1. Plan for Today: Domestic Politics & Decisionmaking Approaches 1. Completing democratic peace debate. 2. Evaluating domestic politics as theory. 3. Introduction to decisionmaking approaches.

2. Controversies/ Counterarguments Continued… 3. Apparent relationship spurious: pattern caused by other factors. 1. Geographic distance: countries side by side more likely to go to war than those far apart. 2. Necessary alliances against common enemies for strategic reasons, regardless of democratic norms.

3. Controversies/ Counterarguments 4. Democratization may not lead to peace in short-medium term (Mansfield & Snyder). 1. Regimes in transition more warprone than stable democracies or authoritarian regimes. 2. Reason: democratization process plagued by nationalism and weak domestic institutions.

4. Responses of Democratic Peace Proponents 1. Virtual absence of war among democracies is statistically significant. Only very small set of pairs of states capable of going to war at any time, including most democracies. Only very small set of pairs of states capable of going to war at any time, including most democracies. So absence of war in overall history is significant. So absence of war in overall history is significant.

5. Responses of Democratic Peace Proponents 2. Defend definitions of democracy as careful, consistent, and reasonable. Apparent “exceptions” or “iffy cases” extremely rare among wars. Apparent “exceptions” or “iffy cases” extremely rare among wars. Even if we include cases such as Finland in WWII, these are very rare exceptions. Even if we include cases such as Finland in WWII, these are very rare exceptions.

6. Implications of the Democratic Peace (If True) 1. Challenge to realist theory. 1. Realism’s pessimism about prospects for international peace. DP: democratic states can trust that there will be no war among them. Possibility of reliable peace. DP: democratic states can trust that there will be no war among them. Possibility of reliable peace. 2. Realism’s emphasis on systemic factors to explain outcomes. DP: different states will act differently due to domestic characteristics. DP: different states will act differently due to domestic characteristics.

7. Implications of the Democratic Peace (If True) 2. As number of democracies in the world increases, so does “zone of peace.” Number of democracies increased dramatically since 1970s. Number of democracies increased dramatically since 1970s. Now well over 50% of all states. Now well over 50% of all states. But large proportion not liberal democracies. But large proportion not liberal democracies.

8. Implications of the Democratic Peace (If True) 3. Implication for how democratic states should pursue national security: by promoting democracy in other states. 1. This is hard to do effectively. 2. Caution from Mansfield & Snyder re: dangerous halfway stage.

9. Conclusion Safe to say democracies very rarely go to war with one another. Safe to say democracies very rarely go to war with one another. Controversies remain over why, and whether identified pattern is statistically significant, mere coincidence, or spurious. Controversies remain over why, and whether identified pattern is statistically significant, mere coincidence, or spurious.

10. Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory 1. Explanatory power: mixed. Doesn’t provide overall argument about international politics at systemic level. Doesn’t provide overall argument about international politics at systemic level. Only works on a state-by-state basis. Only works on a state-by-state basis. Individual arguments explain important gaps in realist and liberal explanations. Individual arguments explain important gaps in realist and liberal explanations. E.g. Humanitarian interventions. E.g. Humanitarian interventions.

11. Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory 2. Predictive power: mixed. Can’t predict a lot at system-wide level. Can’t predict a lot at system-wide level. Specific predictions from some arguments: Specific predictions from some arguments: E.g. Democratic peace. E.g. Democratic peace. Sometimes domestic politics perspective can be coupled with realism to enhance predictive ability. Sometimes domestic politics perspective can be coupled with realism to enhance predictive ability. US is hegemonic power; but how will it use power? US is hegemonic power; but how will it use power?

12. Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory 3. Intellectual consistency and coherence: Not great: no paradigm with unified argument. Not great: no paradigm with unified argument. Sometimes scholars disagree on how to assess one country’s culture and anticipated behaviour. Sometimes scholars disagree on how to assess one country’s culture and anticipated behaviour. E.g. US values abroad: laissez-faire capitalism throughout the world, or individual freedoms? E.g. US values abroad: laissez-faire capitalism throughout the world, or individual freedoms?

13. Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory 4. Scope: Not great: fairly piecemeal. Not great: fairly piecemeal. Some exceptions with broad explanations based on domestic regime-type – e.g. democratic peace. Some exceptions with broad explanations based on domestic regime-type – e.g. democratic peace.

14. Evaluating Domestic Politics as Theory 5. Self-reflection and engagement with other theories: OK. Domestic politics works well with constructivism. Domestic politics works well with constructivism. Could work well with realism: What option will states choose among many possible options that satisfy security needs? Could work well with realism: What option will states choose among many possible options that satisfy security needs?

15. Decisionmaking Approaches: Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics

16. Decisionmaking Approaches Looking inside state at how particular domestic actors influence international events. Looking inside state at how particular domestic actors influence international events. Focus on flaws and pathologies in organizations and biases of decisionmakers. Focus on flaws and pathologies in organizations and biases of decisionmakers.

17. Decisionmaking Approaches: Assumptions 1. States not unitary – many conflicting actors and processes involved. 2. States not rational – do not make “decisions.” States’ behaviour as “outputs” of battling actors, inadequate routines, or mistakes. States’ behaviour as “outputs” of battling actors, inadequate routines, or mistakes. Rational decisions require complete information and thorough evaluation of all options. Rational decisions require complete information and thorough evaluation of all options.

18. Decisionmaking Approaches: Limits to Rationality 1. Personality disorders: decisionmakers may be nuts!! E.g. Saddam Hussein as an egomaniac. George W. Bush as beholden to father or evangelical fanatic. E.g. Saddam Hussein as an egomaniac. George W. Bush as beholden to father or evangelical fanatic.

19. Decisionmaking Approaches: Limits to Rationality 2. Human cognition is limited. Human beings imperfect and biased in processing information. Human beings imperfect and biased in processing information. Examples: Examples: Prospect theory: people hate losses more than like gains. Prospect theory: people hate losses more than like gains. Jervis: People overestimate extent to which others’ actions are a response to them. Jervis: People overestimate extent to which others’ actions are a response to them.

20. Decisionmaking Approaches: Limits to Rationality 3. Huge complexity of decisions: parceled out to complex organizations. 1. Organizations act according to preset repertoires. 2. Organizations occupied by ambitious individuals.

21. Decisionmaking Approaches Two Branches of Theory 1. Organizational process theory. Focuses on the processes at work through standard operating procedures in government and even weapons systems. 2. Bureaucratic politics. Focuses on the clash among bureaucratic actors with conflicting interests.