International relations and domestic structures: Foreign economic policies of advanced industrial states

International Organization

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 1976, Pages 1-45

  Katzenstein, Peter J ^a  

^a Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971195167     PISSN: 00208183     EISSN: 15315088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300003726     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. This analysis is intended to apply primarily to the OECD members. Although all of these states are capitalist, I have deliberately used the term ‘advanced industrial states.’ The owner ship of the means of production, I concluded, was less important for explaining foreign economic policy than the nature of the policy networks linking the public with the private sector. A French quip sums this up well: “French business is divided into a private sector, rigidly controlled, and a public sector, completely free.” Quoted in M. A. Adelman, The World Petroleum Market (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), p. 236. See also Raymond Vernon, The Economic and Political Consequences of Multinational Enterprise: An Anthology (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1972), p. 117. Bruce Andrews has recently offered a line of argument about the importance of domestic politics for foreign policy analysis which complements this paper. See his “Social Rules and the State as a Social Actor,” World Politics, 27, 4 (July 1975): 521-40.
2. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, “International Interdependence and Integration,” unpublished paper, 1973, p. 77. A revised version of this paper appears in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley), volume 8, International Politics, ch. 5. Page references here are to the earlier manuscript version. zNew York Times, October 13, 1974, p. 34.
3. Edward L. Morse,”The Politics of Interdependence,” International Organization, 23, 2 (Spring 1969): 311-26. Morse,”Crisis Diplomacy, Interdependence and the Politics of International Economic Relations,” in Raymond Tanter and Richard H. Ullman (eds.), Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 123-50. Morse, Foreign Policy and Interdependence in Gaullist France (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973).
4. Keohane and Nye,”Interdependence and Integration.” ‘Richard N. Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the American Community (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), pp. 7-8.
5. The realist and neo-liberal paradigms are also treated in Robert Gilpin,”Three Models of the Future,” International Organization 29, 1 (Winter 1975): 37-60; Gilpin, American Hegemony and the Multinationals: The Political Economy of Foreign Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975); see also Stephen D. Krasner,”State Power and International Economic Structure,” unpublished paper.
6. Karl W. Deutsch,”Communication Theory and Political Integration,” in Philip E. Jacob and James V. Toscano (eds), The Integration of Political Communities (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippin cott, 1964), pp. 46-74. Kail W. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968). Karl W. Deutsch,Political Community at the Supranational Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement (Garden City: Doubleday, 1954). Karl W. Deutsch, Lewis J. Edinger, Roy C. Macridis, and Richard L. Merritt, France, Germany and the Western Alliance: A Study of Elite Attitudes on European Integration and World Politics (New York: Charles Scribner's, 1967), pp. 218-39. Richard W. Chadwick and Karl W. Deutsch,”International Trade and Economic Integration: Further Developments in Trade Matrix Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies, 6, 1 (April 1973): 84-109.
7. Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, 2nd ed., (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966). Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and its Alternatives (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969). Karl W. Deutsch,”The Growth of Nations: Some Recurrent Patterns of Political and Social Integration,” World Politics, 5, 2 (January 1953): 168-95. Karl W. Deutsch,”Nation and World,” in Ithiel de Sola Pool (ed.), Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 206-27. Karl W. Deutsch,”Social Mobilization and Political Development,” American Political Science Review 55, 3 (September 1961): 501.
8. Karl W. Deutsch and Alexander Eckstein,”National Industrialization and the Declining Share of the International Economic Sector, 1890-1959,” World Politics 13, 2 (January 1961): 267-99. Karl W. Deutsch,”International Communications: The Media and Flows,” Public Opinion Quarterly 20, 1 (Spring 1956), 143-60. The conclusions of these two studies reappear in different forms in many of Deutsch's subsequent writings on problems of international interdependence.
9. Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York: The Free Press, 1966).
10. Deutsch and Eckstein,”National Industrialization,” p. 271.
11. Karl W. Deutsch and Lewis J. Edinger, Germany Rejoins the Powers (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959).
12. Deutsch, Nerves of Government, Part III. Karl W. Deutsch and J. David Singer,”Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability,” World Politics, 16, 3 (April 1964): 390-406. See also the growing literature on bureaucratic politics and foreign policy behavior first systematized by Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971).
13. See the references cited in footnote 7 above and David P. Calleo and Benjamin M. Rowland, America and the World Political Economy: Atlantic Dreams and National Realities (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1973). Kenneth N. Waltz,”The Myth of National Interdependence,” in Charles P. Kindleberger (ed.), The International Corporation (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970), pp. 205-23. Richard N. Rosecrance and Arthur Stein,”Interdependence: Myth or Reality?” World Politics 26, 1 (October 1973): 1-27.
14. Robert Gilpin,”The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations,” in Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (eds.). Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 48-69.
15. But see Albert O. Hirschman, National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945). Stephen D. Cohen, International Monetary Reform, 1964-1969: The Political Dimension (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970). Gilpin, American Hegemony and the Multinationals. Robert W. Russell,”Crisis Management in the International Monetary System, 1960-1973.” Paper prepared for Delivery at the International Studies Association Convention, New York City, March 16, 1973. B. Haskel,”Disparities, Strategies, and Opportunity Costs: The Example of Scandinavian Economic Market Negotiations,” International Studies Quarterly, 28, 1 (March 1974): 3-30.
16. For one such attempt applying event interaction analysis see Brian Healey,”Economic Power Transition in the International System: The Translation of Economic Power into Political Leverage in the International Monetary System,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1973).
17. A recent statement can be found in Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence. This book has been central to the reformulation of international relations theory attempted by Keohane and Nye, in Transnational Relations and World Politics, pp. 371-98. In addition to Morse's articles quoted in footnote 4 above see also his paper,”Interdependence in World Affairs,” unpublished paper. Ernst B. Haas,”Is there a Hole in the Whole? Knowledge, Technology, Interdependence and the Construction of International Regimes,” International Organization 29, 3 (Summer 1975). Oran R. Young,”Interdependencies in World Politics,” International Journal 24, 1 (Winter 1968-1969): 726-50. Werner J. Feld, Nongovernmental Forces and World Politics: A Study of Business, Labor and Political Groups (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972). Lester R. Brown, World Without Borders (New York: Random House, 1972).
18. John H. Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). Andrew M. Scott, The Revolution in Statecraft: Informal Penetration (New York: Random House, 1965).
19. Edward L. Morse,”Transnational Economic Processes,” in Keohane and Nye, Transnational Relations, p. 40.
20. Russell,”Crisis Management,” pp. 32-35.
21. Edward L. Morse,”The Transformation of Foreign Policies: Modernization, Interdependence and Externalization,” World Politics, 22, 3 (April 1970), pp. 371-92. See also Keohane and Nye,”Interdependence and Integration,” pp. 19-20. Richard N. Rosecrance,”Contemporary Interdependence: An Introduction,” in Richard N. Rosecrance and Arthur Stein (eds.), Interdependence in World Politics (forthcoming).
22. Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence, p. 153. Morse, Foreign Policy and Interdependence, pp. 40-1.
23. Keohane and Nye, Transnational Relations and World Politics, pp. ix-xxix, 371-98. See also Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye,”World Politics and the International Economic System,” in Fred C. Bergsten (ed.), The Future of the International Economic Order: An Agenda for Research (Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath: 1973), pp. 115-79. J.S. Nye,”Oceans Rule Making in a World Politics Perspective,” unpublished paper. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye,”Transgovernmental Relations and International Organization,” World Politics, 27, 1 (October 1974): 39-62. Joseph S. Nye,”Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflicts: An Empirical Analysis,” International Organization, 28, 4 (Autumn 1974): 961-96.
24. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr.,”Introduction: The Complex Politics of Canadian-American Interdependence,” International Organization, 28, 4 (Autumn 1974): 596.
25. Joseph S. Nye, Jr.,”Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflicts,” p. 962.
26. Morse, Foreign Policy and Interdependence, pp. 4, 315-6. Although I have not yet read it, John Zysman's French Industry Between the Market and the State (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, forthcoming) challenges Morse's interpretation.
27. Samuel P. Huntington,”Transnational Organizations in World Politics,” World Politics, 25, 3 (April 1973): 343-5.
28. The same argument has been developed for the security issue in Stanley Hoffmann, Gulliver's Troubles: Or the Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968).
29. Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books edition, 1955). The Federalist (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961).
30. Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 110. The second chapter of Huntington's book is brilliantly wrong in confusing the British and the Continental pattern of political development. Huntington's argument is correct, I would argue, for a comparison of France and the United States.
31. Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (New York: John Wiley, 1964).
32. Mark Kesselman,”Overinstitutionalization and Political Constraint: The Case of France,” Comparative Politics 3, 1 (October 1970): 21-44. Huntington, Political Order, pp. 93-139. Theodor J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York: W.W. Norton, 1969).
33. Stanley Hoffmann, et. al. In Search of France: The Economy, Society and Political System in the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper & Row, Harper Torchbooks, 1965), p. 3. Michel Crozier, The Stalled Society (New York: Viking Press, 1973).
34. Ezra N. Suleiman, Politics, Power and Bureaucracy in France: The Administrative Elite (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 137-80.
35. Suleiman, Bureaucracy in France, pp. 20-1, 349-50. Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy, pp. 89-90. (New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1966).
36. Michel Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Book edition, 1967), pp. 213-27. McConnell, Private Power, pp. 157-368.
37. Arnold M. Rose,”Voluntary Associations in France,” in Arnold M. Rose, Theory and Methods in the Social Sciences (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1954), pp. 72-115.
38. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 30.
39. Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1955), pp. 3-32. Huntington, Political Order, p. 135.
40. Crozier, The Stalled Society; pp. 78-9. McConnell, Private Power, p. 245.
41. Quoted in Suleiman, Bureaucracy in France, p. 336.
42. Raymond Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises (New York: Basic Books, 1971), pp. 205-8, 219-23.
43. Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949).
44. Andrew Shonfield, Modern Capitalist Planning: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 138, 322, 335.
45. Hoffmann, In Search of France, pp. 70-1. Crozier, Stalled Society, pp. 100-3.
46. Suleiman, Bureaucracy in France, chapter 12. Michalet, France, pp. 106-7.
47. Henry W. Ehrmann, Organized Business in France, p. 480. Crozier, Stalled Society, p. 86.
48. Ellis W. Hawley,”Techno-Corporatist Formulas in the Liberal State, 1920-1960: A Neglected Aspect of America's Search for a New Order,” unpublished paper, 1974, p. 31.
49. These categories are adapted from Theodore J. Lowi,”American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies and Political Theory,” World Politics, 16, 4 (July 1964): 677-715. The argument has been updated, revised and extended in Lowi,”Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32 (July-August 1972): 298-310.
50. Charles E. Lindblom,”The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review 19, 2 (Spring 1959): 79-88.
51. Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz,”Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review, 66, 4 (December 1962): 947-52. Bachrach and Baratz,”Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review, 68, 3 (September 1963): 632-42.
52. Gilpin, American Hegemony and the Multinationals. Charles P. Kindleberger, The World in Depression 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
53. Henry W. Ehrmann, Organized Business in France (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 392-401. John H. McArthur and Bruce R. Scott, Industrial Planning in France (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1969), p. 242, footnote 36. Department of Commerce,”Foreign Industrial Nontariff Barriers,” United States International Economic Policy in an Interdependent World: Report to the President Submitted by the Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy Papers, (Vol. 1), p. 688. This report will be quoted as the Williams Commission Report.” McArthur and Scott, Industrial Planning in France, pp. 262-3. See also pp. 220, 305-6.
54. Ibid., p. 129. See also pp. 124-5, 273-6, 449, 462-5.
55. Ibid., pp. 378-82.
56. Cooper, Economics of Interdependence, p. 237.
57. John Sheahan, Promotion and Control of Industry in Postwar France (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 59.
58. Ibid., p. 114.
59. Williams Commission Report, p. 104.
60. Paul Arnaud-Ameller, La France a L'Epreuve de la Concurrence Internationale 1951-1966 (Paris: Armand-Collin, 1970), pp. 112-14. Ehrmann, Organized Business, p. 398.
61. Quoted in New York Times, December 27, 1974, p. 47. See also Dennis C. Pirages,”Strategic Implications of the Energy Crisis,” Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., February 1975, pp. 33-4.
62. McArthur and Scott, Industrial Planning in France, pp. 425-7. John and Anne-Marie Hackett, Economic Planning in France (London: George Allen, 1963), p. 30.
