According to Thomas Ambrosio (2002), interest group in America is a domestic interest group which seeks to directly or indirectly influences their government's foreign policy. According to Tabib Huseynov in his journal Influencing American Foreign Policy: A Case on Ethnic versus National Interests that published in 2003, interest group in America understood as an ethnic group which have fully authority in America’s foreign policy. In this case, ethnic group is an ethnicity that becomes dominant in America political life.
Ethnicity is an influential element in contemporary American domestic politics and in foreign politics as well. Some powerful ethnic interest groups, like Jewish, Greek, Armenian etc., have gained a lot of influence in American domestic affairs and increasingly tried to exert more and more influence on the foreign policies, which deal with their country or place of origin.
From its beginning, U.S. society has been a multicultural society of people with different origins and backgrounds. Therefore, it is natural that in a number of cases these ethnic groups sought to influence American policies toward their country or place of origin. As Tony Smith writes on his book Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. 2000, “it is not only the social character of America as a nation of immigrants that makes for the prominent role ethnic actors play in foreign policy deliberations; it is also the structure of American democracy that allows ethnic communities, and much wider range of civic interest groups in general, access to policymaking”. As it will be seen below, the factors that allow various interest groups, including ethnic ones, to influence the U.S. policymaking lie namely on the nature of the wider state-society relations and the country's political and party organization.
It is generally accepted that the U.S. has a largely decentralized policy-making structure. The U.S. founding fathers have built the U.S. political system based on the principle of 'checks and balances'. This democratic principle provided separate branches of government with powers to oversee the actions of the other, thus preventing any one from becoming too powerful. This principle of 'checks and balances' enshrined in the U.S. Constitution provides large freedom of action for the activity of various interest groups.
Another factor that greatly enforces the role of social forces in American foreign policymaking is the specific system of political party organization. As Smith indicates, “because the Congress and the President can be of the same mind or the same party, it is conceivable that the institutional struggle built into politics by the Constitution might not occur and thus, the government would enjoy relative autonomy in the face of social pressures”. Therefore, the party system has been built, in which the public officials are not named by the party but nominated through primaries, whose results are decided by local electorates. The consequence of such party discipline is that in practice public officials may well be as responsive to their constituents as to their party leadership. Moreover, Smith notes that given that the Congress is also a decentralized entity, even civic interests operating on a small social base may find their concerns being reflected in legislation. Thus, the U.S. is usually characterized as a typical ‘weak state’ because of its federalist structure, the system of checks and balances between Congress and administration, and the extensive network of group representation.
Who Is The Interest Group?
Many scholars from neo-liberal approach to international politics emphasize the decisive influence of organized interest groups on foreign policy (Keohane, 1984). The assumption is that foreign policy is a function of shifting coalitions of multiple and competing political and societal actors. Executive and legislative officials with foreign policy authority bargain with domestic groups that use their members’ votes, campaign contributions, threatened or actual capital flight, labor strikes, and other tools to affect the electoral benefits and costs to elected officials of choosing alternative policies (Gourevitch, 1986; Milner, 1988; Rogowski, 1989; Frieden, 1991).
Epistemic communities exist outside formal government institutions and are drawn from professionals and experts in the academy, think tanks, and other bodies of highly trained specialists in subjects as diverse as economic theory and military technology. These specialists provide critical technical expertise for government officials in the legislative and executive branches to define problems and help form their preferences regarding particular policies.
Research on epistemic communities has two important implications. First, it suggests that experts equip government officials to conduct analyses and reach decisions that can be independent of direct pressures from organized groups or citizens. The scholarship on epistemic communities predicts, then, that business and labor exert at best modest direct influence upon the foreign policy decisions of government officials. Second, epistemic communities may serve as concrete mechanisms for identifying and addressing a state’s objective interests, in the complex global power struggles that classical and structural realists emphasize
By the median voter theory, it assumed that public opinion have the most impact on highly salient issues that draw intense attention from the media and voters and thereby pose the most direct threat of electoral punishment for unresponsiveness. In other way it means that mass media has powerful influence to foreign policy.
