¹ This analysis is intended to apply primarily to the OECD members. Although all of these states are capitalist, I have deliberately used the term ‘advanced industrial states.’ The owner-ship of the means of production, I concluded, was less important for explaining foreign economic policy than the nature of the policy networks linking the public with the private sector. A French quip sums this up well: “French business is divided into a private sector, rigidly controlled, and a public sector, completely free.” Quoted in Adelman, M. A., The World Petroleum Market (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), p. 236Google Scholar. See also Vernon, Raymond, The Economic and Political Consequences of Multinational Enterprise: An Anthology (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1972), p. 117Google Scholar. Bruce Andrews has recently offered a line of argument about the importance of domestic politics for foreign policy analysis which complements this paper. See his “Social Rules and the State as a Social Actor,” World Politics, 27, 4 (07 1975): 521–40.Google Scholar

² Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “International Interdependence and Integration,” unpublished paper, 1973, p. 77Google Scholar. A revised version of this paper appears in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley), volume 8, International Politics, ch. 5. Page references here are to the earlier manuscript version.Google Scholar

³ New York Times, 10 13, 1974, p. 34.Google Scholar

⁴ Morse, Edward L., “The Politics of Interdependence,” International Organization, 23, 2 (Spring 1969): 311–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Morse, , “Crisis Diplomacy, Interdependence and the Politics of International Economic Relations,” in Raymond Tanter and Ullman, Richard H. (eds.), Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 123–50Google Scholar. Morse, , Foreign Policy and Interdependence in Gaullist France (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

⁵ Keohane and Nye, “Interdependence and Integration.”

⁶ Cooper, Richard N., The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the American Community (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

⁷ The realist and neo-liberal paradigms are also treated in Gilpin, Robert, “Three Models of the Future,” International Organization 29, 1 (Winter 1975): 37–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilpin, , American Hegemony and the Multinationals: The Political Economy of Foreign Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975)Google Scholar; see also Krasner, Stephen D., “State Power and International Economic Structure,” unpublished paper.Google Scholar

⁸ Deutsch, Karl W., “Communication Theory and Political Integration,” in Jacob, Philip E. and Toscano, James V. (eds), The Integration of Political Communities (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1964), pp. 46–74Google Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968)Google Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., Political Community at the Supranational Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement (Garden City: Doubleday, 1954)Google Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., Edinger, Lewis J., Macridis, Roy C., and Merritt, Richard L., France, Germany and the Western Alliance: A Study of Elite Attitudes on European Integration and World Politics (New York: Charles Scribner's, 1967), pp. 218–39Google Scholar. Chadwick, Richard W. and Deutsch, Karl W., “International Trade and Economic Integration: Further Developments in Trade Matrix Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies, 6, 1 (04 1973): 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Deutsch, Karl W., Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, 2nd ed., (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966)Google Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., Nationalism and its Alternatives (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969)Google Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., “The Growth of Nations: Some Recurrent Patterns of Political and Social Integration,” World Politics, 5, 2 (01 1953): 168–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., “Nation and World,” in de Sola Pool, Ithiel (ed.), Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 206–27Google Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., “Social Mobilization and Political Development,” American Political Science Review 55, 3 (09 1961): 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Deutsch, Karl W. and Eckstein, Alexander, “National Industrialization and the Declining Share of the International Economic Sector, 1890–1959,” World Politics 13, 2 (01 1961): 267–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Deutsch, Karl W., “International Communications: The Media and Flows,” Public Opinion Quarterly 20, 1 (Spring 1956), 143–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The conclusions of these two studies reappear in different forms in many of Deutsch's subsequent writings on problems of international interdependence.