63. Morse, Foreign Policy and Interdependence.
64. Williams Commission Report, pp. 82-3.
65. Department of Commerce,”Foreign Industrial Nontariff Barriers,” pp. 688, 698-9. John W. Evans, The Kennedy Round in American Trade Policy: The Twilight of the GATT? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 259.
66. John C. Rentier,”National Restrictions on International Trade,” in Williams Commission Report: Papers (Vol. 1), p. 667.
67. Bela Balassa, Trade Liberalization among Industrial Countries: Objectives and Alternatives (New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1967), p. 59.
68. Richard N. Cooper,”Trade Policy is Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy 9 (Winter 1972-1973): 27.
69. E. E. Schattschneider, Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study of Free Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929-1930 Revision of the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935). Raymond A. Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool and Lewis Anthony Dexter, American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).
70. Lowi,”American Business,” pp. 692-703.
71. Ibid., pp. 690-1, 692,695.
72. Ibid., p. 697.
73. Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay, p. 209. Jack N. Behrman, U.S. International Business and Governments (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp. 171-273. Jack N. Behiman, National Interests and the Multinational Enterprise: Tensions among the North Atlantic Countries (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1970), pp. 38, 1\-A, 159-60. Harry Magdoff, The Age of Imperialism: The Economics of U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969).
74. Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966).
75. Behrmann, U.S. International Business, pp. 186-8.
76. Harald B. Scott,”Export Expansion for the Seventies… and Beyond,” William Commission Report: Papers (Vol. 1), p. 556.
77. Williams Commission Report, p. 52.
78. Ibid., pp. 120-2.
79. I am following Lowi,”American Business,” pp. 683-4, 699.
80. New York Times, December 22, 1974, Part III, p. 6. A similar argument is made by B.J. Cohen,”U.S. Foreign Economic Policy,” Orbis, 15, 1 (Spring 1971): 232-46.
81. Charles Torem and William Laurence Craig,”Control of Foreign Investment in France,” Michigan Law Review, 66, 4 (February 1968): 669. On French monetary policy see Henrik Schmiegelow and Michele Schmiegelow,”The New Mercantilism in International Relations: The Case of France's External Monetary Policy,” International Organization, 29, 2 (Spring 1975), pp, 367-92.
82. Charles-Albert Michelet,”France,” in Raymond Vernon (ed.), Big Business and the State: Changing Relations in Western Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 122-3. Jack N. Behiman, National Interests and the Multinational Enterprise, pp. 35, 134.
83. McArthur and Scott, Industrial Planning in France, pp. 254-60. Allan W. Johnstone, United States Direct Investment in France: An Investigation of the French Charges (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965). Robert Gilpin, France in the Age of the Scientific State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), pp. 3-76.
84. Behrman, National Interests, pp. 150, 162. Gilles Y. Bertin,”Foreign Investment in France,” in Isaiah A. Litwak and Christopher J. Maule (ed.), Foreign Investment: The Experience of Host Countries (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 119.
85. Behrman, U.S. International Business, pp. 34, 36. Vernon, The Economic and Political Consequences of Multinational Enterprise, p. 183.
86. McArthur and Scott, Industrial Planning in France, pp. 359-68. Behrman, National Interests, pp. 45, 135.
87. Vernon, Economic Consequences, p. 92. Walter Damm,”The Economic Aspects of European Direct Investment in the United States,” in Sidney E. Rolfe and Walter Damm (ed.), The Multinational Corporation in the World Economy (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), pp. 37-8.
88. C. Fred Bergsten,”Coming Investment Wars?” Foreign Affairs, 53, 1 (October 1974): 148. Vernon, Economic Consequences, p. 113.
89. Magdoff, Age of Imperialism. Theodore H. Moran,”Foreign Expansion as an ‘Institutional Necessity’ for U.S. Corporate Capitalism: The Search for a Radical Model,” World Politics, 25, 3 (April 1973): 369-86. Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay, pp. 60-112.
90. Richard Barnet and Ronald MUller,”Multinational Corporations II,” New Yorker, December 9, 1974, p. 100.
91. Gilpin, American Hegemony, chapter 4-11.
92. Charles H. Lipson,”Corporate Preferences and Public Policies: Foreign Aid Sanctions and Investment Protection,” unpublished paper, pp. 4-5, 25-6.