Tactics
Interest groups, according to John Dietrich on his book: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy: Clinton and China MFN Debates. 1999., are able to have “an impact on the earlier stages of the decision- making process” via the following three general, yet effective, tactics:
Framing the issues
Ambrosio describes framing as “the attempt by interest groups to place an issue on the government's agenda, shape perspectives of that issue, and influence the terms of debate”.
Offering information and analysis
Framing is closely connected to with supplying information and analysis, according to Ambrosio, because of “the large number and diversity of issues confronting (the staff of an elected representative), it is impossible for staffers to invest sufficient time to research issues themselves. Consequently, they are forced to rely on outside sources of information; interest groups provide this information, most likely with analysis (or “spin”) beneficial to their agenda”.
Monitoring the policy process and reacting as necessary
In addition to framing, supplying information and analysis, Ambrosio states that “interest groups closely monitor government policies pertaining to their agenda and react to those policies through” such actions as:
• The dissemination of supplementary information,
• Letter-writing campaigns,
• Calls for hearings or additional legislation,
• Support or opposition of candidates during elections
Sources:
• Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275975339
• Ahrari, Mohammed E. 1987. Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25412-5
• Said, Abdul Aziz. 1981. Ethnicity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-90716-3
• Huseynov, Tabib. 2003. Influencing American Foreign Policy: A Case on Ethnic versus National Interests. ISSN: 1303 – 9814. [Online] issue 5. June 2003. Cited from http://www.stradigma.com [accessed on April 28, 2009]
• Jacobs, Lawrence and Page, Benjamin. n.d. Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy Over Time? Cited from http://www.springerlink.com [accessed on April 28, 2009]
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Interest Group in America and Its Influences to US Foreign Policy
According to Thomas Ambrosio (2002), interest group in America is a domestic interest group which seeks to directly or indirectly influences their government's foreign policy. According to Tabib Huseynov in his journal Influencing American Foreign Policy: A Case on Ethnic versus National Interests that published in 2003, interest group in America understood as an ethnic group which have fully authority in America’s foreign policy. In this case, ethnic group is an ethnicity that becomes dominant in America political life.
Ethnicity is an influential element in contemporary American domestic politics and in foreign politics as well. Some powerful ethnic interest groups, like Jewish, Greek, Armenian etc., have gained a lot of influence in American domestic affairs and increasingly tried to exert more and more influence on the foreign policies, which deal with their country or place of origin.
From its beginning, U.S. society has been a multicultural society of people with different origins and backgrounds. Therefore, it is natural that in a number of cases these ethnic groups sought to influence American policies toward their country or place of origin. As Tony Smith writes on his book Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. 2000, “it is not only the social character of America as a nation of immigrants that makes for the prominent role ethnic actors play in foreign policy deliberations; it is also the structure of American democracy that allows ethnic communities, and much wider range of civic interest groups in general, access to policymaking”. As it will be seen below, the factors that allow various interest groups, including ethnic ones, to influence the U.S. policymaking lie namely on the nature of the wider state-society relations and the country's political and party organization.
It is generally accepted that the U.S. has a largely decentralized policy-making structure. The U.S. founding fathers have built the U.S. political system based on the principle of 'checks and balances'. This democratic principle provided separate branches of government with powers to oversee the actions of the other, thus preventing any one from becoming too powerful. This principle of 'checks and balances' enshrined in the U.S. Constitution provides large freedom of action for the activity of various interest groups.
Another factor that greatly enforces the role of social forces in American foreign policymaking is the specific system of political party organization. As Smith indicates, “because the Congress and the President can be of the same mind or the same party, it is conceivable that the institutional struggle built into politics by the Constitution might not occur and thus, the government would enjoy relative autonomy in the face of social pressures”. Therefore, the party system has been built, in which the public officials are not named by the party but nominated through primaries, whose results are decided by local electorates. The consequence of such party discipline is that in practice public officials may well be as responsive to their constituents as to their party leadership. Moreover, Smith notes that given that the Congress is also a decentralized entity, even civic interests operating on a small social base may find their concerns being reflected in legislation. Thus, the U.S. is usually characterized as a typical ‘weak state’ because of its federalist structure, the system of checks and balances between Congress and administration, and the extensive network of group representation.
Who Is The Interest Group?
