International Systems and Domestic Politics: Linking Complex Interactions with Empirical Models in International Relations

Abstract

Following older debates in international relations literature concerning the relative importance of domestic versus systemic factors, newer debates emphasize interdependence among states and the complex interactions between systemic and domestic factors. As globalization and democratization advance, theories and empirical models of international politics have become more complicated. We present a systematic theoretical categorization of relationships between domestic and systemic variables. We use this categorization so that scholars can match their theory to the appropriate empirical model and assess the degree to which systemic factors affect their arguments. We also present two advances at the frontier of these empirical models. In one, we combine hierarchical models of moderating relationships with spatial models of interdependence among units within a system. In the other, we provide a model for analyzing spatial interdependence that varies over time. This enables us to examine how the level of interdependence among units has evolved. We illustrate our categorization and new models by revisiting the recent international political economy (IPE) debate over the relationship between trade policy and regime type in developing countries.

Policy Alteration: Rethinking Diffusion Processes When Policies Have Alternatives

“…Consequently, we offer a potential explanation for the failure to detect policy spill-overs when cross-border interdependence is complex. Additionally, our theoretical angle informs important debates on the new politics of interdependence and the complex interactions in international relations (Chaudoin et al, 2015;Oatley, 2011). In line with recent analyses of the adaptation of globalization in developed countries (Farrell and Newman, 2015), our evidence indicates that regulatory disagreements may cause nuanced layering of regulatory instruments.…”

“…This article explores the conditions under which countries may respond to the same international policy influences by choosing an alternative policy instrument. We theoretically consider the relation between governments' incentives for policy adoption and the implementation of alternative diffusing policies borrowing from works on the local implementation of global practices (Halliday and Carruthers, 2009) and the literature on conditional diffusion (Martin, 2009;Neumayer and Plümper, 2012;Chaudoin et al, 2015), which suggest when and why states may not copy policies from one another. At the same time, we draw on lessons from the embedded liberalism research (Hays et al, 2005;Brooks and Kurtz, 2012;Wibbels, 2006) to understand which domestic factors should likely condition policy coupling across countries.…”

A Geopolitical Perspective into the Opposition to Globalizing State‐Owned Enterprises in Target States

“…As noted, because the salience of nationalist politics and the opposition that foreign SOEs face in target states are hard to measure empirically, the use of simulation methods might help overcome the empirical challenge in measuring these constructs. Scholars interested in simulation studies can refer to recent publications in international politics using simulation (Bas, ; Chaudoin, Milner, and Pang, ; Erikson, Pinto, and Rader, ).…”

Positional deprivation and support for radical right and radical left parties*

“…, including issues related to nationalism and anti-globalization(Zurn et al 2012;Chaudoin et al 2015;Milner and Judkins 2004). We focus on a composite of support for and opposition to features of party platforms that gauge anti-globalization nationalism and authoritarianism (net of opposition to these principles) associated with radical populist backlash(Burgoon 2009, 2013; Colantone and Stanig 2017).…”