¹¹ Deutsch, Karl W., The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York: The Free Press, 1966).Google Scholar

¹² Deutsch, and Eckstein, , “National Industrialization,” p. 271.Google Scholar

¹³ Deutsch, Karl W. and Edinger, Lewis J., Germany Rejoins the Powers (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Deutsch, Nerves of Government, Part III. Deutsch, Karl W. and Singer, J. David, “Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability,” World Politics, 16, 3 (04 1964): 390–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the growing literature on bureaucratic politics and foreign policy behavior first systematized by Allison, Graham T., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See the references cited in footnote 7 above and Calleo, David P. and Rowland, Benjamin M., America and the World Political Economy: Atlantic Dreams and National Realities (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1973)Google Scholar. Waltz, Kenneth N., “The Myth of National Interdependence,” in Kindleberger, Charles P. (ed.), The International Corporation (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970), pp. 205–23Google Scholar. Rosecrance, Richard N. and Stein, Arthur, “Interdependence: Myth or Reality?” World Politics 26, 1 (10 1973): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Gilpin, Robert, “The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations”, in Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Jr (eds.). Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 48–69.Google Scholar

¹⁷ But see Hirschman, Albert O., National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945)Google Scholar. Cohen, Stephen D., International Monetary Reform, 1964–1969: The Political Dimension (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970)Google Scholar. Gilpin, , American Hegemony and the MultinationalsGoogle Scholar. Russell, Robert W., “Crisis Management in the International Monetary System, 1960–1973.” Paper prepared for Delivery at the International Studies Association Convention, New York City, 03 16, 1973Google Scholar. Haskel, B., “Disparities, Strategies, and Opportunity Costs: The Example of Scandinavian Economic Market Negotiations,” International Studies Quarterly, 28, 1 (03 1974): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ For one such attempt applying event interaction analysis see Healey, Brian, “Economic Power Transition in the International System: The Translation of Economic Power into Political Leverage in the International Monetary System,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1973).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Calleo, and Rowland, , America and the World Political Economy.Google Scholar

²⁰ A recent statement can be found in Cooper, , The Economics of InterdependenceGoogle Scholar. This book has been central to the reformulation of international relations theory attempted by Keohane, and Nye, , in Transnational Relations and World Politics, pp. 371–98Google Scholar. In addition to Morse's articles quoted in footnote 4 above see also his paper, “Interdependence in World Affairs,” unpublished paper. Haas, Ernst B., “Is there a Hole in the Whole? Knowledge, Technology, Interdependence and the Construction of International Regimes,” International Organization 29, 3 (Summer 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Young, Oran R., “Interdependencies in World Politics,” International Journal 24, 1 (Winter 1968–1969): 726–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Feld, Werner J., Nongovernmental Forces and World Politics: A Study of Business, Labor and Political Groups (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972)Google Scholar. Brown, Lester R., World Without Borders (New York: Random House, 1972).Google Scholar

²¹ Herz, John H., International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)Google Scholar. scott, Andrew M., The Revolution in Statecraft: Informal Penetration (New York: Random House, 1965).Google Scholar

²² Morse, Edward L., “Transnational Economic Processes,” in Keohane and Nye, Transnational Relations, p. 40.Google Scholar

²³ Russell, , “Crisis Management,” pp. 3b, 35.Google Scholar

²⁴ Morse, Edward L., “The Transformation of Foreign Policies: Modernization, Interdependence and Externalization,” World Politics, 22, 3 (04 1970), pp. 371–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Keohane, and Nye, , “Interdependence and Integration,” pp. 19–20Google Scholar. Rosecrance, Richard N., “Contemporary Interdependence: An Introduction,” in Rosecrance, Richard N. and Stein, Arthur (eds.), Interdependence in World Politics (forthcoming).Google Scholar

²⁵ Cooper, , The Economics of Interdependence, p. 153Google Scholar. Morse, , Foreign Policy and Interdependence, pp. 40–1.Google Scholar

