of the internal and external conflict behaviors of nations have proposed and rejected correlations between these two phenomena on a regular basis. But the theoretical linkages that are presented in these studies between the domestic and external political arenas are generally made in such a rudimentary fashion that they appear fuzzy if not actually contradictory when subjected to close analysis. At the same time, most historical treatments of domestic conflict and foreign policy are too impressionistic to provide clear concepts for comparative research. As Michael Fry and Arthur Gilbert have demonstrated with regard to the writings of one especially prolific and influential contemporary historian—Arno Mayer—a substantial amount of pruning and interpolation is required to put such notions as ‘the Forces of Order and the Forces of Movement’ or ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ societal crises into usable form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 275 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1985

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. See Stein, Arthur, ‘Conflict and Cohesion: A Review of the Literature’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, (03 1979)Google Scholar; Zinnes, Dina A., ‘Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher’, International Studies Quarterly, 24 (09 1980), pp. 326–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Fry, and Gilbert, , ‘A Historian and Linkage Politics: Arno Mayer’, International Studies Quarterly, 26 (09 1982), pp. 430–7Google Scholar.

3. For a recent survey of this literature, see Brewer, Anthony, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (Boston, 1980)Google Scholar.

4. The seminal statement of this connection remains Lenin, V. I., Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (New York, 1939)Google Scholar. More recently, the massive literature that has grown up around the writings of Fritz Fischer also attempts to link domestic trends within Germany to the outbreak of the First World War. For representative writings and an introductory bibliography concerning this literature, which is too diverse and well known to be included here, see Koch, H. W. (ed.), The Origins of the First World War (London, 1972)Google Scholar.

5. Fieidhouse, , ‘Imperialism: An Historiographical Revision’, in Boulding, Kenneth E. and Mukerjee, Tapan (eds.), Economic Imperialism (Ann Arbor, 1972), pp. 98–101Google Scholar.

6. O'Brien, Patrick, has concluded more recently that non-European regions contributed only negligible amounts of trade and dividends to European economic development prior to 1900. See his ‘European Economic Development: The Contribution of the Periphery’, The Economic History Review, second series, 35 (02 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Blaug, , ‘Economic Imperialism Revisited’, in Boulding and Mukerjee, Economic ImperialismGoogle Scholar.

8. Platt, , ‘British Portfolio Investment Overseas before 1870: Some Doubts’, The Economic History Review, second series, 33 (02 1980), p. 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. See, for example, Cohen, Benjamin, The Question of Imperialism (New York, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass., 1979)Google Scholar.

10. Zimmerman, and Grumbach, , ‘Saving, Investment and Imperialism: A Reconsideration of the Theory of Imperialism’, Weltwirtschaftlkhes Archiv, 71 (1953), p.2Google Scholar. See also Cain, P. J. and Hopkins, A. G., ‘The Political Economy of British Expansion Overseas, 1750–1914’, The Economic History Review, second series, 33 (11 1980)Google Scholar.

11. Hopkins, , ‘Economic Imperialism in West Africa: Lagos, 1880–92’, The Economic History Review, second series, 31 (12 1968)Google Scholar. See also Winn, Peter, ‘British Informal Empire in Uruguay in the Nineteenth Century’, Past and Present, 73 (11 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forbes, Ian L. D., ‘German Informal Imperialism in South America before 1914’, The Economic History Review, second series, 31 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meritt, H. P., ‘Bismarck and the German Interest in East Africa, 1884–1885’, The Historical Journal, 21 (03 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the material cited in Lawson, Fred H., ‘Hegemony and the structure of international trade reassessed: a view from Arabia’, International Organization, 37 (Spring 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Platt, , ‘British Portfolio Investment’, p. 9Google Scholar.

13. See Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., ‘The Two Faces of Power’, in McCoy, C. A. and Playford, J. (eds.), Apolitical Politics (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Lukes, Steven, Power: A Radical View (London, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benton, Ted, ‘“Objective” Interests and the Sociology of Power’, Sociology, 15 (05 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Kehr, , Battleship Building and Party Politics in Germany 1894–1901 (Chicago, 1973), p. 224Google Scholar; idem, , Economic Interest, Militarism, and Foreign Policy (Berkeley, 1977), p. 20Google Scholar.

15. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. 229Google Scholar.

16. See Cohen, , Question of ImperialismCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Wehler, , ‘Bismarck’s Imperialism’, Past and Present, 48 (08 1970), p. 122Google Scholar.

18. Ibid. p. 153.

19. Wehler, , ‘Industrial Growth and Early German Imperialism’, in Owen, Roger and Sutcliffe, Bob (eds.), Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (London, 1972), p. 75Google Scholar.

20. Wehler, , ‘Bismarck’s Imperialism’, pp. 122–4Google Scholar, 139–41.

21. Ibid. pp. 142–143; idem, ., ‘Industrial Growth’, p. 83Google Scholar.

22. Berghahn, , Germany and the Approach of War in 1914 (New York, 1973), p. 27Google Scholar; idem, , ‘Naval Armaments and Social Crisis: Germany before 1914’, in Best, Geoffrey and Wheatcroft, Andrew (eds.), War, Economy, and the Military Mind (London, 1976), p. 67Google Scholar.

23. Berghahn, , ‘Naval Armaments and Social Crisis’, p. 83Google Scholar.

24. Berghahn, , Germany and the Approach of War, p. 16Google Scholar.

25. Ibid. p. 33. For a more detailed discussion, see his Der Tirpitz-Plan. Genesis und Verfalleiner innenpolitischen Krisenstrategie unter Wilhelm II (Dusseldorf, 1971), pp. 271–304Google Scholar.

26. Berghahn, , Germany and the Approach of War, p. 185Google Scholar.

27. Berghahn, , ‘Naval Armaments and Social Crisis’, p. 77Google Scholar.

28. Catlin, , Systematic Politics (Toronto)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Kurth, , ‘The Political Consequences of the Product Cycle’, International Organization, 33 (Winter, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Kehr, , Battleship Building, pp. 213–14Google Scholar.

31. Ibid. p. 260.

32. Ibid. pp. 302–305.

33. Ibid. pp. 465–467. See also his stimulating essay ‘Anglophobia and Weltpolitik’, reprinted in Economic Interest, pp. 22–49Google Scholar.

34. Wehler, , ‘Bismarck’s Imperialism’, p. 140Google Scholar.

35. Eley, , ‘Sammlungspolitik, Social Imperialism and the Navy Law of 1898’, Militargeschicht-liche Mitteilungen, (1974), pp. 34–6Google Scholar.

36. Ibid. pp. 49–50.

37. Böhme, , ‘Big-Business Pressure Groups and Bismarck’s Turn to Protectionism’, The Historical Journal, 10 (1967), pp. 223–4Google Scholar.

38. Ibid. pp. 220, 225.

39. Ibid. pp. 229–231.

40. Bohme admits that even his nuanced account remains incomplete: ‘There was no such thing as the pressure groups. On the contrary, a considerable range of political attitude is noticeable among the heterogeneou s bourgeoisie. We have observed the beginning of a division of the bourgeoisie into a party of producers and a party of consumers. In political terms, this produced a State-supported party and a State-negating party. This trend led to the split of the Liberals in 1879. Similarly, it is misleading to think merely in terms of Industry and Agriculture, although the essential differences between the West-German tycoons, the Upper Silesian magnates, the South-German entrepreneurs, the owners of large estates east of the Elbe and South-German farmers have not been dealt with in this essay. One may not even speak of the existence of the wholesale trade. In this context only the role of the Berenbergs in the tariff committee needs to be mentioned.’ ‘Big-Business Pressure Groups’, pp. 234–5Google Scholar.

