[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Keep in mind that Rosenau was writing in the mid-1960s, so some of his examples would not work any longer; for instance,there is no Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia, and India and China havebooming economies in 2007 (economies that would no longer fit his un-derdeveloped category).1.Large, developed, open; example: United States; key levels of analy-sis: role, societal, governmental, systemic, individual2.Large, developed, closed; example: Soviet Union; key levels ofanalysis: role, individual, governmental, systemic, societal3.Large, underdeveloped, open; example: India; key levels of analysis:individual, role, societal, systemic, governmental4.Large, underdeveloped, closed; example: China; key levels of analy-sis: individual, role, governmental, systemic, societal5.Small, developed, open; example: Netherlands; key levels of analy-sis: role, systemic, societal, governmental, individual National Self-Image 856.Small, developed, closed; example: Czechoslovakia; key levels ofanalysis: role, systemic, individual, governmental, societal7.Small, underdeveloped, open; example: Kenya; key levels of analy-sis: individual, systemic, role, societal, governmental8.Small, underdeveloped, closed; example: Ghana; key levels of analy-sis: individual, systemic, role, governmental, societalThe purpose of the pre-theories article was to sound a call to action(research) for foreign policy scholars.With Rosenau s musings as launch-ing pads, scholars could begin a systematic search for pieces of knowl-edge that could be used both for grounding future research as well as forbuilding generalized theory around which the scientific study of compar-ative foreign policy could coalesce.The concept of nation-type [made] it unnecessary to examine individual na-tions in considering the certain types of foreign policy activity.To this extent,[scholars could] move away from analysis of discrete objects and concentrateon classes of objects and the different patterns of foreign policy associatedwith each.6Thus, ideal nation-types were conceived as tools for facilitating the de-velopment of general statements linking state type and foreign policy be-havior.Upon Rosenau s call, other researchers started searching for statisticalevidence to support the proposition that physical size, economic devel-opment, and political orientation were significant in explaining the varia-tion in states foreign policy behaviors.One research effort in this veinwas conducted by Maurice East and Charles Hermann.East and Her-mann used the Comparative Research on the Events of Nations (CREON)data set to test twenty-seven bivariate hypotheses linking size, economicdevelopment, and political accountability with nine foreign policy behav-iors.Of the single indicators, East and Hermann concluded that physicalsize best accounted for behavior.The next most important indicator waspolitical accountability, especially when combined with economic devel-opment.7 On the other hand, they were unable to find much support forRosenau s ideal nation-types.That is, large, developed, open states didnot engage in foreign policy behaviors that were distinctive from, say, thebehaviors of small, developed, open or small, underdeveloped,closed states.Although Rosenau s ideal nation-types were not shown by research ef-forts to be linked to specific foreign policy behaviors, the idea that partic-ular kinds of states engaged in particular foreign policies was not put torest.Similar research attempts to rank states on combinations of indicators 86 Chapter 5that suggest something, for example, about the degree to which statesare penetrated by and successful at globalization,8 are failing or havefailed to function as states,9 or create and sustain peace.10 A recent rank-ing of states is illustrative here.The First Global Peace Index was con-structed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in early 2007.11 This indexwas intended as a measure of states peacefulness based on twenty-fourindicators, including local ease of access to weapons of minor destruc-tion (guns, small explosives), military expenditure, local corruption,and the level of respect for human rights. The results were reviewedand approved by an international panel of the world s leading peaceexperts. 12 The top ten countries on the Peace Index were, in order: Nor-way, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Canada,Portugal, and Austria.The United Kingdom ranked forty-ninth on thelist, and the United States ranked ninety-sixth.Also at the wrong endof the scale 13 were Russia (118th), Israel (119th), Sudan (120th), and fi-nally Iraq (last at 121st).Despite the poor rankings of the United States and United Kingdom(democracies both, but bellicose countries of late), one of the more endur-ing research lines linking state type and foreign policy behavior is the pa-cific democracies or democratic peace research that will be discussed atthe end of this chapter (and in the next chapter) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.Keep in mind that Rosenau was writing in the mid-1960s, so some of his examples would not work any longer; for instance,there is no Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia, and India and China havebooming economies in 2007 (economies that would no longer fit his un-derdeveloped category).1.Large, developed, open; example: United States; key levels of analy-sis: role, societal, governmental, systemic, individual2.Large, developed, closed; example: Soviet Union; key levels ofanalysis: role, individual, governmental, systemic, societal3.Large, underdeveloped, open; example: India; key levels of analysis:individual, role, societal, systemic, governmental4.Large, underdeveloped, closed; example: China; key levels of analy-sis: individual, role, governmental, systemic, societal5.Small, developed, open; example: Netherlands; key levels of analy-sis: role, systemic, societal, governmental, individual National Self-Image 856.Small, developed, closed; example: Czechoslovakia; key levels ofanalysis: role, systemic, individual, governmental, societal7.Small, underdeveloped, open; example: Kenya; key levels of analy-sis: individual, systemic, role, societal, governmental8.Small, underdeveloped, closed; example: Ghana; key levels of analy-sis: individual, systemic, role, governmental, societalThe purpose of the pre-theories article was to sound a call to action(research) for foreign policy scholars.With Rosenau s musings as launch-ing pads, scholars could begin a systematic search for pieces of knowl-edge that could be used both for grounding future research as well as forbuilding generalized theory around which the scientific study of compar-ative foreign policy could coalesce.The concept of nation-type [made] it unnecessary to examine individual na-tions in considering the certain types of foreign policy activity.To this extent,[scholars could] move away from analysis of discrete objects and concentrateon classes of objects and the different patterns of foreign policy associatedwith each.6Thus, ideal nation-types were conceived as tools for facilitating the de-velopment of general statements linking state type and foreign policy be-havior.Upon Rosenau s call, other researchers started searching for statisticalevidence to support the proposition that physical size, economic devel-opment, and political orientation were significant in explaining the varia-tion in states foreign policy behaviors.One research effort in this veinwas conducted by Maurice East and Charles Hermann.East and Her-mann used the Comparative Research on the Events of Nations (CREON)data set to test twenty-seven bivariate hypotheses linking size, economicdevelopment, and political accountability with nine foreign policy behav-iors.Of the single indicators, East and Hermann concluded that physicalsize best accounted for behavior.The next most important indicator waspolitical accountability, especially when combined with economic devel-opment.7 On the other hand, they were unable to find much support forRosenau s ideal nation-types.That is, large, developed, open states didnot engage in foreign policy behaviors that were distinctive from, say, thebehaviors of small, developed, open or small, underdeveloped,closed states.Although Rosenau s ideal nation-types were not shown by research ef-forts to be linked to specific foreign policy behaviors, the idea that partic-ular kinds of states engaged in particular foreign policies was not put torest.Similar research attempts to rank states on combinations of indicators 86 Chapter 5that suggest something, for example, about the degree to which statesare penetrated by and successful at globalization,8 are failing or havefailed to function as states,9 or create and sustain peace.10 A recent rank-ing of states is illustrative here.The First Global Peace Index was con-structed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in early 2007.11 This indexwas intended as a measure of states peacefulness based on twenty-fourindicators, including local ease of access to weapons of minor destruc-tion (guns, small explosives), military expenditure, local corruption,and the level of respect for human rights. The results were reviewedand approved by an international panel of the world s leading peaceexperts. 12 The top ten countries on the Peace Index were, in order: Nor-way, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Canada,Portugal, and Austria.The United Kingdom ranked forty-ninth on thelist, and the United States ranked ninety-sixth.Also at the wrong endof the scale 13 were Russia (118th), Israel (119th), Sudan (120th), and fi-nally Iraq (last at 121st).Despite the poor rankings of the United States and United Kingdom(democracies both, but bellicose countries of late), one of the more endur-ing research lines linking state type and foreign policy behavior is the pa-cific democracies or democratic peace research that will be discussed atthe end of this chapter (and in the next chapter) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]