²⁶ Keohane, and Nye, , Transnational Relations and World Politics, pp. ix–xxix, 371–98Google Scholar. See also Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “World Politics and the International Economic System,” in Bergsten, Fred C. (ed.), The Future of the International Economic Order: An Agenda for Research(Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath: 1973), pp. 115–79Google Scholar. Nye, J.S., “Oceans Rule Making in a World Politics Perspective,” unpublished paperGoogle Scholar. Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organization,” World Politics, 27, 1 (10 1974): 39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nye, Joseph S., “Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflicts: An Empirical Analysis,” International Organization, 28, 4 (Autumn 1974): 961–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Jr, “Introduction: The Complex Politics of Canadian-American Interdependence,” International Organization, 28, 4 (Autumn 1974): 596CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nye, Joseph S. Jr, “Transnational Relations and Interstate Conflicts,” p. 962.Google Scholar

²⁸ Morse, , Foreign Policy and Interdependence, pp. 4, 315–6Google Scholar. Although I have not yet read it, Zysman's, JohnFrench Industry Between the Market and the State (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, forthcoming) challenges Morse's interpretation.Google Scholar

²⁹ Huntington, Samuel P., “Transnational Organizations in World Politics,” World Politics, 25, 3 (04 1973): 343–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ The same argument has been developed for the security issue in Hoffmann, Stanley, Gullive's Troubles: Or the Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968).Google Scholar

³¹ Tocqueville, Alexis de, The Old Regime and the French Revolution (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books edition, 1955)Google Scholar. The Federalist (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

³² Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 110Google Scholar. The second chapter of Huntington's book is brilliantly wrong in confusing the British and the Continental pattern of political development. Huntington's argument is correct, I would argue, for a comparison of France and the United States.

³³ Neustadt, Richard E., Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (New York: John Wiley, 1964).Google Scholar

³⁴ Kesselman, Mark, “Overinstitutionalization and Political Constraint: The Case of France,” Comparative Politics 3, 1 (10 1970): 21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Huntington, Political Order, pp. 93–139. Lowi, Theodor J., The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York: W.W. Norton, 1969).Google Scholar

³⁵ Hoffmann, Stanley, et. al. In Search of France: The Economy, Society and Political System in the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper & Row, Harper Torchbooks, 1965), p. 3Google Scholar. Crozier, Michel, The Stalled Society (New York: Viking Press, 1973).Google Scholar

³⁶ Suleiman, Ezra N., Politics, Power and Bureaucracy in France: The Administrative Elite (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 137–80.Google Scholar

³⁷ Suleiman, , Bureaucracy in France, pp. 20–1, 349–50Google Scholar. McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy, pp. 89–90. (New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁸ Crozier, Michel, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Book edition, 1967), pp. 213–27Google Scholar. McConnell, , Private Power, pp. 157–368.Google Scholar

³⁹ Rose, Arnold M., “Voluntary Associations in France,” in Rose, Arnold M., Theory and Methods in the Social Sciences (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1954), pp. 72–115.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Schattschneider, E. E., The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1955), pp. 3–32Google Scholar. Huntington, , Political Order, p. 135.Google Scholar

⁴² Crozier, , The Stalled Society; pp. 78–9Google Scholar. McConnell, , Private Power, p. 245.Google Scholar

⁴³ Quoted in Suleiman, , Bureaucracy in France, p. 336.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Vernon, Raymond, Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises (New York: Basic Books, 1971), pp. 205–8, 219–23.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Selznick, Philip, TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Shonfield, Andrew, Modern Capitalist Planning: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 138, 322, 335.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Hoffmann, , In Search of France, pp. 70–1Google Scholar. Crozier, , Stalled Society, pp. 100–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Suleiman, , Bureaucracy in France, chapter 12. Michalet, “France,” pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ehrmann, Henry W., Organized Business in France, p. 480Google Scholar. Crozier, , Stalled Society, p. 86.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hawley, Ellis W., “Techno-Corporatist Formulas in the Liberal State, 1920–1960: A Neglected Aspect of America's Search for a New Order,” unpublished paper, 1974, p. 31.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Lowi, , The End of LiberalismGoogle Scholar. McConnell, , Private Power.Google Scholar

