Handbook of Global International Policy pdf

Handbook ofGlobal International Policy edited by Stuart S... Handbook on Public Personnel Administration and Labor Relations, edited by Jack Rabin, Thomas Vocino, W.. Handbook of Public

Handbook of

Global International

Policy

edited by Stuart S Nagel

University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois

M A R C E L

MARCEL DEKKER, INC NEW YORK • BASEL

D E K K E R

ISBN: 0-8247-0346-4

Headquarters

Marcel Dekker, Inc

270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording,

or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publisher

ISBN 0-203-50254-X Master e-book ISBN

(Print Edition)

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s

collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

A Comprehensive Publication Program

Executive Editor

JACK RABIN

Professor of Public Administration and Public Policy

School of Public AffairsThe Capital CollegeThe Pennsylvania State University—Harrisburg

Middletown, Pennsylvania

1 Public Administration as a Developing Discipline (in two parts), Robert T.Golembiewski

2 Comparative National Policies on Health Care, Milton I Roemer, M.D

3 Exclusionary Injustice: The Problem of Illegally Obtained Evidence, Steven

Re-7 Approaches to Planned Change (in two parts), Robert T Golembiewski

8 Program Evaluation at HEW (in three parts), edited by James G Abert

9 The States and the Metropolis, Patricia S Florestano and Vincent L.Marando

10 Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process, Second tion, Revised and Expanded, Jay M Shafritz, Albert C Hyde, and David H.Rosenbloom

Edi-11 Changing Bureaucracies: Understanding the Organization Before Selectingthe Approach, William A Medina

12 Handbook on Public Budgeting and Financial Management, edited by JackRabin and Thomas D Lynch

13 Encyclopedia of Policy Studies, edited by Stuart S Nagel

14 Public Administration and Law: Bench v Bureau in the United States,David H Rosenbloom

15 Handbook on Public Personnel Administration and Labor Relations, edited

by Jack Rabin, Thomas Vocino, W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

16 Public Budgeting and Finance: Behavioral, Theoretical, and Technical spectives, Third Edition, edited by Robert T Golembiewski and Jack Rabin

Per-17 Organizational Behavior and Public Management, Debra W Stewart and

G David Garson

18 The Politics of Terrorism: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, edited

by Michael Stohl

21 Labor Relations in the Public Sector, Richard C Kearney

22 Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public ministration, edited by Jack Rabin and James S Bowman

Ad-23 Making and Managing Policy: Formulation, Analysis, Evaluation, edited by

G Ronald Gilbert

24 Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Third Edition, Revised,Ferrel Heady

25 Decision Making in the Public Sector, edited by Lloyd G Nigro

26 Managing Administration, edited by Jack Rabin, Samuel Humes, and Brian

37 The Guide to the Foundations of Public Administration, Daniel W Martin

38 Handbook of Strategic Management, edited by Jack Rabin, Gerald J.Miller, and W Bartley Hildreth

39 Terrorism and Emergency Management: Policy and Administration, William

43 Government Financial Management Theory, Gerald J Miller

44 Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process, FourthEdition, Revised and Expanded, Jay M Shafritz, Norma M Riccucci, David

H Rosenbloom, and Albert C Hyde

45 Public Productivity Handbook, edited by Marc Holzer

46 Handbook of Public Budgeting, edited by Jack Rabin

47 Labor Relations in the Public Sector: Second Edition, Revised and panded, Richard C Kearney

Ex-49 Handbook of Court Administration and Management, edited by Steven W.Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr.

50 Handbook of Comparative Public Budgeting and Financial Management,edited by Thomas D Lynch and Lawrence L Martin

51 Handbook of Organizational Behavior, edited by Robert T Golembiewski

52 Handbook of Administrative Ethics, edited by Terry L Cooper

53 Encyclopedia of Policy Studies: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded,edited by Stuart S Nagel

54 Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law, edited by David H.Rosenbloom and Richard D Schwartz

55 Handbook of Bureaucracy, edited by Ali Farazmand

56 Handbook of Public Sector Labor Relations, edited by Jack Rabin, ThomasVocino, W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

57 Practical Public Management, Robert T Golembiewski

58 Handbook of Public Personnel Administration, edited by Jack Rabin,Thomas Vocino, W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

59 Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Fifth Edition, FerrelHeady

60 Handbook of Debt Management, edited by Gerald J Miller

61 Public Administration and Law: Second Edition, David H Rosenbloom andRosemary O’Leary

62 Handbook of Local Government Administration, edited by John J Gargan

63 Handbook of Administrative Communication, edited by James L Garnettand Alexander Kouzmin

64 Public Budgeting and Finance: Fourth Edition, Revised and Expanded,edited by Robert T Golembiewski and Jack Rabin

65 Handbook of Public Administration: Second Edition, edited by Jack Rabin,

W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

66 Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The PhilosophicalApproach, edited by Thomas D Lynch and Todd J Dicker

67 Handbook of Public Finance, edited by Fred Thompson and Mark T Green

68 Organizational Behavior and Public Management: Third Edition, Revisedand Expanded, Michael L Vasu, Debra W Stewart, and G David Garson

69 Handbook of Economic Development, edited by Kuotsai Tom Liou

70 Handbook of Health Administration and Policy, edited by Anne OsborneKilpatrick and James A Johnson

71 Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, edited by Gerald

J Miller and Marcia L Whicker

72 Handbook on Taxation, edited by W Bartley Hildreth and James A.Richardson

73 Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in the Asia-Pacific Basin,edited by Hoi-kwok Wong and Hon S Chan

74 Handbook of Global Environmental Policy and Administration, edited byDennis L Soden and Brent S Steel

75 Handbook of State Government Administration, edited by John J Gargan

76 Handbook of Global Legal Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

77 Handbook of Public Information Systems, edited by G David Garson

78 Handbook of Global Economic Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

79 Handbook of Strategic Management: Second Edition, Revised and panded, edited by Jack Rabin, Gerald J Miller, and W Bartley Hildreth

Ex-Expanded, edited by Robert T Golembiewski

82 Handbook of Global Political Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

83 Handbook of Global Technology Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

84 Handbook of Criminal Justice Administration, edited by Toni Morales, Michael K Hooper, and Judy H Schmidt

DuPont-85 Labor Relations in the Public Sector: Third Edition, edited by Richard C.Kearney

86 Handbook of Administrative Ethics: Second Edition, Revised andExpanded, edited by Terry L Cooper

87 Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Second Edition, Revised and panded, edited by Robert T Golembiewski

Ex-88 Handbook of Global Social Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel and AmyRobb

89 Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Sixth Edition, FerrelHeady

90 Handbook of Public Quality Management, edited by Ronald J Stupak andPeter M Leitner

91 Handbook of Public Management Practice and Reform, edited by KuotsaiTom Liou

92 Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process, Fifth Edition,Jay M Shafritz, Norma M Riccucci, David H Rosenbloom, Katherine C.Naff, and Albert C Hyde

93 Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management, edited by Ali Farazmand

94 Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration: SecondEdition, Revised and Expanded, edited by Ali Farazmand

95 Financial Planning and Management in Public Organizations, Alan WalterSteiss and‘Emeka O Cyprian Nwagwu

96 Handbook of International Health Care Systems, edited by Khi V Thai,Edward T Wimberley, and Sharon M McManus

97 Handbook of Monetary Policy, edited by Jack Rabin and Glenn L Stevens

98 Handbook of Fiscal Policy, edited by Jack Rabin and Glenn L Stevens

99 Public Administration: An Interdisciplinary Critical Analysis, edited by EranVigoda

100 Ironies in Organizational Development: Second Edition, Revised and panded, edited by Robert T Golembiewski

Ex-101 Science and Technology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism, edited byTushar K Ghosh, Mark A Prelas, Dabir S Viswanath, and Sudarshan K.Loyalka

102 Strategic Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Alan WalterSteiss

103 Case Studies in Public Budgeting and Financial Management: SecondEdition, Revised and Expanded, edited by Aman Khan and W BartleyHildreth

Principles and Practices of Public Administration, edited by Jack Rabin,Robert F Munzenrider, and Sherrie M Bartell

Handbook of Developmental Policy Studies, edited by Stuart S NagelHandbook of Conflict Management, edited by William J Pammer, Jr., andJerri Killian

Annals of Public Administration

1 Public Administration: History and Theory in Contemporary Perspective,edited by Joseph A Uveges, Jr

2 Public Administration Education in Transition, edited by Thomas Vocinoand Richard Heimovics

3 Centenary Issues of the Pendleton Act of 1883, edited by David H senbloom with the assistance of Mark A Emmert

Ro-4 Intergovernmental Relations in the 1980s, edited by Richard H Leach

5 Criminal Justice Administration: Linking Practice and Research, edited byWilliam A Jones, Jr

Harold Guetzkow, Ernst Haas, Charles Lerche,Frank Magruder, Frederick Schuman, and Quincy Wright.

This handbook on global international policy is one in a set of six global policyhandbooks The other five deal with economic, technology, social, political, andlegal policy.

Public policy studies in the past have tended to emphasize domestic policyrather than cross-national policy This has been especially true of American pol-icy studies, which tend to be especially nation-bound This is also true, to someextent, of policy studies in France, Russia, China, Brazil, and elsewhere.When American policy studies show an interest in other countries, theseother countries tend to be exclusively Western European countries This six-volume set, however, will include all the regions of the world, consisting of Af-rica, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America, and Western Europe.Public policy studies also tend to place a lot of emphasis on methods ofanalysis and the policy process They do not get much into substance, especially

at the professional or scholarly level, as contrasted to undergraduate textbooks.That is so because scholars have traditionally considered substance to be not asphilosophical or theoretical as methods or processes

In this six-volume set, however, each volume is devoted to a different stantive field, including economic, technology, social, political, international, andlegal policy The discussions are more theoretical than most substantive discus-sions because they emphasize comparisons across places, across times, and acrossdifferent substantive fields Furthermore, the discussions are practical in terms

sub-of applicability to real-world problems

Scholars and others who study comparative government unfortunately tend

to overemphasize structures like federalism, separation of powers, legislatures,

v

chief executives, and supreme courts while neglecting public policy, which thisseries emphasizes.

Comparative government scholars also tend to emphasize area studieswhich involve specialization in a single country or subregion, as contrasted tothis set of six volumes which cuts across six regions and six policy fields.Thus the key objective of this set is to encourage more cross-national andcross-policy research and applications The set not only advocates more of thiskind of research but practices what it advocates by providing almost 200 studies

in six volumes which average about 30 studies per volume This should be alandmark set in the disciplines of both public policy studies and cross-nationalstudies

Stuart S Nagel

Preface v

Stuart S Nagel

2 What Price Empire? A Study of Costs and Benefits of American

5 A Problem-Centered Approach for Understanding Foreign

Policy: Some Examples from U.S Foreign Policy Toward

Helen E Purkitt

vii

6 Beginning and Ending the Cold War in East Asia 103

12 From the Brezhnev Doctrine to Partnership: The New

15 National Culture or International Trade? The Labour

Des Freedman

16 International Integration/Subnational Conflict: The Zapatistas

18 Elite Images and Post–Cold War Foreign Policy

Dorcas Eva McCoy

19 Emerging Trends in International Security: American Foreign

21 Security Policy at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age: The Case of

Carolyn C James

22 Expanding the Existing Nuclear Disarmament Regime:

George A MacLean

23 Economic Development and International Transportation Along

the Border: Exploring Feasibility Issues for State and Local

Nadia Rubaii-Barrett and William A Taggart

Seifudein Adem Institute of Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki,Japan

Heriberto Cairo Facultad de Ciencias Polı´ticas y Sociologı´a, UniversidadComplutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

John F Clark Department of International Relations, Florida InternationalUniversity, Miami, Florida

Adolfo Leo´n Atehortu´a Cruz Estudios Juridicos, Universidad del Valle, Cali,Colombia

Des Freedman School of Social Sciences, University of North London, don, England

Lon-Gregory O Hall Department of Political Science, St Mary’s College of land, St Mary’s City, Maryland

Mary-Efraim Inbar Department of Political Science, Bar-Ilan University, RamatGan, Israel

Carolyn C James International Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics,Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

xi

Ljubica Jelusˇic˘ Defence Studies Division, Department of Political Sciences,Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Quan Li Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, versity Park, Pennsylvania

Uni-George A MacLean Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

J Donovan Malley Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Gavan McCormack Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, AustralianNational University, Canberra, Australia

Dorcas Eva McCoy Department of Political Science, University of CentralFlorida, Orlando, Florida

Stuart S Nagel Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana,Illinois

Joseph L Nogee Department of Political Science, University of Houston,Houston, Texas

Laure Paquette Department of Political Science, Lakehead University, der Bay, Ontario, Canada

Thun-Robert H Puckett Department of Political Science, Indiana State University,Terre Haute, Indiana

Helen E Purkitt Political Science Department, United States Naval Academy,Annapolis, Maryland

Nadia Rubaii-Barrett Department of Government, New Mexico State sity, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Univer-Glen Segell Institute of Security Policy, London, England

William A Taggart Department of Government, New Mexico State sity, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Univer-Ramesh Thakur Department of Peace and Governance, United Nations versity, Tokyo, Japan

Uni-Andrew H Ziegler, Jr. Department of Political Science, Methodist College,Fayetteville, North Carolina

International Policy

An Introduction

Stuart S Nagel

University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

Win-win or super-optimizing analysis of public policy problems tries to find sible solutions which can enable conservatives, liberals, and other major view-points to come out ahead of their best initial expectations simultaneously Theelements in the analysis include (1) conservative goals and alternatives, (2) liberalgoals and alternatives, (3) relations between the major alternatives and goals, (4)the development of win-win solutions, and (5) feasibility hurdles to overcome.The feasibility hurdles to be overcome include economic, administrative, politi-cal, psychological, legal, international, and technological hurdles, also the disrup-tion of displaced firms and individuals

fea-As applied to international policy we are referring to (1) international petitiveness, (2) tariff reduction, (3) making provisions for workers displaced as

com-a result of tcom-ariff reduction, (4) immigrcom-ation policy, (5) interncom-ationcom-al refugees, (6)volunteerism in technical assistance, (7) foreign factories in the United States,(8) U.S factories going abroad, (9) dollar exchange rates, (10) international eco-nomic communities, and (11) exporting democracy in making foreign policy deci-sions.1

1

I INTERNATIONAL POLICY: THE U.S AND THE UNITED

NATIONS

A Conservative and Liberal Positions

The key conservative goal in this context, relating to the role of the United States

in helping the United Nations to bring peace to Bosnia, is to save U.S dollarsand save lives The conservatives weren’t always so oriented toward isolation.They were very interventionist back in the days of the cold war, especially inregard to curtailing the expansion of the Soviet Union But at the present time,they do espouse more of an isolationist, less of an intervention, policy than liber-als do The conservative alternative for saving U.S dollars and lives is to keepU.S troops at home They feel it’s more important to develop the United Statesfirst The liberals, on the other hand, are more oriented toward being the police-men of the world traveling around with the goal of promoting world peace (Table1) More idealistic or maybe more naive, they believe in what is sometimes re-ferred to as a social worker ideology, which necessitates intervention

B Win-Win Solution

The win-win solution saves U.S dollars, U.S lives, and promotes world peacesimultaneously An approach recommended by some who specialize in interna-tional relations is the use of a volunteer UN force This would result in Americantroops never being sent to Bosnia, Somalia, or anywhere else The United Nations

Criteria

Liberal:Conservative: Promote peace,Saving U.S prosperity, and

would have its own volunteer force, a force similar to the French Foreign Legion.

It would consist of people from all over the world who would join partly out ofidealism, partly because it pays some money They would not be allowed to joinunless they had some military experience of some kind, indicating an aptitudefor military training It would provide an opportunity for Vietnam War veterans,Russian soldiers who had fought in Afghanistan, and others to participate in aforce which would be devoted to a righteous cause The officers would be officerswho had served in the militaries of their various countries

As a result there would be no American soldiers in this UN force WhileAmericans may join the UN force, they would be Americans acting on their own.They would be volunteering to serve They would not be drafted or, as in thecase of current Americans serving in Bosnia, ordered to go because their unitwas called These soldiers are not completely volunteers Soldiers in the UNforce would be pure volunteers, pure in the sense they would be joining with theagreement to go wherever they are sent If they refuse to go, for ideological orother reasons, then an option can be provided where they can quit In such a case

it might be fair to have them pay back something in return for their training.Such an arrangement has many possibilities

A plan such as this hypothetical UN force has been opposed in the past

by the United States because it was feared that the UN could not be trusted tohave its own volunteer force Strictly by the numbers, the UN in the past has beentoo much under the control of developing nations or nations under the control ofthe Soviet Union But now, with the breakup of the Soviet Union, the UnitedStates dominates the UN as the only super power in the world The volunteerforce would not be a threat to the United States Though a bit behind in its pay-ments, the United States is the leading source of funds to the UN, which furtheradds to its influence If the United States doesn’t like what the volunteer force

is doing, it could just cut off the funding, use its veto power in the SecurityCouncil, or use its influence among other countries This kind of volunteer forcewould prevent American lives and American dollars from being used, yet it couldstill be very effective in promoting world peace It is possible that the volunteerforce might call upon member countries to supply additional troops at some time,but this would be handled as the need arose This represents another kind of win-win solution

One feasibility problem for this issue is the psychological problem It would

be conceived that such a force might represent the muscle behind some type ofworld government which could partly deprive the United States of its sovereignty.Some countries might fear the volunteer force will march in and take over Aswith all the other obstacles, it’s necessary for this problem to be overcome if thiswin-win solution has any hope of being adopted People have to realize that a

UN volunteer is not be a threat to them In no way would the people with bluehelmets serving in Bosnia invade the United States.2

II INTERNATIONAL PROSPERITY

A Exchange of Goods

1 Improving International Competitiveness

The conservative position (evident in the Bush Administration) has been to phasize that government regulation increases business expenses and thereby re-duces international competitiveness The liberal position (evident in the CarterAdministration) has been to emphasize the need to lower tariffs, break-up monop-olies, and encourage more labor-management teamwork The neutral position hasbeen to avoid substantial changes in regulation, tariffs, and other such controver-sies

em-The SOS alternative (evident in some elements of the Clinton tion) is to emphasize government investment in technological diffusion and theupgrading of skills (Table 2) This alternative is capable of increasing the profits

Administra-of business and the wages Administra-of labor It can also result in better products at lowerprices for both domestic and international markets

2 Evaluating Alternative Positions on Tariffs

On the issue of tariffs, conservatives who believe in free competitive markets bothinternationally and domestically tend to favor low tariffs (Table 3) Likewise, so

do liberals who have an internationalistic orientation and who recognize the tual benefits from buying overseas goods that have low prices, high quality, andthe ability to stimulate competitive activity on the part of American firms

GoalsConservative: Liberal:

Table 3 Tariff Height

GoalsConservative: Liberal:

Conservative:

1 Pro-business conservatives, high tariffs ⫹ ⫺

2 Free world market conservatives, low tariffs

Liberal:

2 International liberals, low tariffs

Neutral:

SOS OR WIN-WIN:

On the other hand, conservatives who support monopolistic American nesses with their unreasonable profits are in favor of high tariffs Likewise, pro-union liberals who do not want foreign competition are also in favor of hightariffs

busi-Traditionally, American conservatives have supported high tariffs, andAmerican liberals have supported low tariffs The new SOS position is to supportlow or no tariffs, especially to stimulate worldwide competition to the long-runbenefit of more efficient production and more prosperous consumption.The object is to develop plans for well-placed subsidies and tax breaks thatwill enable the United States to compete effectively for world market shareswithout the interference and mutual downgrading of high tariffs That especiallymeans encouraging the adoption and diffusion of new technologies, and the up-grading of worker skills to be able to put the new technologies to good use Theresult, at least in the long run, is likely to be high business profits, high workers’wages, low consumer prices, high consumer quality, and lower tax rates in view

of the increased Gross National Product (GNP) as a tax base

3 Getting Japan and Other Countries to Reduce Tariffs

On this policy problem, conservatives and liberals have the same general goal

of reducing foreign tariffs In order to be a controversy, there must be a difference

of opinion as to the best alternative to use in achieving that goal

The conservative position tends to emphasize retaliatory raising of tariffs

as the most effective way of reducing foreign tariffs The liberal position tends

to emphasize negotiation and bargaining without explicit threats, but with ises of mutual tariff reduction The neutral position is some of both.

prom-There is a controversy here because conservatives and liberals perceivedifferently the relations between the alternatives and their shared goal The con-servative perception is that threats will accomplish their goals, but conciliatorynegotiation will not The liberals perceive that negotiating is more likely to workwell, and that threats will not

In calculating the total scores, conservatives give more weight to their ceptions than to the perceptions of liberals Likewise, liberals give more weight

per-to their perceptions On a 1–3 scale, each group gives a weight or multiplier ofabout 3 to its own perceptions, and a weight of about 1 to the other group’sperceptions

The super optimum solution (SOS) should be perceived as doing betterthan the neutral alternative by both conservatives and liberals (see Table 4) Thatenables the SOS to score higher on the conservative totals than the conservativealternative, and higher on the liberal totals than the liberal alternative

The SOS might include a subsidy to enable efficient domestic producers

to bypass the foreign tariff For example, if U.S rice producers are unable to sell

to Japanese consumers because there is a $1 tariff on each bushel of rice, then

it might be worthwhile for the U.S government to subsidize the rice farmers tothe extent of $.90 per bushel This may be enough to enable the U.S rice produc-

GoalsConservative: Liberal:

1 Reducing 1 Reducingforeign tariffs foreign tariffsAlternatives 2 Conservative perception 2 Liberal perceptionConservative:

ers to make a profit in spite of the Japanese tariff It would be worth it to theU.S government if the subsidy enables a lot of people to stay employed andbrings in a large amount of income to add to the GNP Otherwise, the subsidymay not be cost-effective Such a subsidy is more likely to make sense wherethe Japanese government is under intense pressure from a politically powerfulJapanese industry to retain the tariff.

