Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function of International Position
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677200700201 |
| Published date | 01 July 1972 |
| Date | 01 July 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function
of
International
Position*
HELGE HVEEM
International Peace Research Institute.
Oslo
Hveem, H. Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function of
International
Position, Cooperation
and Conilict,
VII.
!!)72,
(i5-86.
The
main
thesis of this
paper
is
that
the world images
and
foreign policy attitudes of
the
leading
foreign policy
and
opinion-making
strata
of a given
national
actor are a
function
01
the position which
that
actor enjoys in the international system.
This
thesis
is based on a structural-sociological approach to the functioning of the international
system
and
the ways in which the images and attitudes of elites
and
other social
strata
are
formed.
It
proposes a way of classifying national actors accorcling to
their
position
in the
international
structure along acenter-periphery climension.
It
emphasizes the
importance of symmetry vs. asymmetry in the relationship between actors
and
the role
of penetration
and
external dominance of national politics.
The
paper
also discusses the
potential influence of various factors in the formation of images
and
attitudes
and
shows how factors
other
than
the external, 'systemic' one may
playa
role
under
certain
conditions.
It
ends up with a discussion of where
Norway
fits into the model and makes
certain propositions concerning images
and
attitudes held by Norwegian foreign policy
elites, being 'centrist'
and
in certain respects of an 'over-centrist' type.
Helge Hueem, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
I.
INTRODUCTION
There
is a large body of theory on what
factors determine the foreign policy of
national actors. Much may be adapted for
our purpose of describing
and
evaluating
what factors determine or shape the images
and
attitudes of our units of analysis.
The
basis for doing so we find in the assump-
tion of a relatively strong positive correla-
tion between the policy or behavior of a
given national actor
and
the international
images
and
foreign policy attitudes of the
leading strata of
that
actor.
Images
and
attitudes, studied here as
dependent variables, are used by many
authors as determinants of policy and thus
as independent variables of the type we
shall now explore. This, however, should
not confuse anyone as long as the choice
we have made, which is quite 'legitimate'
theoretically
and
methodologically, is kept
in mind by the
reader
and
adhered to by
the author.
The
author carried out a survey on non-
5Cooperation and Connie! 1972:5
random samples representing
what
may be
referred to as the foreign policy milieu of
Norway: those who form public opinion
and
contribute to the decision-making on
questions of world politics
and
foreign
policy. An 'elite' sample consisting of
close on 100 respondents was interviewed
during spring 1967. At the same time some
130 persons representing a
partly
random
sample of 'opinion-makers' responded to
amailed questionnaire.
The
two samples
were asked to state their opinions on a
large number of questions. Comparisons
between them were, according to tests
that
were carried out, found possible.
The
survey focused on issues such as the
structure of the international system
and
great
power politics; questions
and
causes
of conflict; priorities for peace-making;
less developed countries
and
the problems
of development; international cooperation
and alliance policies; the
United
Nations:
disarmament and arms limitations,
and
others.
As a partial and preliminary test of the
66 Helge Hoeem
theory which is developed below, com-
parisons with corresponding samples of
foreign policy 'elites' in West European and
other countries were carried out. Further,
extensive comparative analyses were car-
ried out on relations between elite, opinion
makers
and
general public opinion as rep-
resentative of different levels of the Nor-
wegian opinion- and decision-making
structure. These analyses were based on
a set of hypotheses concerning variations
in images and attitudes between different
groups and categories of Norwegian soci-
ety.
They
were concentrated on variables
like
party
affiliation, age, institutional
background (being an important criterion
in the sampling process), center-periphery
position,
and
others.
The
purpose of this
part
of the study was threefold: to see to
what extent and in what respect there is
deviation among the samples from the
main line of thought stemming from the ef-
fects of the international position of the
country; to explore into the form and the
extent of consensus within and among the
social groups under study;
and
to present
new information on the Norwegian polity
and
the structure of decision-making.
The
study is also future-oriented in the
sense that it tries to explore
what
the likely
future thinking on world issues and the
attitudes of the coming Norwegian elites
will be. At the end some methodological
and
statistical problems
are
analyzed, and
the report gives detailed accounts of the
techniques used in the study.
II.
DETERMINANTS
OF IMAGES
AND
ATTITUDES:
THE
RELATIVE
INFLUENCE
OF FACTORS
The
'level-of-analysis problem', in partic-
ular
that raised by Singer,' is a question
of how many levels of foreign policy
determinating factors one should distin-
guish between. Singer roughly introduces
two levels: the intra- (domestic) and the
extra-national (or international, foreign);
North
et al. present six levels of analysis,
ranging from the individual to the supra-
national; while Galtung employs an even
more refined scheme.s Others, putting less
emphasis on the individual-to-internation,
al continuum, utilize a classification of
determinants following other dimensions
or no specific classification system at all. 3
There
are two inter-related problems to
which different solutions have been
of.
fered. One is whether the list of causal
variables should be 'inclusive' or alI-en_
compassing (include a whole lot of possible
variables on each level or within each
category, adetailed catalogue) or more
'exclusive' or selective.
The
other is which
factors should be considered of greatest
causal importance -one single group of
variables, or a whole range of variables in
acertain ranking order. This is the prob-
lem which will occupy us here. Let us,
however, first state our preference for the
exclusive approach: in our opinion the
detailed list of Snyder et al. is quite
in-
applicable.
The
kind of research we
are
attempting needs a map of factors accurate
and
concise enough to guide the researcher
to the important points, not a map over-
crowded with details, unsystematic, and
largely untheoretical.s
The
problem of the relative influence of
factors. however, is the most important.
The
map may very well be detailed as long
as we know reasonably well what factors
are
important (causally) and which
are
not. Up to now theory has been extremely
reluctant to take this challenge seriously,
and
we quite agree with Rosenau's criti-
cism of this state of affairs.!
We
may analyze our problems in the
light of a set of different variables, ranging
from the idiosyncratic to the systemic level.
Singer emphasizes the importance of in-
tegrating this whole set of variables in a
single theoretical framework."
We
fully
agree with the argument that no
cale[{ory
or level of variables should be left out of
consideration, neither in a general theory
nor
in the specific case study. Much of the
research so
far
has not adhered to this rule
but instead advocated asingle-level
ap,
proach. In many cases such an advocacy is
To continue reading
Request your trial