Transgovernmental relations and international organizations

World Politics

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1974, Pages 39-62

  Keohane, Robert O ^a   Nye, Joseph S ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84974250749     PISSN: 00438871     EISSN: 10863338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2009925     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. For a general discussion, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., eds., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, Mass. 1972). For documentation of the point based on a survey of the literature, see John R. Handelman, John A. Vas-quez, Michael K. O’Leary, and William D. Coplin, “Color it Morgenth.au: A Data-Based Assessment of Quantitative International Relations Research,” paper delivered to the International Studies Association, March 1973.
2. Samuel P. Huntington, “Transnational Organizations in World Politics,” World Politics, xxv (April 1973), 333–68; quotations from pp. 338, 339, and 368 respectively.
3. Ibid., 358., Samuel P. Huntington, “Transnational Organizations in World Politics,” World Politics, xxv (April 1973)
4. Ibid., 348–49., Samuel P. Huntington, “Transnational Organizations in World Politics,” World Politics, xxv (April 1973)
5. This is a slight modification of our usage in the volume cited above. We used the term “transnational interactions” to refer to “interactions in which one actor was nongovernmental,” and the term “transnational relations” as a generic category that included both “transnational and transgovernmental interactions.” We have become convinced that this was unnecessarily confusing. For a stimulating critique of our language as well as our ideas, see R. Harrison Wagner, “Dissolving the State: Three Recent Perspectives on International Relations,” International Organization, xxvIII (Spring 1974).
6. Karl Kaiser has been a pioneer in developing arguments about what he calls “multi-bureaucratic politics.” See in particular his “Transnational Politics: Toward a Theory of Multinational Politics,” International Organization, xxv (Autumn 1971), and “Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process,” in Keohane and Nye (fn. I).
7. Testimony of Francis Bator before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, July 25, 1972. U. S. Foreign Economic Policy: Implications for the Organization of the Executive Branch, 110–11.
8. See John F. Campbell, The Foreign Affairs Fudge Factory (New York 1971), 204 ff., for figures on the United States. On Britain, see Anthony Sampson, “The Institutions of British Foreign Policy,” in Karl Kaiser and Roger Morgan, eds., Britain and West Germany: Changing Societies and the Future of Foreign Policy (London 1971).
9. Raymond Bauer, “The Study of Policy Formation,” in Raymond Bauer and Kenneth Gergen, eds., The Study of Policy Formation (New York 1968), 2.
10. M. S. Hochmuth, comments at Transnational Relations Study Group Seminar, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, February 8, 1972.
11. Stephen Krasner, “Are Bureaucracies Important?” Foreign Policy, vII (Summer 1972).
12. New York Times, October 1, 1972.
13. Dale Thompson, Testimony before Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defense, House of Commons (Canada), Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1970.
14. Richard E. Neustadt, Alliance Politics (New York 1970), 37.
15. Gardner Patterson, Discrimination in International Trade: The Policy Issues (Princeton 1966), 36.
16. See K. J. Holsti, “The United States and Canada,” in Steven Spiegel and Kennedi Waltz, eds., Conflict in World Politics (Cambridge, Mass. 1971).
17. New York Times, December 4, 6, and 16, 1971.
18. James Coleman, “Political Money,” American Political Science Review, lxiv (December 1970), 1074–87.
19. See Leon Lindberg and Stuart Scheingold, Europe’s Would-Be Polity (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1970); Lawrence Sheinman, “Some Preliminary Notes on Bureaucratic Relationships in the EEC,” International Organization, xx (Autumn 1966); and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Central American Regional Integration,” International Conciliation, No. 562 (March 1967).
20. This definition is based on the article by William A. Garrison on “Coalitions,” in the International Encyclopedia of Social Science.
21. Theodore Geiger and Roger Hansen, “The Role of Information in Decision Making on Foreign Aid,” in Bauer and Gergen (fn. 9).
22. New York Times, December 9, 1972.
23. Edward Miles, “Transnationalism in Space: Inner and Outer,” in Keohane and Nye (fn. 1).
24. In the cases of the weather bureau and the Spanish bases, the United States Government was divided while the smaller state apparently had a relatively unified policy. In terms of coherence, these relationships were asymmetrical in favor of Canada and Spain, respectively. Spain, Nationalist China, Israel, and Canada are among the countries that have taken advantage of the size and diversity of the United States Government to create asymmetries of coherence in their favor to counter asymmetries of power in favor of the United States. See Robert O. Keohane, “The Big Influence of Small Allies,” Foreign Policy, 11 (Spring 1971). For Canadian cases, see Roger Swanson, ’The United States Canadian Constellation I: Washington, D. C,” International Journal, xxvII (Spring 1972), 185–218; Holsti (fn. 18); and J. S. Nye, “Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflict: An Empirical Analysis,” International Organization, xxvIII (Autumn 1974).
25. J. David Singer and Michael Wallace, “Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System, 1815–1964,” International Organization, xxiv (Spring 1970); Robert C. Angell, Peace on the March: Transnational Participation (New York 1969).
26. Arnold Beichman, The “Other” State Department (New York 1967), 92.
27. Robert W. Cox, “The Executive Head,” International Organization, xxIII (Spring 1969), 225.
28. See, for example, J. S. Nye, “UNCTAD: Poor Nations’ Pressure Group,” in Robert W. Cox and Harold K. Jacobson, eds., The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organization (New Haven 1973).
29. James Magee discusses a situation in which FAO bureaucrats conspired with African governments to thwart the director’s decision to relocate two offices. “EGA and the Paradox of African Cooperation,” International Conciliation, No. 580 (November 1970).
30. See Leon Gordenker, “Multilateral Aid and Influence on Government Policies,” in Robert W. Cox, ed., International Organization: World Politics (London 1969). A related example is provided by the Jackson Report, which indicated that its investigations “revealed example after example where Departmental Ministers have advocated policies in the governing bothes of the particular agency which concerned them (e.g., a Minister of Agriculture in FAO, or a Minister of Education in UNESCO) which were in direct conflict with his government’s policies toward the UN system as a whole.” United Nations, A Study of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System, Vol. I (Geneva 1969), v.
31. See Albert Hirschman, Journeys Toward Progress (New York 1965), 291 ff.
32. Harold K. Jacobson, “WHO: Medicine, Regionalism, and Managed Politics,” in Cox and Jacobson (fn. 32), 214.
33. John G. Ruggie, “The World Weather Watch,” unpub., 1972.
34. Raymond Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Dexter, American Business and Foreign Policy (New York 1963), chap. 35, esp. pp. 472–75.
35. See Harold K. Jacobson, “WHO: Medicine, Regionalism, and Managed Politics,” pp. 194–205; and Robert W. Cox, “ILO: Limited Monarchy,” pp. 114–27, in Cox and Jacobson (fn. 32).
36. Eugene B. Skolnikoff, “Science and Technology: The Implications for International Institutions,” International Organization, xxv (Autumn 1971), 772.
37. James N. Rosenau, “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in R. Barry Farrcll, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, 111. 1966), 73–74. For another suggestive discussion of world politics in terms of networks of systems, see John Burton, Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge 1968), esp. pp. 6–10.
38. For a discussion of the conditions of existence for a system, see the article by Anatol Rapoport on “Systems,” in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, p. 452.
39. This situation was described to us by two government officials. See also Ann Hollick, “Seabeds make Strange Politics,” Foreign Policy, ix (Winter 1972–73).
40. Robert W. Russell, “Transgovernmental Interaction in the International Monetary System, 1960–1972,” International Organization, xxvII (Autumn 1973).
41. See, for example, Angell (fn. 28); and David Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago 1966).
42. Huntington (fn. 2), 338.
43. Ibid., 339., Huntington
44. John G. Ruggie, “The Structure of International Organization: Contingency, Complexity, and Post-Modern Form,” Peace Research Society, Papers, xvIII, 1971, 73–91.