41. For an example of an effort to combine Wehler’s and Kurth’s perspectives, see Lawson, Fred H., ‘Syria’s Intervention in Lebanon, 1976: A Domestic Conflict Explanation’, International Organization, 38 (Summer 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. See McCloskey, Herbert, ‘Concerning Strategies for a Science of International Polities’, in Snyder, Richard C. (ed.), Foreign Policy Decision Making (Glencoe, III., 1962)Google Scholar.

43. Kehr, , Battleship Building, pp. 296–305Google Scholar.

44. Ibid. p. 334.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid. pp. 347–358.

47. Böhme, , ‘Big-Business Pressure Groups’, p. 223Google Scholar.

48. Ibid. p. 221.

49. Ibid. pp. 224–228, 236.

50. Ibid. p. 229.

51. Ibid. p. 231.

52. Forbes, , ‘Social Imperialism and Wilhelrnine Germany’, The Historical Journal, 22 (06 1979), p. 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53. Ibid. p. 335.

54. Ibid. pp. 344–347. See also Haller, Wolfram M., ‘Regional and National Free-Trade Associations in Germany, 1859–79’, European Studies Review, 6 (07 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Eley, , ‘Sammlungspolitik’, p. 41Google Scholar.

56. Ibid. p. 59.

57. Eley, , ‘Reshaping the Right: Radical Nationalism and the German Navy League, 1898–1908’, The Historical Journal, 21 (06 1978), p. 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Ibid. pp. 349–352.

59. Ibid. pp. 352.

60. Ibid. pp. 353.

61. For an elaboration of these terms, see Connolly, William E., The Bias of Pluralism (New York, 1973), p. 8Google Scholar.

62. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. 216Google Scholar.

63. Eley, , ‘Sammlungspolitik’, pp. 52–7Google Scholar.

64. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. 360Google Scholar.

65. Kehr, , Economic Interest, pp. 16–18Google Scholar.

66. Ibid. pp. 6–8.

67. Ibid. p. 3 and chapter 8.

68. Ibid. pp. 17, 21, 73.

69. Ibid. p. 14.

70. Ibid. p. 7; Battleship Building, p. 365Google Scholar. In his introduction to Kehr’s collected essays, Gordon Craig suggests that Kehr should be seen as a forerunner to the bureaucratic politics approach t o foreign policy making. See Economic Interest, p. xviiGoogle Scholar.

71. Kehr, , Economic Interest, pp. 74 and 165Google Scholar.

72. Böhme, , ‘Big-Business Pressure groups’, p. 228Google Scholar.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid. pp. 229–230, 233.

75. Ibid. p. 235.

76. Berghahn, , Germany and the Approach of War, pp. 3,8Google Scholar.

77. Ibid. p. 32.

78. Ibid. pp. 13, 23–24. For a more detailed treatment of this subject, see his ‘DerTirpitz-Planund die Krisis des preussischdeutschen Herrschaftssystems’, in Schottelius, H. and Deist, W. (eds.), Marine und Marinepolitik 1871–1914 (1972)Google Scholar.

79. Ibid. p. 24 and chapter 2.

80. Ibid. p. 40.

81. For overviews of this debate, see Jessop, Bob, The Capitalist State (New York, 1982)Google Scholar; Therborn, Goran, What Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules? (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Carnoy, Martin, The State and Political Theory (Princeton, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of this debate in the context of foreign policy making, see McGowan, Pat and Walker, Stephen G., ‘Radical and Conventional Models of U.S. Foreign Economic Policy Making’, World Politics, 33 (04 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. xviiiGoogle Scholar.

83. Eley, , ‘Social Imperialism in Germany’ in Radkau, J. and Geiss, I. (eds.), Imperialismus im 20 Jahrhundert (Munich, 1976), p. 72Google Scholar.

84. Eley, , ‘Defining Social Imperialism: Use and Abuse of an Idea’, Social History, 3 (10 1976), p. 288Google Scholar.

85. Ibid. pp. 272–276, 289.

86. Ibid. p. 278.

87. Ibid. p. 283. See also his review of Maier’s, C.‘Recasting Bourgeois Europe’ in Social History, 3 (05 1978), especially pp. 272–3Google Scholar.