93. US Senate, Committee on Finance, The Multinational Corporation and the World Economy, February 26, 1973, pp. 16-7.
94. Williams Commission Report, p. 178.
95. Bergsten,”Investment Wars,” p. 149.
96. I am following the treatment of GJkp'm's, American Hegemony, chapter 5-15, to 5-21.
97. Quoted in Arthur Stein,”The Kennedy Administration and the Balance of Payments,” Honors Thesis, Cornell University, 1972, p. 43. See the discussion on pp. 35-44.
98. Ibid., p. 58.
99. Cooper, Economics of Interdependence, pp. 137-8.
100. Behrman, U.S. International Business, pp. 204-11.
101. Samuel Pizer,”Capital Restraint Program,” Williams Commission Report: Papers (Vol. 1), p. 100.
102. Behrman, U.S. International Business, pp. 148-53, 184-85.
103. Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay, p. 212.
104. Gilpin, American Hegemony, Chapter 7, p. 24. Behrman, National Interests, p. 135.
105. McArthui and Scott, Industrial Planning in France, pp. 342-59. See also Commissariat Generate du Plan, Commission de l'Energie, Preparation du VF Plan: Rapport du Comiti - Pitrole (La Documentation Franchise, 1971).
106. Adelman, World Petroleum Markets, p. 236.
107. J. E. Hartshorn, Politics and World Oil Economics: An Account of the International Oil Industry in its Political Environment (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967), p. 263.
108. Albert Mulfinger, Auf dem Weg zur gemeinsamen Mineralolpolitik: Die Interventionen der Offentlichen Hand auf dem Gebiet der MineralOlindustrie in Hinblick auf den gemeinschaftlichen Mineralblmarkt (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1972), p. 100.
109. Johnston, United States Direct Investment, pp. 33-4. Sheahan, Promotion and Control, p. 201.
110. Denis Touret, La Rigime Francflise d'Importation du Pitrole et la Communauti Economique Europe'enne (Paris: Pichon et Durand-Auzias, 1968).
111. Johnston, United States Direct Foreign Investment, p. 34.
112. Mulfinger, MineralOlpolitik, pp. 119-21.
113. Ibid., p. 118.
114. Ibid., p. 97. Johnston, United States Direct Investment, pp. 51-2.
115. Ibid., p. 46.
116. Keesing's Contemporary Archives, February 12, 1972, pp. 25083-8.
117. M. A. Adelman,”Is the Oil Shortage Real? Oil Companies as OPEC Tax-Collectors,” Foreign Policy, 9 (Winter 1972-1973): 96.
118. Stephen D. Krasner,”The Great Oilsheikdown,” Foreign Policy, 13 (Winter 1973-1974): 131.
119. Robert Engler, The Politics of Oil: A Study of Private Power and Democratic Directions (New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 9. For a somewhat more balanced but concurring conclusion see Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay, p. 214.
120. Gerald D. Nash, United States Oil Policy 1890-1964: Business and Government in Twentieth Century America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968).
121. Engler, The Politics of Oil, p. 308.
122. Ibid., p. 335.
123. Ibid., p. 277.
124. Gilpin, American Hegemony, pp. 5-19, 5-20.
125. Cooper, Economics of Interdependence, pp. 102-3.
126. Michael Tanzer, The Political Economy of International Oil and the Underdeveloped Countries (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 50-5, 319-44.
127. Edward H. Shaffer, The Oil Import Program of the United States: An Evaluation (New York: Praeger, 1968), pp.13-14.
128. Adelman,”Is the Oil Shortage Real?” p. 78. New York Times, January 12, 1975, p. 36.
129. Alexander Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 5-30.
130. C. Fred Bergsten, Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye,”International Economics and International Politics: A Framework for Analysis,” International Organization 29, 1 (Winter 1975), 18-20. A comparative study of foreign economic policy is, thus, very much a matter of proper perspective. Lowi and others have been right in arguing that foreign policy issues in American politics are treated more consistently than other issues in domestic politics; yet in comparison to France, United States foreign economic policy undeniably looks inconsistent. Similarly, Morse is partially correct in pointing out how international markets have undermined French foreign policy; but he fails to consider that for other governments, like the American, international processes may have primarily political repercussions.