专家都到哪里去了?国会山外交政策思想的变化市场

IF 2.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Daniel W Drezner, Linda L Fowler
{"title":"专家都到哪里去了?国会山外交政策思想的变化市场","authors":"Daniel W Drezner, Linda L Fowler","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"s US foreign policy observers have noted a decline in the frequency of expert witnesses appearing before congressional committees, while congressional scholars have documented changes in committee practices that have led to fewer and shorter hearings. These trends interact in systematic ways, although their relationship has never been tested empirically. Using original data and micro-level measures of individual hearings by the national security committees of the House and Senate, we demonstrate how time constraints and routine responsibilities limit the number of opportunities for expert witnesses from 1995 to 2020. We find some influence for chamber polarization on witness totals but less impact on the type of experts. We uncover significant differences among individual committees in their use of academics and think tank representatives. Our study is unique in its focus on both chambers, inclusion of closed hearings, differentiation between academics and think tank representatives, and attention to the public salience of foreign affairs. Shrinkage in the official marketplace of foreign policy ideas warrants concern, highlighting the executive branch's increasing dominance over military and diplomatic decisions, diminished legislative capacity, and public disinterest in international affairs.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where Have All the Experts Gone? The Shifting Marketplace for Foreign Policy Ideas on Capitol Hill\",\"authors\":\"Daniel W Drezner, Linda L Fowler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/isq/sqaf035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"s US foreign policy observers have noted a decline in the frequency of expert witnesses appearing before congressional committees, while congressional scholars have documented changes in committee practices that have led to fewer and shorter hearings. These trends interact in systematic ways, although their relationship has never been tested empirically. Using original data and micro-level measures of individual hearings by the national security committees of the House and Senate, we demonstrate how time constraints and routine responsibilities limit the number of opportunities for expert witnesses from 1995 to 2020. We find some influence for chamber polarization on witness totals but less impact on the type of experts. We uncover significant differences among individual committees in their use of academics and think tank representatives. Our study is unique in its focus on both chambers, inclusion of closed hearings, differentiation between academics and think tank representatives, and attention to the public salience of foreign affairs. Shrinkage in the official marketplace of foreign policy ideas warrants concern, highlighting the executive branch's increasing dominance over military and diplomatic decisions, diminished legislative capacity, and public disinterest in international affairs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Studies Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Studies Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf035\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf035","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国外交政策观察人士注意到,专家证人出现在国会委员会面前的频率有所下降,而国会学者则记录了委员会做法的变化,这些变化导致听证会数量减少、时间缩短。这些趋势以系统的方式相互作用,尽管它们之间的关系从未经过经验检验。我们利用原始数据和参众两院国家安全委员会个别听证会的微观尺度,展示了从1995年到2020年,时间限制和日常责任如何限制了专家证人的机会数量。我们发现室极化对证人总数有一定影响,但对专家类型的影响较小。我们发现各个委员会在使用学者和智库代表方面存在显著差异。我们的研究的独特之处在于其对参众两院的关注,包括闭门听证会,区分学者和智库代表,以及关注外交事务的公众重要性。外交政策理念的官方市场萎缩值得关注,这突显出行政部门在军事和外交决策方面的主导地位日益增强,立法能力减弱,公众对国际事务不感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Where Have All the Experts Gone? The Shifting Marketplace for Foreign Policy Ideas on Capitol Hill
s US foreign policy observers have noted a decline in the frequency of expert witnesses appearing before congressional committees, while congressional scholars have documented changes in committee practices that have led to fewer and shorter hearings. These trends interact in systematic ways, although their relationship has never been tested empirically. Using original data and micro-level measures of individual hearings by the national security committees of the House and Senate, we demonstrate how time constraints and routine responsibilities limit the number of opportunities for expert witnesses from 1995 to 2020. We find some influence for chamber polarization on witness totals but less impact on the type of experts. We uncover significant differences among individual committees in their use of academics and think tank representatives. Our study is unique in its focus on both chambers, inclusion of closed hearings, differentiation between academics and think tank representatives, and attention to the public salience of foreign affairs. Shrinkage in the official marketplace of foreign policy ideas warrants concern, highlighting the executive branch's increasing dominance over military and diplomatic decisions, diminished legislative capacity, and public disinterest in international affairs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信