鹰派与鸽派:谁在美国国会领导美国外交政策?

IF 1.7 2区社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Foreign Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2023-07-24 DOI:10.1093/fpa/orad025

W. Bendix, Gyung-Ho Jeong

{"title":"鹰派与鸽派:谁在美国国会领导美国外交政策?","authors":"W. Bendix, Gyung-Ho Jeong","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The combination of partisan polarization and controversial military engagements has produced contentious debates over US foreign policy in Congress. Who has been winning these debates and exerting greater influence over the development of security and defense bills, hawkish or dovish legislators? The literature offers competing answers—on the one hand, arguing that hawks enjoy policy advantages because of Congress’s commitment to US hegemony and, on the other, claiming that doves gain policy openings because of shifting partisan and security conditions. To determine the influence of hawkish versus dovish legislators, we examine congressional actions on all defense spending bills from 1971 to 2016. Specifically, we track roll call votes to see which legislators enjoy the greatest support for their measures. We find that hawks have disproportionate influence over the content of defense bills, whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, and whether the United States is at war or enjoying relative peace.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hawks versus Doves: Who Leads American Foreign Policy in the US Congress?\",\"authors\":\"W. Bendix, Gyung-Ho Jeong\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fpa/orad025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The combination of partisan polarization and controversial military engagements has produced contentious debates over US foreign policy in Congress. Who has been winning these debates and exerting greater influence over the development of security and defense bills, hawkish or dovish legislators? The literature offers competing answers—on the one hand, arguing that hawks enjoy policy advantages because of Congress’s commitment to US hegemony and, on the other, claiming that doves gain policy openings because of shifting partisan and security conditions. To determine the influence of hawkish versus dovish legislators, we examine congressional actions on all defense spending bills from 1971 to 2016. Specifically, we track roll call votes to see which legislators enjoy the greatest support for their measures. We find that hawks have disproportionate influence over the content of defense bills, whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, and whether the United States is at war or enjoying relative peace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foreign Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foreign Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad025\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foreign Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

党派两极分化和有争议的军事行动相结合，在国会引发了关于美国外交政策的有争议的辩论。鹰派还是鸽派立法者，谁赢得了这些辩论，并对安全和国防法案的制定施加了更大的影响？文献提供了相互竞争的答案——一方面，认为鹰派因为国会对美国霸权的承诺而享有政策优势，另一方面，声称鸽派因为党派和安全条件的变化而获得政策开放。为了确定鹰派与鸽派立法者的影响，我们研究了1971年至2016年国会对所有国防开支法案的行动。具体来说，我们跟踪唱名表决，看看哪些立法者的措施得到了最大的支持。我们发现，鹰派对国防法案的内容有着不成比例的影响，无论共和党人还是民主党人控制着国防法案，无论美国是处于战争状态还是享有相对和平。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Hawks versus Doves: Who Leads American Foreign Policy in the US Congress?

The combination of partisan polarization and controversial military engagements has produced contentious debates over US foreign policy in Congress. Who has been winning these debates and exerting greater influence over the development of security and defense bills, hawkish or dovish legislators? The literature offers competing answers—on the one hand, arguing that hawks enjoy policy advantages because of Congress’s commitment to US hegemony and, on the other, claiming that doves gain policy openings because of shifting partisan and security conditions. To determine the influence of hawkish versus dovish legislators, we examine congressional actions on all defense spending bills from 1971 to 2016. Specifically, we track roll call votes to see which legislators enjoy the greatest support for their measures. We find that hawks have disproportionate influence over the content of defense bills, whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, and whether the United States is at war or enjoying relative peace.

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

Foreign Policy Analysis INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Reflecting the diverse, comparative and multidisciplinary nature of the field, Foreign Policy Analysis provides an open forum for research publication that enhances the communication of concepts and ideas across theoretical, methodological, geographical and disciplinary boundaries. By emphasizing accessibility of content for scholars of all perspectives and approaches in the editorial and review process, Foreign Policy Analysis serves as a source for efforts at theoretical and methodological integration and deepening the conceptual debates throughout this rich and complex academic research tradition. Foreign policy analysis, as a field of study, is characterized by its actor-specific focus. The underlying, often implicit argument is that the source of international politics and change in international politics is human beings, acting individually or in groups. In the simplest terms, foreign policy analysis is the study of the process, effects, causes or outputs of foreign policy decision-making in either a comparative or case-specific manner.