88. Eley, , ‘Social Imperialism in Germany’, p. 82Google Scholar.

89. Eley, , ‘Defining Social Imperialism’, p. 278Google Scholar.

90. Berghahn, , ‘Naval Armaments and Social Crisis’, p. 61Google Scholar.

91. Ibid. p. 83.

92. Eley, , ‘Defining Social Imperialism’, p. 288Google Scholar.

93. Ibid. p. 287.

94. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. 177Google Scholar.

95. Ibid. p. 419.

96. Ibid. p. 295.

97. Wehler, , ‘Bismarck’s Imperialism’, p. 140Google Scholar.

98. Ibid. p. 144.

99. On this complex issue, see Clarke, Simon, ‘Marxism, Sociology and Poulantzas’ Theory of the State’, Capital and Class, 2 (Summer 1977)Google Scholar; Banaji, Jairus, ‘Modes of Production in a Materialist Conception of History’, Capital and Class, 3 (Autumn 1977)Google Scholar; Brenner, Robert, ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development’, New Left Review, 104 (07–08 1977)Google Scholar; Meyer, Alfred G., Marxism: The Unity of Theory and Practice (Ann Arbor, 1965)Google Scholar.

100. Sheehan, James J., ‘The Primacy of Domestic Polities’, Central European History, 1 (06 1968), p. 167Google Scholar.

101. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. 52Google Scholar.

102. Ibid. pp. 262–271.

103. Ibid. p. 460.

104. Sheehan, , ‘Primacy of Domestic Polities’, p. 173Google Scholar.

105. Wehler, , ‘Bismarck’s Imperialism’, pp. 125, 138Google Scholar.

106. Ibid. p. 128.

107. Ibid. pp. 131–132; ‘Industrial Growth’, pp. 80–1Google Scholar.

108. Ibid. pp. 146–147.

109. Ibid. p. 136.

110. Ibid. p. 137.

111. Ibid. p. 149.

112. Ibid. p. 150.

113. Ibid. p. 154.

114. Wehler does hint that German expansionism could have been a means of routinizing Bismarck’s charisma. See ‘Industrial Growth’, p. 77Google Scholar.

115. Eley, , ‘Sammlungspolitik’, pp. 37–8Google Scholar.

117. Ibid. p. 43.

118. Böhme, , ‘Big-Business Pressure Groups’, p. 232Google Scholar.

119. Ibid. p. 227.

120. Ibid. p. 234.

121. Ibid. p. 227.

122. Ibid. p. 228.

123. Ibid. p. 229.

124. Ibid. p. 233.

125. Ibid. p. 236.

126. Berghahn, , ‘Naval Armaments and Social Crisis’, p. 79Google Scholar; Germany and the Approach of War, p. 39Google Scholar.

127. Kehr, , Battleship Building, p. xxxixGoogle Scholar.

128. Ibid. pp. 31–45.

129. Ibid. p. 49.

130. Ibid. p. 260.

131. See Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, 1976), chapter 1Google Scholar; Rosenau, James N., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York, 1971), chapter5Google Scholar.

132. Gorman, Robert A., ‘On the Inadequacies of Non-Philosophical Political Science: A Critical Analysis of Decision-Making Theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 14 (12 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

133. See Giddens, Anthony, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Berkeley, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, idem, ., The Constitution of Society (Berkeley, 1984)Google Scholar; Miller, Richard W., Analyzing Marx (Princeton, 1984)Google Scholar; Elster, Jon, ‘Marxism, Functionalism and Game Theory’, Theory and Society, 11 (1982)Google Scholar.

134. See Mason, Tim, ‘The Workers’ Opposition in Nazi Germany’, History Workshop, 11 (Spring 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ., ‘Comment on Abraham, “Constituting Hegemony’”, Journal of Modern History, 51 (09 1979)Google Scholar.

135. For a pioneering study from this perspective, see Gourevitch, Peter A., ‘International Trade, Domestic Coalitions, and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873–1896’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 7 (Autumn 1977)Google Scholar.