This article extends recent work on a comparative theory of retrenchment
in social policy by asking whether the politics of retrenchment
travels well across policy areas, with policy feedback remaining a
crucial variable for explaining government success or failure. The
article analyzes policy change in agriculture in the United States
and France, a natural choice for an extension of retrenchment theory
because agricultural policy resembles social policy in some respects
but also provides telling points of contrast. The article finds that
the call for new theories focusing on retrenchment is justified: the
politics of agricultural retrenchment differs from that of expansion,
and success at retrenchment varies by program.
The analysis shows, as well, that retrenchment has been significant both
in the U.S. and in France and the European Union. Variations in policy
feedback help explain why these policy changes occurred. Moreover, the
France-U.S. comparison highlights how systemic institutional factors
shape the politics of retrenchment. Finally, focusing on agriculture,
a policy sector in which international developments have a greater
direct importance than they do in social policy, the article identifies
an additional systemic retrenchment strategy: constraining domestic
programs through international agreements.
Biological diversity conservation -- International
cooperation.
Abstract:
In 1992 governments negotiated a multilateral treaty regime to
manage biological diversity. Unlike the United Kingdom, the United
States rejected this treaty. Yet both nations were equally at
risk from biodiversity loss and equally likely to benefit from its
protection. This empirical puzzle is used to explore state choice in
regulatory cooperation. Epistemic community analysis helps to explain
the onset of negotiations and the contours of debates over regime norms
and rules. But state choices, and the regime itself, primarily reflected
the regulatory politics of biodiversity management. The international
commitments on biodiversity, ostensibly alike for the U.K. and the U.S.,
had to be implemented through their domestic regulatory structures;
the result was a distinct set of domestic ramifications. Electoral
incentives and especially domestic institutions influenced both industry
and governmental assessments by shaping expectations about the impact
of the regime in operation. As states increasingly seek to regulate
internationally, domestic institutions and anticipated implementation
will play ever greater roles in explaining state choice and, because
powerful states are equally influenced by these dynamics, in explaining
international outcomes.
Research Note
McCormick, James M.
Mitchell, Neil J. (Neil James), 1953-.
In this research note, the authors seek to demonstrate conceptually
and empirically that the unidimensional treatment of human rights
violations, which is the standard approach found in the literature,
confounds two important underlying components of the concept. They
argue that the disaggregation of umbrella concepts like human rights
violations is an important step in the research process and that it
offers significant theoretical and empirical benefits. The specific
implications of this conceptual argument for the measurement of
human rights violations are drawn out through an empirical analysis
of the standard composite scale in terms of its two underlying
components. Future research needs to recognize the distortions and
information loss produced by unidimensional treatment of the concept
and the benefits of disaggregating human rights violations into its
important components.
Review title: Bringing in the new world order: liberalism,
legitimacy, and the United
Nations.
Abstract:
The end of the cold war and the attendant security vacuum unleashed
a flurry of intellectual activity and international commissions that
reflected on the world that was being left behind and the world that
should be created in its place. The reports under review are among
the best and most influential of the lot. This article focuses on
three issues raised by these reports. First, the portrait of the new
international order offered by these reports is a liberal international
order. Second, the concept of legitimacy appears in various guises,
and the UN is considered the site for the legitimation of a particular
order. Few international orders are ever founded or sustained by
force alone, something well understood by the policymakers who drafted
these reports and wisely heeded by international relations theorists
who attempt to understand their actions and the international orders
that they construct and sustain. Third, these reports envision the
UN as an agent of normative integration. As such, it contributes to
the development and maintenance of a liberal international order by
increasing the number of actors who identify with and uphold its values.
Since the end of the cold war internal conflicts have received
unprecedented attention. Of special interest has been the effort
of neorealists to employ an approach traditionally used to explain
interstate conflict to make internal war understandable. While
neorealism has been useful in explaining the behavior of groups in
anarchic conditions, it is inadequate in explaining internal wars
occurring in states that retain a strong government and that stem from
motives other than power and security. Neorealism also does little to
explain how anarchy is created in the first place and what can be done
to restore central control. Another approach offers "bad leaders" as
a proximate cause of internal war. There is much to this explanation,
but more work needs to be done in understanding just what makes leaders
"bad" and whether leaders have the latitude to be "good." Finally, the
diverse nature of internal wars has frustrated efforts to develop an
overall means of settling them. At a point in which armed conflict has
become almost exclusively an internal affair, useful generalizations
for causes and cures remain elusive.