⁵² These categories are adapted from Lowi, Theodore J., “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies and Political Theory,” World Politics, 16, 4 (07 1964): 677–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The argument has been updated, revised and extended in Lowi, , “Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32 (07-08 1972): 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ Lindblom, Charles E., “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review 19, 2 (Spring 1959): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review, 66, 4 (12 1962): 947–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bachrach, and Baratz, , “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review, 68, 3 (09 1963): 632–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Gilpin, , American Hegemony and the MultinationalsGoogle Scholar. Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression 1929–1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ehrmann, Henry W., Organized Business in France (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 392–401Google Scholar

⁵⁷ McArthur, and Scott, , Industrial Planning in France, pp. 262–3Google Scholar. See also pp. 220, 305–6.

⁵⁸ McArthur, and Scott, , Industrial Planning in France, pp. 262–3, p. 129Google Scholar. See also pp. 124–5, 273–6, 449, 462–5.

⁵⁹ McArthur, and Scott, , Industrial Planning in France, pp. 262–3, pp. 378–82.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cooper, , Economics of Interdependence, p. 237.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Sheahan, John, Promotion and Control of Industry in Postwar France (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² Sheahan, John, Promotion and Control of Industry in Postwar France (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 59, p. 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Williams Commission Report, p. 104.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Arnaud-Ameller, Paul, La France a L'Épreuve de la Concurrence Internationale 1951–1966 (Paris: Armand-Collin, 1970), pp. 112–14Google Scholar. Ehrmann, , Organized Business, p. 398.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Quoted in New York Times, 12 27, 1974, p. 47Google Scholar. See also Pirages, Dennis C., “Strategic Implications of the Energy Crisis,” Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., 02 1975, pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ McArthur, and Scott, , Industrial Planning in France, pp. 425–7Google Scholar. John, and Hackett, Anne-Marie, Economic Planning in France (London: George Allen, 1963), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Morse, , Foreign Policy and Interdependence.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Williams Commission Report, pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Department of Commerce, “Foreign Industrial Nontariff Barriers,” pp. 688, 698–9Google Scholar. Evans, John W., The Kennedy Round in American Trade Policy: The Twilight of the GATT? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ Renner, John C., “National Restrictions on International Trade,” in Williams Commission Report: Papers (Vol. 1), p. 667.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Balassa, Bela, Trade Liberalization among Industrial Countries: Objectives and Alternatives (New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1967), p. 59.Google Scholar

⁷² Cooper, Richard N., “Trade Policy is Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy 9 (Winter 1972–1973): 27.Google Scholar

⁷³ Schattschneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study of Free Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–1930 Revision of the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935)Google Scholar. Bauer, Raymond A., Ithiel de Sola Pool and Lewis Anthony Dexter, American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Lowi, , “American Business,” pp. 692–703.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Lowi, , “American Business,” pp. 692–703, pp. 690–1, 692, 695.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Lowi, , “American Business,” pp. 692–703, p. 697.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Vernon, , Sovereignty at Bay, p. 209Google Scholar. Behrman, Jack N., U.S. International Business and Governments (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp. 171–3Google Scholar. Behrman, Jack N., National Interests and the Multinational Enterprise: Tensions among the North Atlantic Countries (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1970), pp. 38, 71–4, 159–60Google Scholar. Magdoff, Harry, The Age of Imperialism: The Economics of U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969)Google Scholar. Baran, Paul A. and Sweezy, Paul M., Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Behrmann, , U.S. International Business, pp. 186–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Scott, Harald B., “Export Expansion for the Seventies … and Beyond,” William Commission Report: Papers (Vol. 1), p. 556.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Williams Commission Report, p. 52.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Williams Commission Report, p. 52, pp. 120–2.Google Scholar

