International Politics

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 231–256 | Cite as

The ‘knowledge politics’ of democratic peace theory

  • Inderjeet Parmar
Original Article

Abstract

How do academic ideas influence US foreign policy, under what conditions and with what consequences? This article traces the rise, ‘securitisation’ and political consequences of democratic peace theory (DPT) in the United States by exploring the work of Doyle, Diamond and Fukuyama. Ideas influence US foreign policy under different circumstances, but are most likely to do either during and after crises when the policy environment permits ‘new thinking’, or when these ideas have been developed through state-connected elite knowledge networks, or when they are (or appear paradigmatically congenial to) foreign policymakers’ mindsets, or, finally, when they become institutionally-embedded. The appropriation of DPT by foreign policymakers has categorised the world into antagonistic blocs – democratic/non-democratic zones of peace/turmoil – as the corollary to a renewed American mission to make the world ‘safer’ through ‘democracy’ promotion. The roles of networked organic intellectuals – in universities and think tanks, for instance – were particularly important in elevating DPT from the academy to national security managers.

Keywords

knowledge politics networks democratic peace democracy promotion elites American foundations 

References

  1. Abelson, D.E. (2006) A Capitol Idea. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, M. (2009) Promote democracy? – Yes, we can (and should!). Democracy Digest, 14 April, http://www.demdigest.net/blog/regions/lac/promote-democracy-yes-we-can-and-should.html, accessed 26 June 2009.
  3. Amara, N., Ouimet, M. and Landry, R. (2004) New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 26 (1): 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. (2003) Pursuing Truth, Exercising Power. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R.J. (1973) Roots of War. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Berman, E.H. (1983) The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beyer, J.M. (1997) Research utilization. Journal of Management Inquiry 6 (1): 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkley, D . (1997) Democratic enlargement: The Clinton Doctrine. Foreign Policy 106 (Spring): 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, J.S. (1999) Sustaining the ecology of knowledge. Leader to Leader 12, http://www.johnseeleybrown.com/Sustaining_the_Ecology_of_Knowledge.pdf, accessed 10 October 2008.
  10. Brown, M.E., Lynn-Jones, S.M. and Miller, S.E. (eds.) (1996) Debating the Democratic Peace. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buckley, M. and Singh, R. (eds.) (2006) The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Buger, C. and Villumsen, T. (2007) Beyond the gap: Relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace) theory. Journal of International Relations and Development 10 (4): 417–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bulmer, M. (1982) The Uses of Social Research. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  14. Carnegie Corporation. (1945) Annual Report.Google Scholar
  15. Carnegie Corporation. (2007) Annual Report.Google Scholar
  16. Carothers, T. (2008) A league of their own. Foreign Policy. (167): 44–49.Google Scholar
  17. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). (2009) Democracy in U.S. Security Strategy. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).Google Scholar
  18. Clesse, A., Cooper, R. and Sakamoto, Y. (1994) The International System After the Collapse of the East-West Order. Leiden, NL: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 50.Google Scholar
  19. Clinton, W.J. (1994) State of the union, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/speeches/sud94wjc.htm, accessed 12 June 2009.
  20. Condoleeza, R. (2005) The promise of democratic peace. Washingtonpost.com, 11 December.Google Scholar
  21. Coser, L. (1965) Men of Ideas. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Daalder, I. and Goldeiger, J. (2006) For global security, expand the alliance. International Herald Tribune, 12 October.Google Scholar
  23. Deudney, D. (2004) Publius before Kant: Federal-republican security and democratic peace. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3): 315–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deudney, D. (2007) Bounding Power Republican Security Theory From the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Diamond, L. (1991) An American Foreign Policy for Democracy. Progressive Policy Institute Policy Report, www.dlc.org/documents/democracy.pdf, accessed 16 May 2007.
  26. Diamond, L. (1995) Promoting democracy in the 1990s. December, http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/promoting_democracy_in_the_1990s_actors_instruments_and_issues/, accessed 16 May 2008.
  27. Dobriansky, P. and Carothers, T. (2003) Democracy promotion. Foreign Affairs 82 (6): 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doyle, M.W. (1983) Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (4): 205–235.Google Scholar
  29. Doyle, M.W. (1986) Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doyle, M.W. (1994) Liberalism and the transition to a post-cold war system. In: A. Clesse, R. Cooper and Y. Sakamoto (eds.) The International System After the Collapse of the East-West Order. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  31. Doyle, M.W. (1997) Ways of War and Peace. New York: WW Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  32. Drezner, D. (2008) The realists versus the Neocons. The National Interest online, 20 March.Google Scholar
  33. Ember, C.R., Ember, M. and Russett, B. (1992) Peace between participatory polities. World Politics 44 (4): 573–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fukuyama, F. (1989) The end of history. The National Interest Summer, http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm, accessed 16 May 2008.
  35. Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
  36. Fukuyama, F. and McFaul, M. (2007–2008) Should democracy be promoted or demoted? The Washington Quarterly 31 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  37. George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Goldman, E.O. and Berman, L. (2000) Engaging the world. In: C. Campbell and B.A. Rockman (eds.) The Clinton Legacy. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  39. Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. (1993) Introductory essay, ‘ideas and foreign policy. In: J. Goldstein and R. Keohane (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
  40. Halper, S. and Clarke, J. (2004) America Alone. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Halperin, M.H. and Lomasney, K. (1993) Toward a global ‘guarantee clause’. Journal of Democracy 4 (3): 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Halperin, M.H. and Lomasney, K. (1998) Guaranteeing democracy. Journal of Democracy 9 (2): 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hames, T. (1994) Searching for the new world order: The Clinton administration and foreign policy in 1993. International Relations 12 (1): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hayes, J. (2009) Identity and securitization in the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 977–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hill, C. (1994a) Preface, Two Worlds of International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Hill, C. (1994b) Academic international relations. In: C. Hill and P. Beshoff (eds.) Two Worlds of International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Hoare, Q. and Nowell-Smith, G. (1971) Selections From the Prison Writings of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  48. Hyland, W.G. (1999) Clinton's World. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  49. Ikenberry, G.J. (1993) Creating yesterday's new world order. In: J. Goldstein and R. Keohane (eds.) Ideas and Foreign Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar
  50. Ikenberry, G.J. and Slaughter, A.-M. (2006) Forging a World of Liberty Under Law. Princeton, NJ: Woordrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.Google Scholar
  51. Ish-Shalom, P. (2008) Theorization, harm, and the democratic imperative. International Studies Review 10 (4): 680–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jenkins, J.C. and Eckert, C.M. (1989) The corporate elite, the new conservative policy network, and reaganomics. Critical Sociology 16 (2–3): 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jentleson, B.W. (2000) In pursuit of praxis. In: M. Nincic and J. Lepgold (eds.) Being Useful. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 129–149.Google Scholar
  54. John M. Owen IV. (2005) Iraq and the democratic peace. Foreign Affairs 84 (6): 122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kagan, R. (2007) End of dreams, return of history. Policy Review 144: 17–45.Google Scholar
  56. Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (1996) Towards a neo-reaganite foreign policy. Foreign Affairs 75 (4): 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kruzel, J. (1994) More a chasm than a gap. Mershon International Studies Review 38 (1): 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lake, A. (1993) Remarks of Anthony lake. 21 September, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html, accessed 12 June 2009.
  59. Lepgold, J. and Nincic, M. (2001) Beyond the Ivory Tower. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Levy, J.S. (1988) Domestic politics and war. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (4): 653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lynch, T. (2009) Liberalism and neoliberalism. In: I. Parmar, L. Miller and M. Ledwidge (eds.) New Directions in American Foreign Policy. London: Routledge, pp. 48–61.Google Scholar
  62. Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S. and Tierney, M.J. (2007) The view from the ivory tower, http://www.wm.edu/irtheoryandpractice/trip/surveyreport06-07.pdf.
  63. Mansfield, E.D. and Snyder, J. (1995) Democratization and the danger of war. International Security 20 (1): 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mansfield, E.D. and Snyder, J. (2000) From Voting to Violence. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  65. Mansfield, E.D. and Snyder, J. (2005) Electing To Fight. Why Emerging Democracies Go To War. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mansfield, E.D. and Snyder, J. (2007) The sequencing ‘fallacy’. Journal of Democracy 18 (3): 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Marshall, W. (2009) Taking NATO global. 15 January, http://www.ppionline.org, accessed June 8 2009.
  68. McMahon, R. (2009) The brave new world of democracy promotion. Foreign Service Journal 86 (1): 31–39.Google Scholar
  69. Miller, S.E. (2001) International security at twenty-five. International Security 26 (1): 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. NATO. (2010) NATO 2020: Assured security; dynamic engagement, http://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/expertsreport.pdf.
  71. Obama, B. (2009a) Pan American day and Pan American week. Press Release, 14 April.Google Scholar
  72. Obama, B. (2009b) Text of Obama's speech in cairo. The Associated Press, 4 June.Google Scholar
  73. Oneal, J.R. and Russett, B. (1999) The Kantian peace. World Politics 52 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Parmar, I. (2002b) To relate knowledge and action’: The impact of the rockefeller foundation on foreign policy thinking during America's rise to globalism 1939–1945. Minerva XL (3): 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Parmar, I. (2004) Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Parmar, I. (2005) Catalytic events, think tanks and American foreign policy shifts: A comparative analysis of the impacts of Pearl Harbor 1941 and 11 September 2001. Government and Opposition 40 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Parmar, I. (2009) Foreign policy fusion: Liberal interventionists, conservative nationalists and neo-conservatives – the new alliance dominating the US foreign policy establishment. International Politics 46 (2–3): 177–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Parmar, I. (2012) Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Peschek, J.G. (1989) Free the Fortune 500’: The American enterprise institute and the politics of the capitalist class in the 1970s. Critical Sociology 16 (2/3): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ray, J.L. (1997) The democratic path to peace. Journal of Democracy 8 (2): 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Russett, B. (2005) Bushwhacking the democratic peace. International Studies Perspectives 6 (4): 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schweller, R.L. (1992) Domestic structure and preventive war. World Politics 44 (2): 235–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith, T. (2007) A Pact With the Devil. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Talbott, S. (1994) The new geopolitics. US Department of State Dispatch, 14 November.Google Scholar
  85. Talbott, S. (1995) Why NATO should grow. The New York Review of Books: 42, 10 August.Google Scholar
  86. Talbott, S. (1996) Democracy and the national interest. Foreign Affairs 75 (6): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson III, E.J. (2000) How social science can help policymakers. In: M. Nincic and J. Lepgold (eds.) Being Useful. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
  88. Wolfson, A. (2004) Conservatives and neoconservatives. Public Interest (154): 32–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inderjeet Parmar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International PoliticsCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations