Parties to an alliance: Ideology and the domestic politics of international institutionalization

Abstract

While much research has been done on the domestic determinants of alliance institutionalization, there has been a neglect of the effect of domestic politics, by which we mean contestation between political actors in the same country. We hypothesize that the ideology of the parties governing countries negotiating the terms of security relationships will affect their preferences over the degree and kind of institutionalization seen in alliances. Drawing on previous literature, we argue that rightist parties are more sensitive to sovereignty costs and will therefore insist on maintaining more control over policy than their leftist counterparts. They can assert control either by imposing hierarchical forms of institutionalization when they are a stronger party to an alliance or by avoiding institutionalization altogether if they are the weaker party in an alliance. In contrast, we expect leftist parties to be less sensitive to sovereignty costs and generally favorable to more voice-driven, egalitarian institutions that have institutionalized mechanisms for consensus-building, regardless of their country’s relative power position. Combining the ATOP dataset on alliance design with the Parties Manifesto Project, we find broad support for our hypotheses. Our findings indicate that scholars should pay more attention to the internal ideological contestation within countries, making room for domestic political factors that go beyond regime type.

Environmental-agreement design and political ideology in democracies

“…While political ideology is a central factor for the analysis of domestic politics and legislative action (Knill et al, 2010(Knill et al, , 2012, few have considered its influence on international treaties. I have addressed this shortcoming, thus highlighting that the impact of political ideology in democracies extends beyond politics "at home," and very much can shape the prospects for (effective) institutional designs beyond the nation state, too (Rapport & Rathbun, 2020;Hooghe et al, 2002). The strategic political recommendation in light of my findings is thus straightforward and simple: the inclusion of democratic leftist political ideologies when negotiating international environmental treaties likely facilitates the agreement on designs that are more likely to address environmental problems effectively.…”

“…Second, governments generally value their decision-making power and sovereignty (Slaughter, 2004;Wangler et al, 2013;Böhmelt & Spilker, 2016;Rapport & Rathbun, 2020). However, democratic leftist parties view sovereignty costs somewhat differently than more rightist parties in democracies, which affects how they exercise power, especially internationally, when in government (Grieco et al, 2009;Potrafke, 2009;Hanania, 2019).…”

“…At the individual level, more rightist people trust less and are more interested in reducing uncertainty than more leftist people (Jost et al, 2007;Rapport & Rathbun, 2020). The latter then tend to have a more egalitarian view.…”

“…Conversely, a well-crafted institution usually furthers impact and efficacy, thus effectively dealing with environmental issues (Miles et al, 2001;Böhmelt & Pilster, 2010). The design of international environmental agreements is not random, but driven by rather strategic considerations of their "masters:" the nation states (see Fearon, 1998;Leeds, 1999;Koremenos et al, 2001;Grigorescu, 2007;Lupu et al, 2014;Chiba et al, 2015;Tallberg et al, 2016;Rapport & Rathbun, 2020;Young & Stokke, 2020). An extensive body of research reports here that inter alia country features, characteristics of the environmental problem at hand, as well international influences all play a role in shaping institutional design (see, e.g., Murdoch et al, 2003;Bernauer et al, 2010Bernauer et al, , 2013Tallberg et al, 2016;Spilker & Koubi, 2016;Carbonell & Allison, 2015;Böhmelt & Spilker, 2016;Böhmelt & Butkutė, 2018;Wagner, 2001;Wangler et al, 2013).…”

Theoretical Approaches to Patterns of Military Cooperation and Alliances

“…Similarly, the application of the theoretical framework, emphasizing other parameters of domestic politics in relation to non-democratic CSTO member-countries raises, to some extent, a research difficulty. Thus, some researches referred to political ideology of member-countries as the variable, which affects the countries preferences regarding the pattern of cooperation in military alliance (Rapport & Rathbun, 2020). Other assigned attention to the impact of domestic political economy on countries' considerations regarding alliances (Barnett & Levy, 1991).…”