Advertisement

Conclusion: Populism, Foreign Policy, and World Politics

  • Frank A. Stengel
  • David B. MacDonald
  • Dirk Nabers
Chapter
Part of the Global Political Sociology book series (GLPOSO)

Abstract

This conclusion draws together the different arguments of the individual chapters and provides a preliminary agenda for further research on populism and world politics. Specifically, it proposes a three-step model for the analysis of populists’ impact on foreign policy and international politics, consisting of (1) populists’ specific ideologies and foreign policy positions, (2) domestic opportunity structures and (3) the international context. In contrast to widespread claims that populism per se is a danger to world order, democracy or “the West,” we argue that a systematic and careful analysis that differentiates between different populisms is a necessary precondition for any meaningful assessment in regards to their impact. Moreover, the latter not just depends on populists’ foreign policy demands but also on whether populists are in government or exerting pressure from the outside as well as the extent to which they can act in an unconstrained fashion, both in terms of domestic veto players and international context. This chapter argues that any worthwhile analysis of populism’s effect on foreign policy, international cooperation and conflict or regional and world order(s) has to move beyond the all too common mistake to treat populism as a monolith and to ignore both domestic and international contexts.

Keywords

Populism Foreign policy analysis Domestic structures World order Trump, Donald J. 

References

  1. AfD. 2016. Programm für Deutschland. Das Grunsatzprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland. Alternative für Deutschland.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G.T., and M.H. Halperin. 1972. Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. World Politics 24 (1): 40–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison, G.T., and P. Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, D. 2002. Anarchy, Power and Death: Contemporary Political Realism as Ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies 7 (2): 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloodgood, Elizabeth A. 2011. The Interest Group Analogy: International Non-Governmental Advocacy Organisations in International Politics. Review of International Studies 37 (1): 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bueno de Mesquita, B. 2002. Domestic Politics and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bueno de Mesquita, B., and A. Smith. 2012. Domestic Explanations of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byman, D.L., and K.M. Pollack. 2001. Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security 25 (4): 107–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chryssogelos, A. 2017. Populism in Foreign Policy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, ed. W.R. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Halikiopoulou, D., K. Nanou, and S. Vasilopoulou. 2012. The Paradox of Nationalism: The Common Denominator of Radical Right and Radical Left Euroscepticism. European Journal of Political Research 51 (4): 504–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hermann, Margaret G., and Charles F. Hermann. 1989. Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: An Empirical Inquiry. International Studies Quarterly 33 (4): 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jervis, Robert. 2006. Understanding Beliefs. Political Psychology 27 (5): 641–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaarbo, J. 2012. Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Krotz, U. 2010. Regularized Intergovernmentalism: France-Germany and Beyond (1963–2009). Foreign Policy Analysis 6 (2): 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  17. Madsen, Mikael Rask, and Mikkel Jarle Christensen. 2016. Global Actors: Networks, Elites, and Institutions. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, ed. William R. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. March, L. 2017. Left and Right Populism Compared: The British Case. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19 (2): 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKean, Benjamin L. 2016. Toward an Inclusive Populism? On the Role of Race and Difference in Laclau’s Politics. Political Theory 44 (6): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milner, Helen V., and Dustin Tingley. 2015. Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mintz, Alex, and Steven B. Redd. 2003. Framing Effects in International Relations. Synthese 135 (2): 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moravcsik, A. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51 (4): 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nabers, Dirk. 2015. A Poststructuralist Discourse Theory of Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Pierce, Jonathan, and Katherine Hicks. 2017. Advocacy Coalitions in Foreign Policy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, ed. William R. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ray, James Lee. 2013. American Foreign Policy and Political Ambition. Thousand Oakes, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  27. Risse-Kappen, Thomas, (ed.). 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rydgren, Jens. 2005. Is Extreme Right-Wing Populism Contagious? Explaining the Emergence of a New Party Family. European Journal of Political Research 44 (3): 413–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stavrakakis, Y. 2017. Discourse Theory in Populism Research. Journal of Language and Politics 16 (4): 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stavrakakis, Y., and G. Katsambekis. 2014. Left-Wing Populism in the European Periphery: The Case of SYRIZA. Journal of Political Ideologies 19 (2): 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stengel, Frank A., and Rainer Baumann. 2018. Non-State Actors and Foreign Policy. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis, ed. Cameron Thies, 266–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Switzer, T. 2016. What Rex Tillerson’s Nomination Means for Russia Policy. The National Interest.Google Scholar
  34. Sylvan, Donald A., (ed.). 1998. Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tierney, D. 2016. The Global Spread of Trumpism. The Atlantic, July 19.Google Scholar
  36. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Verbeek, B., and A. Zaslove. 2015. The Impact of Populist Radical Right Parties on Foreign Policy: The Northern League as a Junior Coalition Partner in the Berlusconi Governments. European Political Science Review 7 (4): 525–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verbeek, Bertjan, and Andrej Zaslove. 2017. Populism and Foreign Policy. In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, ed. Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo and Pierre Ostiguy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198803560-e-15.
  39. Watson, Matthew, and Colin Hay. 2003. The Discourse of Globalisation and the Logic of No Alternative: Rendering the Contingent Necessary in the Political Economy of New Labour. Policy & Politics 31 (3): 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zürn, Michael. 2004. Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems. Government and Opposition 39 (2): 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank A. Stengel
    • 1
  • David B. MacDonald
    • 2
  • Dirk Nabers
    • 1
  1. 1.Kiel UniversityKielGermany
  2. 2.University of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations