Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T22:21:13.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rosecrance model of domestic-foreign policy linkage and the politics of Imperial expansion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

S. L. Cooney
S. L. Cooney
Affiliation:
Sometime Research Student, London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is probably fair to say that the work of Professor Richard Rosecrance represents the outstanding attempt of recent years to produce a general model of international relations and the making of foreign policies, based on the evidence of historical research. His book Action and “Reaction in World Politics drew inductively from the historical evolution of the international system an analysis of the processes of that system. His latest book, International Relations: Peace or War?, summarizes the historical analysis of the earlier work and elaborates on its general discussion of foreign policy making, especially by drawing upon recent theoretical work by other authors. In both these books Rosecrance tries to explain the developments of international politics in terms of the long historical perspective, to show how fundamental changes in the nature of states and the international environment have altered the nature of relationships between states. The question to be explored here is the viability of Rosecrance's model and his explanations, examined in the light of a particular historical development which he

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 1975 , pp. 131 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 131 note 1. Rosecrance, Richard N., Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar. (Henceforth Action and Reaction).

page 131 note 2. Rosecrance, Richard N., International Relations: Peace or War? (New York, 1973)Google Scholar. (Hence forth Peace or War?)

page 132 note 1. A diagrammatic representation of Rosecrance's historical systems is given in Action and Reaction, frontpiece and endpiece. Historical developments within these systemic time periods are discussed in chapters 2–10.

page 132 note 2. Ibid. pp. 79–93.

page 133 note 1. .Ibid. pp. 236–9.

page 133 note 2. Ibid, pp. 110–13, 247–50.

page 133 note 3. Ibid, pp. 126–39, 250–4.

page 134 note 1. Ibid. pp. 142–4, 149–55, 254–7; Rosecrance's arguments on the link between imperialism and domestic political conservativism closely resemble those of Joseph Schumpeter in ‘sociology of Imperialisms’ in Imperialism and Social Classes, English ed. (Oxford, pp. 70–82)

page note 134 2. Peace or War?, op. cit. pp . 208–16.

page 134 note 3. Ibid. pp. 23–24.

page 134 note 4. Ibid. pp. 149–60.

page 134 note 5. Ibid. pp. 33–36, 182–3.

page 134 note 6. Ibid. pp. 172–3. This point is only partially correct. Rosecrance particularly counterposes the difference between domestic criticism of American policy in Vietnam and the lack of such criticism in nineteenth-century imperialistic states. Considering the level of American involvement and losses, and the lack of tangible success, the Johnson administration would have been lucky to remain in office in the nineteenth century. The leading French imperialist, Jules Ferry, was twice forced out of office because of much smaller overseas military involvements. British expansionist policies were also frequently subjected to hostile parliamentary comment, and the United States' own acquisition of the Philippines was so controversial that the treaty ending the Spanish-American War was barely ratified.

page 135 note 1. Notably James N . Rosenau and Wolfram Hanrieder.

page 135 note 2. Action and Reaction, op. cit. pp. 152–5. In Peace or War?, op. cit. pp. 150–3, Rosecrance does indicate a somewhat different view that authoritarian states may be freer of domestic constraints in making foreign policy decisions and may find it easier to undertake and terminate foreign commitments.

page 135 note 3. Cf. for example, the point of Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher that as much territory was added to the British Empire in the decades immediately before 1870 as in the period after that date; ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, vi (1953), pp. 1–5Google Scholar.

page 136 note 1. Rosecrance acknowledges this mixture of liberalism and imperialism under the Third Republic in Action and Reaction, op. cit. pp. 152–3.

page 136 note 2. Girardet, Raoul , L'idée coloniale en France, de 1871 d 1962 (Paris, 1972), pp. 94–102Google Scholar.

page 137 note 1. Huan-lai, Cho, Les origines du conflit franco-chinois a propos du Tonkin, jusqu'en 1883 (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar chaps. 5–9; Jean Ganiage, L'expansion coloniale de la France sous la Troisieme 1871–1914 (Paris, 1968), pp. 128–32Google Scholar.

page 137 note 2. On the French Geographical Movement, and the new interest in colonialism in the 1870s, cf. esp. McKay, Donald, ‘Colonialism in the French Geographical Movement’, Geographical Review, xxxiii (1943), pp. 214–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murphy, Agnes, The Ideology of French Imperialism, 1871–1881 (Washington, 1948)Google Scholar, passim; Girardet, pp. 25–37.

page 137 note 3. Bury, J. P. T., ‘Gambetta and Overseas Problems’, English Historical Review, Ixxxii (1967), pp. 277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Langer, William J, European Alliances and Alignments, 1870–90 (New York, 1950), pp. 266–268Google Scholar; Julien, Charles-Andre, ‘Jules Ferry’ in Julien, C.A. (ed.), Les politiques dyexpansion imperialiste (Paris, 1949), pp. 19–28Google Scholar, 33–40; Power, Thomas L., Jnr., Jules Ferry and the Renais sance of French Imperialism (New York, 1944), pp. 62–69Google Scholar.

page 138 note 1. Murphy, op. cit. pp. 75–92; Newbury, Colin and Kanya-Forstner, A. S., ‘French Policy and the Origins of the Scramble for West Africa’, Journal of African History, x (1969), pp. 253–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kanya-Forstner, A. S., The Conquest of the Western Sudan: A Study in French Military Imperialism (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 52–72Google Scholar.

page 138 note 2. Rosecrance, Action and Reaction, op. cit. pp. 153–4; cf. also Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (Oxford, 1954), pp. 285–6Google Scholar.

page 138 note 3. Ferry's policies and political tactics are well discussed in Julien; Power ; and Pisani-Ferry, Fresnette, Jules Ferry et le partage du monde (Paris, 1962), esp. pp. 33–37Google Scholar. A briefer analysis is in Chastenet, Jacques, Histoire de la Troisieme Republique, ii (Paris, 1952-1957), pp. 80–89Google Scholar, 154–65.

page 138 note 4. Ibid. pp. 269–80; Schmieder, Eric, ‘La Chambre de 1885–1889 et les affaires d u Tonkin’, Revue franpaise d histoire d'outre-mer, liii (1966), pp. 153–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winston B . Thorson, ‘Charles Freycinet: French Empire Builder’, Research Studies of the State College of Washington, xii pp. 266–82.

page 138 note 5. Chastenet, op. cit. ii , pp. 155–6; Ganiage, op. cit. pp . 190–2.

page 138 note 6. Stengers, Jean, ‘Léimperialisme coloniale de la fin du XIXe siècle: mythe ou realité?’, note Journal of African History, iii (1962), pp. 469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brunschwig, Henri, French Colonialism, I8JI-1914 Myths and Realities, English ed. (London, 1966), pp. 43–48Google Scholar, 65–74. These authors believe that the reception given Brazza upon his return from his great second expedition marks the beginning of a public commitment to French imperial expansion. However, an expansionist policy had been developed by the government earlier than this, while there were few, if any, subsequent displays of public enthusiasm for expansion later in the eighties.

page 139 note 1. The genesis of the movement was in the formation of the Comite de l' Afrique franfaise in 1890, probably as a result of disappointment among some imperial enthusiasts at the terms of the recent Anglo-French agreement on Africa. The ‘Colonial Group’ of the Chamber of Deputies was formed two years later. For general information on the Colonial Party, see Ganiage, op. cit. pp. 165–9; Brunschwig, op. cit. chap. 8; Girardet, op. cit. pp . 67–75 and Sieberg (cited infra), pp. 91–102.

page 139 note 2. The most thorough recent study of Etienne is Sieberg, Herward, Eugene Etienne und die franzÖsische Kolonialpolitik, 1887–1904 (Cologne, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though the author emphasizes the many gaps in documentary material available on this important figure.

page 139 note 3. Brunschwig, op. cit. pp. 111–17.

page 139 note 4. Ganiage, op. cit. pp . 155–9.

page 139 note 5. Brown, Roger Glenn, Fashoda Reconsidered: The Impact of Domestic Politics on French Policy in Africa, 1893–1898 (Baltimore, 1969), pp. 33–44Google Scholar; Leaman, Bertha R., ‘The Influence of Domestic Policy on Foreign Affairs in France, 1898–1905’, Journal, of Modern History, xiv (1942), pp. 449–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andrew, Christopher, Theophile Delcasse' and the Making of the Entente Cordiale (London, 1968), pp. 53–65Google Scholar; Chastenet, op. cit. iii, pp. 85–91.

page 140 note 1. Girardet, op. cit. pp. 94–102.

page 140 note 2. Carroll, E. Malcolm, French Public Opinion and Foreign Affairs, 1870–1914 (London, n.d, reprint of 1931 ed.), pp. 170–82Google Scholar; Arie, Rachel, ‘L'opinion publique en France et Faffaire de Fachoda’, Revue d‘histoire des colonies, xli (1954), pp. 329–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sanderson, G. N., England, and the Upper Nile: A Study in the Partition of Africa (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 354–62Google Scholar, 374–80.

page 140 note 3. Leaman, op, cit. pp. 461–79; Andrew, op, cit. pp. 255–9; Carroll, op. cit. pp. 206–13.

page 140 note 4. Hobson, John A., Imperialism: A Study (London, 1938), pp. 10–13, 46–61, 113–52, 191–222, Rosecrance's arguments also closely parallel some of Hobson's views on this subject.Google Scholar

page 141 note 1. Rose, J. H.et ah (eds.), The Cambridge History of the British Empire, iii (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 365–366Google Scholar (henceforth CHBE); Blake, Robert, The Conservative Party from Peel to (London, 1970), pp. 159–166Google Scholar; Pelling, Henry and Bealey, Frank, Labour and Politics, 1900–1906: A. History of the Labour Representation Committee (London, 1958), pp. 87–89Google Scholar. However, Richard Price in A.n Imperial War and the British Working Class: Working Class Attitudes and Reactions the Boer War, 1899–1902 (London, 1972)Google Scholar, presents evidence which casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of the Tory appeal to nationalism and patriotism; cf esp. chap. 3.

page 141 note 2. Blake, op. cit. pp. 60–95, 123–30. However, Rosecrance himself rejects such an interpretation of Palmerston's behaviour. Instead, he seeks to reconcile Palmerstonian interventionism with political liberalism; Action and Reaction, op. cit. pp . 113–15.

page 141 note 3. McDowell, R. B., British Conservatism, 1852–1914 (London, 1959), pp. 102–6Google Scholar; cf. also Blake, op, cit. pp. 163–4,

page 142 note 1. Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform. (London, 1960),Google Scholar chaps. 2 and 9; Halperin, Vladimir, Lord Milner and the Umpire (London, 1952), pp. 40–51Google Scholar. Milner, the proconsular High Commissioner of South Africa who brought on the Boer War, had been responsible for planning Harcourt' s Radical ‘Death Duties’ budget of 1894 and once contemplated writing a biography of Lassalle.

page 142 note 2. Rosecrance, Action and Reaction, op. cit. p. 153.

page 142 note 3. Cf. esp. the discussion by Semmel, op. cit. pp. 25–28 and A. F. Madden in CHBE, op. cit. PP. 339–53

page 142 note 4. Semmel, op. cit. pp. 64–82; Porter, Bernard, Critics of Empire: British Radical Attitudes to Colonialism in Africa, 1895–1914 (London, 1968), pp. 109–123Google Scholar.

page 142 note 5. Hargreaves, John D., Prelude to the Partition of West Africa (London, 1963), pp. 64–78Google Scholar; Mclntyre, W. D., ‘British Policy in West Africa: The Ashanti Expedition of 1873–4’ Historical Journal, v (1962), pp. 19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 143 note 1. The most concise and complete study of Disraeli's views is Stembridge, Stanley R., ‘Disraeli and the Millstones’, Journal of British Studies, v (Nov. 1965), pp. 122–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf CHBE, op. cit. pp. 40–43; Tyler, J. E., The Struggle for Imperial Unity, 1868–1895 (London, 1938), pp. 23–26Google Scholar.

page 143 note 2. Galbraith, John S., ‘Myths of the “Little England” Era’, American Historical Review, Ixvii (1961), pp. 34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 143 note 3. Semmel, op. cit. pp. 25–28, 83–97; Strauss, William L., Joseph Chamberlain and the Theory of Imperialism (Washington, 1942)Google Scholar, chaps. 3–4; M. Crouzet, ‘Joseph Chamberlain’, in Julien, (ed.), op. cit. pp. 157–206 ; Fraser, Peter, Joseph Chamberlain: Radicalism and Empire, 1868–1914 (London, 1966)Google Scholar, chaps. 6–7, 10–11; Hamer, D. A., Liberal Politics in the Age of Gladstone and Rosebery: A Study in Leadership and Policy (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar, chap. 5.

page 143 note 4. CHBE, op. cit. pp. 131–3; Robinson, Ronald and Gallagher, John, Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism (London, 1961), pp. 66–71Google Scholar, 105–21; Strauss, op. cit. pp. 21–26, 34; Lowe, C. J., The Reluctant Imperialists, i (London, 1967), pp. 48–51Google Scholar.

page 144 note 1. It cannot be too strongly stressed that for most of his career, Salisbury, like Ferry, feared reaction of domestic opinion against imperial expansion, rather than the pressure for expansion. For example, cf. Grenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy: the Close of Nineteenth Century (London, 1962)Google Scholar, chap. 1; Penson, Dame Lillian, ‘The New Course in British Foreign Policy, 1892–1902’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th ser., xxv (1943), .121–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 144 note 2. CHBE, op. cit. pp. 55–60, 102–7; de Kiewet, C. W., The Imperial Factor in South Africa (Cambridge, 1937),passim;, Lowe, op, cit. pp. 73–78Google Scholar.

page 145 note 1. In Peace or War?, op. cit. chap. 12, Rosecrance takes some pains to explain why all cases of domestic upheaval have not wrought corresponding aggressive or adventurous developments in national foreign policies.

page 146 note 1. Taylor, , op. cit. pp. 377–9, 387–401; Germany's First Bid for Colonies, 1884–1885: A. Move in Bismarck's European Diplomacy (Hamden, Conn., 1967 reprint)Google Scholar.

page 146 note 2. Platt, D. C. M.,Finance, Trade andPolitics in British Foreign Policy, 1815–1914 (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar; Feis, Herbert, Europe, the World's Banker (New Haven, Conn., 1930)Google Scholar.

page 146 note 3. Robinson and Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, passim,

page 146 note 4. Fieldhouse, D. K., ‘“Imperialism”: An Historiographical Revision’, Economic Historical Review, 2nd ser., xiv (Dec. 1961), pp. 187–209Google Scholar.