• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 725 0

to diverge from the national interest. Knopf shows that the opposite is also possible: social activism triggers foreign policy initiatives that most analysts would regard as consistent with state interests.639 He notes that “so far, the possibility that a state’s interest in cooperation could arise in a bottom-up manner, from public pressure, has not been given much consideration by international relations theory.”640

The empirical research developed in this study constitutes a tough test for demonstrating the impact of social activism, because a key national security issue is involved. “Superpower arms control is one of the least likely areas for finding that citizen activism can foster cooperation.”641

The research design of the study combines statistics and case study methods. A quantitative analysis of the U.S. decision to enter arms talks assesses whether protest activity was significant when the most relevant system-level variables are controlled for. But, Knopf maintains, “statistical correlations by themselves … often do not make clear the causal connections involved.” Therefore, he employs case studies as a second mode of analysis, employing the method of structured, focused comparison, “to corroborate the statistical results” and particularly to identify causal mechanisms by which citizen activism could have brought about the observed results.642

Knopf developed a theoretical framework to assess and identify causal connections between protest and policy. A key insight that emerged from the study was that more than one potential pathway exists for activist influence in the United States; this is an example of equifinality.643 Three specific processes, or causal mechanisms, by which domestic groups might exert influence on arms control were identified: electoral pressure, shifting congressional coalitions, and the publicizing of ideas that are utilized by bureaucratic actors. Knopf offers this as a new technique for assessing the impact of citizen activism on policymaking. He carefully circumscribes the contribution his study makes,644 but suggests that the theoretical framework and research techniques used in the study are potentially generalizable: with suitable changes to take account of … different issues or different countries, the basic technique utilized by this book could be used to evaluate the foreign policy impact of citizen activism in a variety of other cases.”645

The criteria and rationale for selecting four cases for the qualitative component of the study are clearly described. The universe of possible cases was limited to those where U.S.-Soviet arms talks were not already taking place, so that Knopf could focus on explaining the initial development of a preference for cooperation. He excluded negotiations in the early Cold War period because the negotiators did not appear to have a genuine interest in or realistic opportunity for achieving cooperation. “From the remaining candidate cases, in order to avoid biasing the results, I selected cases that vary in the independent variable of interest (activism).”646 The four case studies exemplify the within-case mode of causal analysis via process-tracing.100

DEBORAH WELCH LARSON, ANATOMY OF MISTRUST: U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS DURING THE COLD WAR. ITHACA: CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1997.

Larson addresses the question of whether the United States and the Soviet Union missed important opportunities to reduce Cold War tensions and better manage the arms race. This historical problem is addressed within a broad theoretical framework of international cooperation, and Larson presents her study as the first systematic study of missed opportunities for international cooperation. The focus on U.S.-Soviet relations is a subclass of this general phenomenon.647 The author regards the Cold War era as a least-likely case for U.S.-Soviet cooperation and a good test of cooperation theory in international relations.648

Larson focuses on the importance of trust as a central variable in her research strategy, a factor inadequately developed in international relations