Many scholars from neo-liberal approach to international politics emphasize the decisive influence of organized interest groups on foreign policy (Keohane, 1984). The assumption is that foreign policy is a function of shifting coalitions of multiple and competing political and societal actors. Executive and legislative officials with foreign policy authority bargain with domestic groups that use their members’ votes, campaign contributions, threatened or actual capital flight, labor strikes, and other tools to affect the electoral benefits and costs to elected officials of choosing alternative policies (Gourevitch, 1986; Milner, 1988; Rogowski, 1989; Frieden, 1991).
Epistemic communities exist outside formal government institutions and are drawn from professionals and experts in the academy, think tanks, and other bodies of highly trained specialists in subjects as diverse as economic theory and military technology. These specialists provide critical technical expertise for government officials in the legislative and executive branches to define problems and help form their preferences regarding particular policies.
Research on epistemic communities has two important implications. First, it suggests that experts equip government officials to conduct analyses and reach decisions that can be independent of direct pressures from organized groups or citizens. The scholarship on epistemic communities predicts, then, that business and labor exert at best modest direct influence upon the foreign policy decisions of government officials. Second, epistemic communities may serve as concrete mechanisms for identifying and addressing a state’s objective interests, in the complex global power struggles that classical and structural realists emphasize
By the median voter theory, it assumed that public opinion have the most impact on highly salient issues that draw intense attention from the media and voters and thereby pose the most direct threat of electoral punishment for unresponsiveness. In other way it means that mass media has powerful influence to foreign policy.
Tactics
Interest groups, according to John Dietrich on his book: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy: Clinton and China MFN Debates. 1999., are able to have “an impact on the earlier stages of the decision- making process” via the following three general, yet effective, tactics:
Framing the issues
Ambrosio describes framing as “the attempt by interest groups to place an issue on the government's agenda, shape perspectives of that issue, and influence the terms of debate”.
Offering information and analysis
Framing is closely connected to with supplying information and analysis, according to Ambrosio, because of “the large number and diversity of issues confronting (the staff of an elected representative), it is impossible for staffers to invest sufficient time to research issues themselves. Consequently, they are forced to rely on outside sources of information; interest groups provide this information, most likely with analysis (or “spin”) beneficial to their agenda”.
Monitoring the policy process and reacting as necessary
In addition to framing, supplying information and analysis, Ambrosio states that “interest groups closely monitor government policies pertaining to their agenda and react to those policies through” such actions as:
• The dissemination of supplementary information,
• Letter-writing campaigns,
• Calls for hearings or additional legislation,
• Support or opposition of candidates during elections
Sources:
• Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275975339
• Ahrari, Mohammed E. 1987. Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25412-5
• Said, Abdul Aziz. 1981. Ethnicity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-90716-3
• Huseynov, Tabib. 2003. Influencing American Foreign Policy: A Case on Ethnic versus National Interests. ISSN: 1303 – 9814. [Online] issue 5. June 2003. Cited from http://www.stradigma.com [accessed on April 28, 2009]
• Jacobs, Lawrence and Page, Benjamin. n.d. Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy Over Time? Cited from http://www.springerlink.com [accessed on April 28, 2009]
Ethnicity is an influential element in contemporary American domestic politics and in foreign politics as well. Some powerful ethnic interest groups, like Jewish, Greek, Armenian etc., have gained a lot of influence in American domestic affairs and increasingly tried to exert more and more influence on the foreign policies, which deal with their country or place of origin.
From its beginning, U.S. society has been a multicultural society of people with different origins and backgrounds. Therefore, it is natural that in a number of cases these ethnic groups sought to influence American policies toward their country or place of origin. As Tony Smith writes on his book Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. 2000, “it is not only the social character of America as a nation of immigrants that makes for the prominent role ethnic actors play in foreign policy deliberations; it is also the structure of American democracy that allows ethnic communities, and much wider range of civic interest groups in general, access to policymaking”. As it will be seen below, the factors that allow various interest groups, including ethnic ones, to influence the U.S. policymaking lie namely on the nature of the wider state-society relations and the country's political and party organization.