⁸² I am following Lowi, , “American Business,” pp. 683–4, 699.Google Scholar

⁸³ New York Times, 12 22, 1974Google Scholar, Part III, p. 6. A similar argument is made by Cohen, B.J., “U.S. Foreign Economic Policy,” Orbis, 15, 1 (Spring 1971): 232–46.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Torem, Charles and Laurence Craig, William, “Control of Foreign Investment in France,” Michigan Law Review, 66, 4 (02 1968): 669CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On French monetary policy see Schmiegelow, Henrik and Schmiegelow, Michele, “The New Mercantilism in International Relations: The Case of France's External Monetary Policy,” International Organization, 29, 2 (Spring 1975), pp, 367–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁵ Michelet, Charles-Albert, “France,” in Vernon, Raymond (ed.), Big Business and the State: Changing Relations in Western Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 122–3Google Scholar. Behrman, Jack N., National Interests and the Multinational Enterprise, pp. 35, 134Google Scholar. McArthur, and Scott, , Industrial Planning in France, pp. 254–60Google Scholar. Johnstone, Allan W., United States Direct Investment in France: An Investigation of the French Charges (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965)Google Scholar. Gilpin, Robert, France in the Age of the Scientific State (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), pp. 3–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁶ Behrman, , National Interests, pp. 150, 162Google Scholar. Bertin, Gilles Y., “Foreign Investment in France,” in Litwak, Isaiah A. and Maule, Christopher J. (ed.), Foreign Investment: The Experience of Host Countries (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 119.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Behrman, , U.S. International Business, pp. 34, 36Google Scholar. Vernon, , The Economic and Political Consequences of Multinational Enterprise, p. 183.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ McArthur, and Scott, , Industrial Planning in France, pp. 359–68Google Scholar. Behrman, , National Interests, pp. 45, 135.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Morse, , Foreign Policy and Interdependence.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Vernon, , Economic Consequences, p. 92Google Scholar. Damm, Walter, “The Economic Aspects of European Direct Investment in the United States,” in Rolfe, Sidney E. and Damm, Walter (ed.), The Multinational Corporation in the World Economy (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Fred Bergsten, C., “Coming Investment Wars?” Foreign Affairs, 53, 1 (10 1974): 148Google Scholar. Vernon, Economic Consequences, p. 113.Google Scholar

⁹² Magdoff, , Age of ImperialismGoogle Scholar. Moran, Theodore H., “Foreign Expansion as an ‘Institutional Necessity’ for U.S. Corporate Capitalism: The Search for a Radical Model,” World Politics, 25, 3 (04 1973): 369–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Vernon, , Sovereignty at Bay, pp. 60–112.Google Scholar

⁹³ Barnet, Richard and Müller, Ronald, “Multinational Corporations II,” New Yorker, 12 9, 1974, p. 100.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Gilpin, , American Hegemony, chapter 4–11.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Lipson, Charles H., “Corporate Preferences and Public Policies: Foreign Aid Sanctions and Investment Protection,” unpublished paper, pp. 4–5, 25–6.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ US Senate, Committee on Finance, The Multinational Corporation and the World Economy, 02 26, 1973, pp. 16–7.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Williams Commission Report, p. 178.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Bergsten, , “Investment Wars,” p. 149.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ I am following the treatment of Gilpin's American Hegemony, chapter 5–15, to 5–21.

¹⁰⁰ Quoted in Stein, Arthur, “The Kennedy Administration and the Balance of Payments,” Honors Thesis, Cornell University, 1972, p. 43Google Scholar. See the discussion on pp. 35–44.