The SOS can also include positive incentives An example might be thatthe U.S will agree to share in developing or marketing a new technology withJapan in return for a lowering of the tariff on rice That positive incentive may beenough to stimulate the Japanese government to find a different way to subsidizeJapanese rice farmers, rather than providing them with a tariff which hurts Japa-nese food consumption

4 Negotiating Free Trade in Farm Products

Table 5 is based on a September, 1993 news report that the United States wasseeking to have France reduce its subsidies to French soybean farmers A $1subsidy can have the same effect as a $1 tariff In the case of the $1 tariff, a $2quantity of U.S soybeans costs the French consumer $3, which is higher thanthe $2.50 that the French farmer charges In the case of the $1 subsidy, the Frenchfarmer can make a profit by charging $1.50, which undercuts the $2 charged bythe American farmer

The conservative U.S negotiator would threaten a big tariff increase onFrench wines to force the soybean subsidy down That may help American wine

GoalsConservative: Liberal:Aid U.S producers Aid U.S consumers

producers, but it hurts American wine consumers The liberal U.S negotiatormay lower U.S wine tariffs (expecting France to reciprocate) without receivingmuch in return That hurts U.S wine producers, but it helps American wine con-sumers.

The SOS may be to agree to lower the U.S tariff on French wines if France

will lower the subsidy on French soybeans The result is that U.S soybean ducers, U.S wine consumers, and French soybean consumers are all helped.The reciprocal arrangement is a net plus to the United States if we havemore soybean producers than wine producers, and if the U.S wine producerscan be diverted into something more profitable The arrangement is also a netplus to France if they have more wine producers than soybean producers, andthe French soybean producers can be diverted into something more profitable.This kind of mutually beneficial reciprocal tariff reduction is a good exam-ple of an SOS solution where all sides come out ahead This can be contrasted

pro-to a neutral compromise between a retaliapro-tory increase and a unilateral decrease.Such a compromise which results in retaining the tariffs may hurt U.S soybeanproducers, U.S wine consumers, French wine producers, and French soybeanconsumers The harm is greater than a reciprocal reduction, although not so bad

as a retaliatory tariff increase of French wines, which may even increase Frenchfarm subsidies, rather than reduce them

5 The North American Free Trade Agreement

U.S exporters and investors are helped by free trade with Mexico because (1)Mexicans can buy more U.S products if there are no Mexican tariffs artificiallyraising the price of American products, (2) Mexicans can buy more U.S products

if they have more income as a result of working in factories that have expanded

as a result of American capital, and (3) U.S investors can make money and add

to the U.S GNP by investing in Mexican factories which are now able to export

to the United States because U.S tariffs have been dropped

U.S consumers are helped by free trade with Mexico because (1) they canbuy products made in Mexico at lower prices because they no longer have a U.S.tariff artificially raising the prices, (2) they can benefit from low prices that shouldresult from decreased labor expenses associated with some products made inMexico, possibly stimulated with American capital, and (3) U.S consumers in-clude business firms that buy producer goods less expensively from Mexico andthereby make American firms more internationally competitive

U.S firms and workers who are not sufficiently competitive would be hurt

by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but this can be mized by (1) retraining workers and firms so they can be more competitive intheir old products or new products, (2) side agreements with Mexico that requireupgrading of labor standards in Mexico, and (3) disrupted workers and firms may

mini-benefit from the increased prosperity of the United States as a result of moreexporting, better overseas investing, and better buys for U.S consumers.Mexicans can benefit in the same ways as Americans by just substitutingfor the three goals (see Table 6) (1) non-competitive Mexican (2) Mexican export-ers and investors, firms and workers, and (3) Mexican consumers.

The opponents of NAFTA are referred to in Table 6 as conservatives, andthe advocates are referred to as liberals That is done partly to simplify the calcu-lation of the tools It is also in accordance with the fact that conservatives havetraditionally been in favor of high tariffs, although in recent years that is lesstrue than in the period of 1800 through the 1930s

B Exchange of People

1 U.S Immigration Policy

Saying that conservatives favor more restrictions on immigration than liberals

do is not quite true Those who favor restrictions do tend to be people who size racial purity, but also working people who resist immigrant competition

Goals

Liberal:Conservative: 1 U.S exportersNon-competitive U.S and investors

Likewise, those who favor relaxing restrictions may be liberals who want to vide opportunities to minority people from developing nations, but also conserva-tive business people who welcome cheap labor (Table 7).

pro-Greatly restricting immigration could refer to having very low quotas fordifferent parts of the world It could refer to requiring jobs in advance or havingrelatives in the United States Mildly restricting immigration means allowingmuch higher immigration figures and not requiring jobs in advance Greatly re-stricting immigration does tend to avoid unemployment of American workers atleast in the short run In the long run, ambitious immigrants may enhance theeconomy so as to provide more employment opportunities Mildly restrictingimmigration does welcome ambitious people, although it may also welcome peo-ple who could be a drain on the economy

An SOS solution that enables all sides to come out ahead might emphasizejobs for displaced workers That would mean special programs to upgrade theskills or workers in areas where there is high immigration An SOS solutionmight also emphasize ambition criteria in determining who is eligible to come

to the United States Such criteria might favor those who are themselves seekinghigher education or educational opportunities for their children Such criteriamight exclude people who have a high probability of being on public aid, asindicated by various predictive characteristics, including responses to interviews

If an immigrant does commit a crime or wrongly applies for public aid, he can

be sent back with both a free ticket and a suspended sentence to be reinstituted

if he breaks the terms of the sentence

Goals

Liberal:Conservative: Welcome

in partly to help them, out of sympathy, but also in recognition that they mayprovide useful labor and innovative ideas through themselves or their children.The compromise is to let some refugees in, but on a selective basis with restric-tions.

The SOS solution might be to upgrade the skills of international refugeesthrough organized international efforts, possibly under the direction of the UnitedNations With greater skills, the refugees might be more acceptable to both con-servatives and liberals, given their increased productivity and ability to enhancethe economies of the countries to which the refugees go

3 Volunteerism in Technical Assistance

Hiring expensive, experienced technicians for technical assistance programs may

be highly effective in producing results desired by liberals, but it is contrary

to cost-saving desired by conservatives Relying on the initiative of idealisticvolunteers like missionaries may not be effective, but would be cost-efficient The

Goals

Liberal:Conservative: Promote quality of lifeAlternatives Protect national purity of refugees and societyConservative:

neutral compromise is to have volunteers in the field, but salaried professionals inWashington government agencies like the Peace Corps (Table 9).

Each major alternative can be referred to as Position 1 and Position 2, ratherthan as conservative or liberal Position 1 (relying on volunteers) is conservative

in having low cost, but not conservative in producing pro-business results tion 2 (relying on paid professionals) is liberal or generous in spending, but notliberal in results in being pro-labor or pro-consumer

Posi-The SOS alternative might be to work through professional associations.For example, engineering associations would actively recruit engineering volun-teers Lawyer associations would recruit lawyer volunteers, and so on One wouldthereby get high experts for the price of idealistic volunteers

C Exchange of Factories

1 Foreign Factories in the United States

The basic issue here is whether encouraging foreign-owned factories to locate

in the United States provides more benefits than costs in terms of national ployment and income (Table 10) The benefits mainly consist of providing jobsfor Americans who work in factories The costs mainly consist of increasing thecompetitiveness of foreign firms to take away American customers from Ameri-can firms and thereby decrease employment in those American firms

em-Encouragement of foreign-owned factories could consist of tax benefits andsubsidies or simply being allowed in on an equal basis with American factories.The issue is similar to the issue of allowing foreign products into the UnitedStates on an equal basis with American products, meaning no tariffs or otherrestrictions Doing so is good for the American consumer It also stimulates

GoalsConservative:

Table 10 Foreign Factories in the United States

GoalsConservative: Liberal:

American business to operate more efficiently It also facilitates American firms

in being able to sell overseas

In addition to the same consumer benefits of now having tariffs on foreignproducts, encouraging foreign-owned factories in the United States providesAmerican job opportunities It does, however, increase foreign competitiveness

by reducing their transportation costs It may also make American consumersmore willing to buy foreign products knowing that the products have been made

in the United States, even though the firm is headquartered elsewhere

There is currently division within the Clinton Administration on this issue,but those in favor of encouraging foreign-owned factories are winning on thegrounds that there is a net increase in jobs and other benefits

The Clinton compromise may result in a net increase in jobs, but (at least

in the short run) it also results in a decrease in the profits of competing Americanbusinesses Although, the net increase in jobs may result in an overall increase

in the GNP, more than offsetting the decrease in profits

An SOS solution would seek to increase both U.S jobs (thereby pleasingliberals) and U.S profits (thereby pleasing conservatives) Such a solution wouldpermit foreign-owned factories, with the jobs that they offer, to locate in theUnited States At the same time though, public policy would seek to improvethe competitiveness of U.S firms so they would not be driven out of business

by the foreign-owned factories That could be done by establishing training grams to upgrade the skills of the workers The business firms could also begiven funding to facilitate adopting new, more efficient technologies This combi-nation of training and technologies should enable the firms resisting foreign-owned factories to be able to withstand the competition At the same time, there

pro-is a big enough market to allow the incoming foreign factories to be profitable

An SOS solution might also provide temporary investment money to enableAmerican firms to build factories overseas to be closer to foreign markets Thatmay be a separate issue, although related Doing so provides jobs for foreignworkers There may still be a net gain to the U.S GNP if the foreign sales bring

in U.S income that more than offsets the loss of jobs to foreign workers Thismay be especially so if U.S factories overseas are supplemented by an expansion

of related factories in the United States in order to supply those overseas factorieswith parts and related products

2 U.S Factories Going Abroad

The problem here is whether there should be any restrictions or encouragementrelating to American companies locating factories abroad (Table 11) The conser-vative position is no restrictions The liberal position is to prohibit U.S firmsfrom locating abroad when doing so involves going below American fair laborstandards as in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) statutes A compromiseposition would be to allow companies to locate factories abroad with a relaxing

of the FLSA standards but still making them at least partly applicable

Conservatives are interested in promoting business profits Liberals are terested in promoting employment for American labor under good wages andworking conditions Business profits are promoted if an overseas factory hascloser access to customers, raw materials, or skilled inexpensive labor Thoseprofits become part of an increased U.S national income Locating factories over-

GoalsConservative: Liberal:Alternatives Business profits Good working conditionsConservative:

Liberal:

lating fair labor standards

2 Import tax on goods made with

un-fair labor standards

seas can also facilitate selling abroad which helps in the trade deficit whereby

we would otherwise be buying substantially more than we would be selling TheU.S factories operating abroad may be producing products especially for theAmerican market which can be sold at a lower price to Americans than if theproducts were made in factories located in the United States, where labor andresources might be more expensive

The disruption to American employment can be reduced in various ways.One is to have free trade agreements with foreign countries whereby they agree

to establish and enforce fair labor standards on American companies and othercompanies Another approach is to subsidize the upgrading of relevant Americanlabor skills to make American labor more competitive, or to enable displacedworkers to go into other higher paying jobs A third approach might be to place

an import tax on goods made with unfair labor standards by U.S.-owned nies or others The companies could avoid the tax by upgrading their foreignlabor standards

compa-The three-part approach could be considered as moving in a super-optimumdirection where both business and labor come out ahead In the long run, the freemovement of goods and factories across international boundaries would have theeffect of raising the national income of all the countries involved, thereby produc-ing a more general super-optimum solution

The problem of U.S factories going abroad especially relates to factoriesmoving to developing nations like Mexico or Southeast Asia A partial justifica-tion is that doing so helps those developing nations to build their economies

so they can become better customers for American products, better suppliers toAmerican producers and consumers, and better outlets for American investment.For example, wages earned by Mexican workers in U.S factories located in Mex-ico can be an important part of the ability of Mexicans to buy American goods

D General Exchange Facilitators

1 Dollar Exchange Rates

A high dollar value means that $1 will buy many units of the currencies of othercountries (Table 12) A low dollar value means that $1 will buy relatively fewunits of the countries If the dollar has a relatively high value, then we havedifficulty selling to other countries because they have to give a lot of units oftheir currencies in order to get a dollar If the dollar has relatively low value,then we have difficulty buying from other countries because Americans have togive a lot of dollars in order to get the currencies of other countries

If we concentrate on improving the quality and prices of American goods,then we can sell a lot of American goods to other countries without lowering thevalue of the dollar A big effect of selling a lot more to other countries is the

Table 12 Value of the Dollar

GoalsConservative: Liberal

increase in the American national income That enables us to have a lot moremoney to buy from other countries without raising the value of the dollar.Thus, improving the quality and price of American goods through upgrad-ing technologies and skills is a good SOS solution because it can achieve bothgoals of increased buying and increased selling simultaneously This is in contrast

to manipulating the value of the dollar which achieves one goal but does notachieve the other goal in a typical tradeoff pattern

2 International Economic Communities

The relations between each alternative and each goal in creating internationaleconomic communities can be shown on a 1-5 relations scale (Table 13) A 5means highly conducive to the goal, a 4 means mildly conductive, a 3 meansneither conducive nor adverse, a 2 means mildly adverse, and a 1 means highlyadverse to the goal

The conservative goal is given a weight or multiplier of 3 by conservatives

on a 1-3 scale of weights, but a weight of 1 by liberals The liberal goal is given

a weight or multiplier of 1 by conservatives, but a weight of 3 by liberals

A single plus sign shows the winning alternative on the liberal totals beforeconsidering the SOS alternative It is likely to be the liberal alternative A singleplus sign can also show the alternative that wins on the conservative totals beforeconsidering the SOS alternative It is likely to be the conservative alternative.Double plus signs can show the alternative or alternatives that win on eachtotal after the super-optimum solution (SOS) is considered The SOS should score

Table 13 International Economic Communities

Goals

Liberal:Quality of lifeConservative: in terms of jobsNational identity and consumer

on the conservative goal of national identity and stature No sovereignty is given

up Each member of the community gains some stature by being associated with

a larger, more powerful body than itself The IEC also promotes the liberal goal

of quality of life in terms of jobs and consumer goods by (1) allowing for thefree flow of job applicants across international boundaries, (2) removing tariffbarriers to higher consumer standards of living, and (3) providing for a betterdivision of labor among the countries which facilitates more jobs and more con-sumer goods.3

A Humanitarian Versus National Interest Criteria in

Making Foreign Policy Decisions

When people differ on foreign policy the differences are not that liberals are infavor of a kind of soft or pacifist or humanitarian foreign policy and the conserva-tives are in favor of a tough foreign policy That is an absolute myth It all depends

on who the enemy is It is interesting how flexible conservatives can be when

the enemy is Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and how tough they can be when theenemy is Communist Russia in the 1960s or 1970s.

Also, the distinction between national interest and humanitarian criteriashould not be considered the same thing as hard-line and pacifist (Table 14) Onecan advocate a humanitarian approach for highly mercenary, hard-nosed reasons.The material in the SOS Policy book (see note 1) does that partly by saying thathumanitarian foreign policy is good business We do much better business withdemocratic governments than with dictatorial ones We can defend encouragingdemocracy on do-gooder grounds, but that is normally not very effective If itcan be defended on money-in-the-pocket grounds, it gets more support.Also, from a purely military perspective, promoting democracy is good

We have better allies among democratic countries than among dictatorial tries France and England are more likely to be allies of the United States in anyworld conflict than whatever dictatorships are left in the world, or past ones likeFranco’s Spain By definition, nationalistic dictators are not very cooperative.One thing that keeps fascists from taking over the world is they are so nationalisticthey cannot work well with each other, whereas democracies can

coun-If one talks about the issue as being national interest versus humanitarianinterest, then we really have a tradeoff situation

GoalsLiberal:Democracy includingConservative: free speech and

3 Freedom of religion conditions

4 Free speech conditions

Notes: Trade also leads to conditions 2, 3, and 4 Conditions 2, 3, and 4 may be agreed to in return for a reduction in charges of copyright piracy and for an increase in technology transfer (including student exchange); more important than aid Winners are U.S conservatives, U.S liberals, China, and other countries.

1 The national interest people sound like some kind of hard-heartedgroup that wants to be friends with any dictator that is pro-American.

2 The humanitarian interest people sound like a bunch of softies thatwant to maybe go to war on behalf of anybody that claims to be in favor ofdemocracy, although the usual humanitarian types just endorse democratic gov-ernments but are not willing to fight for them They still come out as being naiveregardless whether they are pacifists or aggressive humanitarians

3 When the issue is stated in those terms, it is hard to find a compromise.With a compromise, the national interest people sound like they are giving upthe national interest, and the humanitarian people sound like they are being inhu-mane One way to decrease the possibility of a compromise or an SOS solution is

to label one side Total Righteousness I, and the other side Total Righteousness II.The point made here is not so much that talking in terms of national interestversus humanitarian interest leads to an inherent tradeoff conflict One point thatcan be made is that the people who claim to be advocating the national interestare usually advocating their own ideological interest in the sense that both liberalsand conservatives tend to take a hard-line, hawkish position depending on whothe external enemy is Likewise, the humanitarians are highly flexible depending

on who the external enemy is Conservatives may show great humanitarian cern for what is going to happen to blacks in South Africa if there is a U.S.boycott of South African products They do not, however, show such interestabout blacks in the United States

A super-pacifist will support not going to war against Hitler Likewise, asuper-hawk would support going to war against Canada if Canada says somethingnasty, regardless what effect going to war has on America’s economic interest

or whether the other country is capitalistic, socialistic, dictatorial or democratic.The super-hawk overreacts to insults regardless where they come from The com-mon hawk only overreacts to insults if they come from, for example, a communistgovernment, but this type of person thinks nothing of the pro-American Turkish

government torturing American prisoners as long as they stay pro-American withregard to allowing American air bases That is one reason the cold war hawks

do not like Amnesty International, because AI finds fault with pro-Americangovernments at times, and even with the United States government

This introduction is not meant so much to be a taxonomy of hawks anddoves and national interest people versus humanitarian people It is meant totalk about how supporting democracy in dispute resolution and foreign policy issuper-optimum solution It simultaneously promotes both the national interestand humanitarian considerations.4

This Handbook on International Policy contains chapters dealing with the

above international issues and other international issues The chapters are nized in terms of international policy in Africa, Asia, East Europe, and Latin andNorth America

orga-NOTES

1 For further details on win-win analysis, see Nagel, S (1997) Super-Optimum tions and Win-Win Policy: Basic Concepts and Principles Westport, CT: Quorum;Nagel, S (1998) Public Policy Evaluation: Making Super-Optimum Decision Alder-shot, UK: Ashgate; and Nagel, S (1998) Policy Within and Across Developing Coun-tries Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Solu-2 For further details on peace policy, see Crocker, C., Hampson, F., and Aall, P (eds.).(1996) Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict.U.S Institute of Peace; Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict (1997).Preventing Deadly Conflict: Final Report with Executive Summary New York: Car-negie; and Stuart Nagel, S., and Mills, M (eds.) (1991) Systematic Analysis in Dis-pute Resolution Westport, CT: Quorum

3 On prosperity, see Blake, D and Walters, R (1987) The Politics of Global EconomicRelations Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Lawrence, R., Bressand, A and Ito,

T (eds.) (1996) Integrating National Economies: A Vision for the World Economy:Openness, Diversity, and Cohesion Washington, DC: Brookings; and Browne, W.and Hadwiger, D (eds.) (1986) World Food Policies: Toward Agricultural Inter-dependence Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner

4 On democracy, see Gillies, D (1996) Between Principle and Practice: Human Rights

in North-South Relations Toronto, Canada: McGill-Queen’s; Hanski, R and Suksi,

M (eds.) (1997) An Introduction to the International Protection of Human Rights.Turku, Finland: Institute for Human Rights; and Cingranelli, D (ed.) (1996) HumanRights and Developing Countries Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

What Price Empire?

A Study of Costs and Benefits of

American Involvement in Zaire

During the Mobutu Era

John F Clark

Florida International University, Miami, Florida

To ask whether or not one country has benefitted, overall, from its relations withanother over a thirty-two-year period reveals extremely difficult methodologicalproblems First, one might suppose that each country has an objective interestvis a` vis one another, particularly with regard to security, that make their needsclear This was essentially the approach of post-World War II realism: the prover-bial rational actor could figure out what security needs her state had in a giveninternational environment, and she could calculate what alliances would be neces-sary To put it only slightly differently, one could discover objective nationalinterests that states must inevitably defend (Morgenthau 1982) In this regard,neo-realism is close to the older variety, though neo-realism proposes an evensimpler formula, one that allows the national interest calculus to be made fromthe structure of the system alone As Morgenthau’s 1950 work demonstrates,however, rational individuals frequently disagree over what specific policies infact serve the national interests of states

Worse still, the concept of the ‘‘national interest’’ has been subjected to adevastating critique since the 1960s James Rosenau (1971), for instance, pro-vided one useful deconstruction of this term (well before deconstruction waspopular) Of course, Rosenau’s decision-making approach was based on the no-

21