Suchergebnisse

This article offers an alternative explanation for the processes by which foreign policy is made. It does so across three different countries, across different governments, across issues that had real "blood and treasure" at stake, across different domestic and international contexts, and while holding the target of policy, the United States, constant. Available theories argue that formal political institutions or norms determine who will influence the making of policy and how they will do so. However, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile—countries with strikingly similar formal rules for making foreign policy—have been following, for decades, fundamentally different foreign policymaking processes, and they have been doing so without resorting to any normative justifications. The article contrasts the theoretical expectations of rational choice institutionalism and norm-based arguments on foreign policymaking with a logic of habit not captured by the logics of consequences or appropriateness of rational choice institutionalism and norm-based explanations. The article makes two contributions. First, it furthers the theoretical development of the concept of habit in international relations and offers a means of studying habits empirically. Second, it challenges the assumption that the power of domestic actors in foreign policy is a function of formal institutions or prevailing norms.

ABSTRACTGraduate students and young scholars with a passion for making a difference in the real world through research are often advised to put those dreams to rest until after tenure. This contributes to the enduring frustration on both sides of the "theory–policy gap" but it is sound advice—as of right now tenure decisions tend not to take into account publications appearing in policy outlets. However, the job market—and some of the most important mechanisms used for making promotion decisions in academia—suggest good strategic reasons for trying to have your research influence policy as early in your career as possible.

AbstractThis article draws on a new dataset to depict the scope, objectives, and methods of research in the field of U.S.-Latin American relations over the past quarter-century. The key findings are that the study of U.S.-Latin American relations focuses largely on foreign policy analysis, is mainly descriptive, relies overwhelmingly on qualitative methods, and is fairly detached from the main research trends in international relations. In light of this assessment, the article emphasizes the need to pay more attention to issues of theory development and explanation in this subfield of international relations.

A new look at constructivism / Mariano E. Bertucci, Jarrod Hayes, and Patrick James -- Constructivism in international relations : the story so far / Mariano E. Bertucci, Jarrod Hayes, and Patrick James -- The future of constructivism : a constructivist assessment / David M. McCourt -- On constructivism, realism, and contingency / Oliver Kessler and Brent Steele -- Constructivism and the logic of legitimation / Stacie E. Goddard and Ronald R. Krebs -- The power of prejudice : the race gap in constructivist international relations scholarship / Audie Klotz -- Technology and constructivism : interrogating the material-ideational divide / Jordan Branch -- Integrating social psychological insights into constructivist research / Jennifer M. Ramos -- New wine into a (not so) old bottle? : constructivism and the practice turn / Jérémie Cornut -- Securitization theory : toward a replicable framework for analysis / Thomas Jamieson -- A realist perspective on the constructivist project / Charles Glaser -- Realism, uncertainty, and the security dilemma : identity and the tantalizing promise of transformed international relations / David Blagden -- If it is everything, it is nothing : an argument for specificity in constructivisms / Laura Sjoberg and J. Samuel Barkin -- Moving forward / Mariano E. Bertucci, Jarrod Hayes, and Patrick James -- Epilogue : constructivism and global international relations : false promise to vanguard / Amitav Acharya

This paper explores a number of success stories of scholar-practitioner interactions on issues such as democracy promotion, fostering economic development, reducing extreme income inequality, and foreign policymaking toward the United States, among others, to argue that the so-called scholar-practitioner gap in International Relations might not be as wide as it may seem. It also highlights some of the salient limits to effective relations between the worlds of ideas and policy, and it discusses the main transmission belts-both individual and institutional-through which scholarly outputs influence the different stages of policymaking. The paper closes by proposing a number of 'best practices' to enhance effective scholar-practitioner relations in inter-American affairs and beyond, including tying research to significant world events, synthesizing research findings into digestible components, developing relations of trust with allies in government, providing concrete policy recommendations based on rigorous research and cost-effectiveness analyses, and integrating practitioners into academic departments, among others. Adapted from the source document.