¹⁰¹ Stein, Arthur, “The Kennedy Administration and the Balance of Payments,” Honors Thesis, Cornell University, 1972, p. 43, p. 58.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Cooper, , Economics of Interdependence, pp. 137–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Behrman, , U.S. International Business, pp. 204–11.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Pizer, Samuel, “Capital Restraint Program,” Williams Commission Report: Papers (Vol. 1), p. 100.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Behrman, , U.S. International Business, pp. 148–53, 184–85.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Vernon, , Sovereignty at Bay, p. 212.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Gilpin, , American Hegemony, Chapter 7, p. 24Google Scholar. Behrman, , National Interests. p. 135.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ McArthui, and Scott, , Industrial planning in France, pp. 342–59Google Scholar. See also Commissariat Générale du Plan, Commission de Gén'Énergie, Préparation du VI^ePlan: Rapport du Comité - Pétrole (La Documentation Françhise, 1971).

¹⁰⁹ Adelman, , World Petroleum Markets, p. 236.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Hartshorn, J. E., Politics and World Oil Economics: An Account of the International Oil Industry in its Political Environment (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967), p. 263.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Mulfinger, Albert, Auf dem Wag zur gemeinsamen Mineralölpolitik: Die Interventionen der öffentlichen Hand auf dam Gebiet der Mineralölindustrie in Hinblick auf den gemeinschaftlichen Mineralölmarkt (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1972), p. 100.Google Scholar

¹¹² Johnston, , United States Direct Investment, pp. 33–4Google Scholar. Sheahan, , Promotion and Control, p. 201.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Touret, Denis, La Régime Française d'Importation du Pétrole et la Communauté Économique Européenne (Paris: Pichon et Durand-Auzias, 1968).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Johnston, , United States Direct Foreign Investment, p. 34.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Mulfinger, , Mineralölpolitik, pp. 119–21.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Mulfinger, , Mineralölpolitik, p. 118.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Mulfinger, , Mineralölpolitik, p. 97Google Scholar. Johnston, , United States Direct Investment, pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Johnston, , United States Direct Investment, p. 46.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Keesing's Contemporary Archives, 02 12, 1972, PP. 25083–8.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Adelman, M. A., “Is the Oil Shortage Real? Oil Companies as OPEC Tax-Collectors,” Foreign Policy, 9 (Winter 1972–1973): 96.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Krasner, Stephen D., “The Great Oilsheikdown,” Foreign Policy, 13 (Winter 1973–1974): 131.Google Scholar

¹²² Engler, Robert, The Politics of Oil: A Study of Private Power and Democratic Directions (New York: Macmillan, 1961), P. 9Google Scholar. For a somewhat more balanced but concurring conclusion see Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay, p. 214.

¹²³ Nash, Gerald D., United States Oil Policy 1890–1964: Business and Government in Twentieth Century America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Engler, , The Politics of Oil, p. 308.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Engler, , The Politics of Oil, p. 335.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Engler, , The Politics of Oil, p. 277.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Gilpin, , American Hegemony, pp. 5–19, 5–20.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Cooper, , Economics of Interdependence, pp. 102–3.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Tanzer, Michael, The Political Economy of International Oil and the Underdeveloped Countries (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 50–5, 319–44.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Shaffer, Edward H., The Oil Import Program of the United States: An Evaluation (New York: Praeger, 1968), pp. 13–4.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Adelman, , “Is the Oil Shortage Real?” p. 78.Google Scholar

¹³² New York Times, 02 12, 1975, p. 36.Google Scholar

¹³³ Gerschenkron, Alexander, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 5–30.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Fred Bergsten, C., Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “International Economics and International Politics: A Framework for Analysis,” International Organization 29, 1 (Winter 1975), 18–20Google Scholar. A comparative study of foreign economic policy is, thus, very much a matter of proper perspective. Lowi and others have been right in arguing that foreign policy issues in American politics are treated more consistently than other issues in domestic politics; yet in comparison to France, United States foreign economic policy undeniably looks inconsistent. Similarly, Morse is partially correct in pointing out how international markets have undermined French foreign policy; but he fails to consider that for other governments, like the American, international processes may have primarily political repercussions.