It is generally accepted that the U.S. has a largely decentralized policy-making structure. The U.S. founding fathers have built the U.S. political system based on the principle of 'checks and balances'. This democratic principle provided separate branches of government with powers to oversee the actions of the other, thus preventing any one from becoming too powerful. This principle of 'checks and balances' enshrined in the U.S. Constitution provides large freedom of action for the activity of various interest groups.
Another factor that greatly enforces the role of social forces in American foreign policymaking is the specific system of political party organization. As Smith indicates, “because the Congress and the President can be of the same mind or the same party, it is conceivable that the institutional struggle built into politics by the Constitution might not occur and thus, the government would enjoy relative autonomy in the face of social pressures”. Therefore, the party system has been built, in which the public officials are not named by the party but nominated through primaries, whose results are decided by local electorates. The consequence of such party discipline is that in practice public officials may well be as responsive to their constituents as to their party leadership. Moreover, Smith notes that given that the Congress is also a decentralized entity, even civic interests operating on a small social base may find their concerns being reflected in legislation. Thus, the U.S. is usually characterized as a typical ‘weak state’ because of its federalist structure, the system of checks and balances between Congress and administration, and the extensive network of group representation.
Who Is The Interest Group?
Many scholars from neo-liberal approach to international politics emphasize the decisive influence of organized interest groups on foreign policy (Keohane, 1984). The assumption is that foreign policy is a function of shifting coalitions of multiple and competing political and societal actors. Executive and legislative officials with foreign policy authority bargain with domestic groups that use their members’ votes, campaign contributions, threatened or actual capital flight, labor strikes, and other tools to affect the electoral benefits and costs to elected officials of choosing alternative policies (Gourevitch, 1986; Milner, 1988; Rogowski, 1989; Frieden, 1991).
Epistemic communities exist outside formal government institutions and are drawn from professionals and experts in the academy, think tanks, and other bodies of highly trained specialists in subjects as diverse as economic theory and military technology. These specialists provide critical technical expertise for government officials in the legislative and executive branches to define problems and help form their preferences regarding particular policies.
Research on epistemic communities has two important implications. First, it suggests that experts equip government officials to conduct analyses and reach decisions that can be independent of direct pressures from organized groups or citizens. The scholarship on epistemic communities predicts, then, that business and labor exert at best modest direct influence upon the foreign policy decisions of government officials. Second, epistemic communities may serve as concrete mechanisms for identifying and addressing a state’s objective interests, in the complex global power struggles that classical and structural realists emphasize
By the median voter theory, it assumed that public opinion have the most impact on highly salient issues that draw intense attention from the media and voters and thereby pose the most direct threat of electoral punishment for unresponsiveness. In other way it means that mass media has powerful influence to foreign policy.
Tactics
Interest groups, according to John Dietrich on his book: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy: Clinton and China MFN Debates. 1999., are able to have “an impact on the earlier stages of the decision- making process” via the following three general, yet effective, tactics:
Framing the issues
Ambrosio describes framing as “the attempt by interest groups to place an issue on the government's agenda, shape perspectives of that issue, and influence the terms of debate”.
Offering information and analysis
Framing is closely connected to with supplying information and analysis, according to Ambrosio, because of “the large number and diversity of issues confronting (the staff of an elected representative), it is impossible for staffers to invest sufficient time to research issues themselves. Consequently, they are forced to rely on outside sources of information; interest groups provide this information, most likely with analysis (or “spin”) beneficial to their agenda”.
Monitoring the policy process and reacting as necessary
In addition to framing, supplying information and analysis, Ambrosio states that “interest groups closely monitor government policies pertaining to their agenda and react to those policies through” such actions as:
• The dissemination of supplementary information,
• Letter-writing campaigns,
• Calls for hearings or additional legislation,
• Support or opposition of candidates during elections
Sources:
• Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275975339
• Ahrari, Mohammed E. 1987. Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25412-5
• Said, Abdul Aziz. 1981. Ethnicity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-90716-3
• Huseynov, Tabib. 2003. Influencing American Foreign Policy: A Case on Ethnic versus National Interests. ISSN: 1303 – 9814. [Online] issue 5. June 2003. Cited from http://www.stradigma.com [accessed on April 28, 2009]
• Jacobs, Lawrence and Page, Benjamin. n.d. Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy Over Time? Cited from http://www.springerlink.com [accessed on April 28, 2009]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment