Helen V. Milner - Böcker

The advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the ongoing process of economic integration in Europe, the formation of Mercosur, and the possibility of a new Asia-Pacific economic bloc have led to intense debates about the current status and future direction of regionalism. The Political Economy of Regionalism is one of the first books to analyze regionalism from a political economy perspective. Contributors: Benjamin J. Cohen; Beth V. Yarbrough and Robert M. Yarbrough; Charles A. Kupchan; Edward D. Mansfield and Helen V. Milner; Edward D. Mansfield and Rachel Bronson; Helen V. Milner; Joseph M. Grieco; Pier Carlo Padoan; Stephen Haggard

This bibliography focuses on books and articles dealing with the interplay of wealth and power in the context of national security policy, emphasising on the economic instruments of statecraft that are used to pursue national security goals and examining the politics of economic cooperation.

This bibliography focuses on books and articles dealing with the interplay of wealth and power in the context of national security policy, emphasising on the economic instruments of statecraft that are used to pursue national security goals and examining the politics of economic cooperation.

Rapid increases in international economic exchanges during the past four decades have made national economies very open to the world economy by historical standards. Much recent economic analysis has been devoted to exploring the effects of such internationalization on macroeconomic policy options, national competitiveness, and rewards to various factors of production. The central proposition of this volume is that we can no longer understand politics within countries without comprehending the nature of the linkages between national economies and the world economy, and changes in such linkages. The authors examine the effect of internationalization on the policy preferences of socio-economic and political agents within countries toward national policies and national policy-making institutions and on the national policies and policy institutions themselves.

Why didn't the protectionist spiral of the 1920s reappear in the 1970s in light of similar economic and political realities? In Resisting Protectionism, Helen Milner analyzes the growth of international economic interdependence and its effects on trade policy in the United States and France. She argues that the limited protectionist response of the 1970s stems from the growth of firms' international economic ties, which reduces their interest in protection by increasing its cost. Thus firms with greater international connections will be less protectionist than more domestically oriented firms. The book develops this thesis by examining the international ties of export dependence, multinationality, and global intra-firm trade. After studying selected U.S. industries, Milner also examines French firms to see if they respond to increased interdependence in the same way as American firms, despite their different historical, ideological, and political contexts.

Increasingly scholars of international relations are rallying around the idea that "domestic politics matters." Few, however, have articulated precisely how or why it matters. In this significant book, Helen Milner lays out the first fully developed theory of domestic politics, showing exactly how domestic politics affects international outcomes. In developing this rational-choice theory, Milner argues that any explanation that treats states as unitary actors is ultimately misleading. She describes all states as polyarchic, where decision-making power is shared between two or more actors (such as a legislature and an executive). Milner constructs a new model based on two-level game theory, reflecting the political activity at both the domestic and international levels. She illustrates this model by taking up the critical question of cooperation among nations. Milner examines the central factors that influence the strategic game of domestic politics.She shows that it is the outcome of this internal game--not fears of other countries' relative gains or the likelihood of cheating--that ultimately shapes how the international game is played out and therefore the extent of cooperative endeavors. The interaction of the domestic actors' preferences, given their political institutions and levels of information, defines when international cooperation is possible and what its terms will be. Several test cases examine how this argument explains the phases of a cooperative attempt: the initiation, the negotiations at the international level, and the eventual domestic ratification. The book reaches the surprising conclusion that theorists--neo-Institutionalists and Realists alike--have overestimated the likelihood of cooperation among states.

Preferential trading arrangements (PTAs) play an increasingly prominent role in the global political economy, two notable examples being the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements foster economic integration among member states by enhancing their access to one another's markets. Yet despite the importance of PTAs to international trade and world politics, until now little attention has been focused on why governments choose to join them and how governments design them. This book offers valuable new insights into the political economy of PTA formation. Many economists have argued that the roots of these agreements lie in the promise they hold for improving the welfare of member states. Others have posited that trade agreements are a response to global political conditions. Edward Mansfield and Helen Milner argue that domestic politics provide a crucial impetus to the decision by governments to enter trade pacts.Drawing on this argument, they explain why democracies are more likely to enter PTAs than nondemocratic regimes, and why as the number of veto players--interest groups with the power to block policy change--increases in a prospective member state, the likelihood of the state entering a trade agreement is reduced. The book provides a novel view of the political foundations of trade agreements.

Since they were pioneered in the 1970s by Robert Keohane and others, the broad range of neoliberal institutionalist theories of international relations have grown in importance. In an increasingly globalized world, the realist and neorealist focus on states, military power, conflict, and anarchy has more and more given way to a recognition of the importance of nonstate actors, nonmilitary forms of power, interdependence, international institutions, and cooperation. Drawing together a group of leading international relations theorists, this book explores the frontiers of new research on the role of such forces in world politics. The topics explored in these chapters include the uneven role of peacekeepers in civil wars, the success of human rights treaties in promoting women's rights, the disproportionate power of developing countries in international environmental policy negotiations, and the prospects for Asian regional cooperation.While all of the chapters demonstrate the empirical and theoretical vitality of liberal and institutionalist theories, they also highlight weaknesses that should drive future research and influence the reform of foreign policy and international organizations. In addition to the editors, the contributors are Vinod Aggarawal, Jonathan Aronson, Elizabeth DeSombre, Page Fortna, Michael Gilligan, Lisa Martin, Timothy McKeown, Ronald Mitchell, Layna Mosley, Beth Simmons, Randall Stone, and Ann Tickner.

When engaging with other countries, the U.S. government has a number of different policy instruments at its disposal, including foreign aid, international trade, and the use of military force. But what determines which policies are chosen? Does the United States rely too much on the use of military power and coercion in its foreign policies? Sailing the Water's Edge focuses on how domestic U.S. politics--in particular the interactions between the president, Congress, interest groups, bureaucratic institutions, and the public--have influenced foreign policy choices since World War II and shows why presidents have more control over some policy instruments than others. Presidential power matters and it varies systematically across policy instruments. Helen Milner and Dustin Tingley consider how Congress and interest groups have substantial material interests in and ideological divisions around certain issues and that these factors constrain presidents from applying specific tools. As a result, presidents select instruments that they have more control over, such as use of the military. This militarization of U.S. foreign policy raises concerns about the nature of American engagement, substitution among policy tools, and the future of U.S. foreign policy. Milner and Tingley explore whether American foreign policy will remain guided by a grand strategy of liberal internationalism, what affects American foreign policy successes and failures, and the role of U.S. intelligence collection in shaping foreign policy. The authors support their arguments with rigorous theorizing, quantitative analysis, and focused case studies, such as U.S. foreign policy in Sub-Saharan Africa across two presidential administrations. Sailing the Water's Edge examines the importance of domestic political coalitions and institutions on the formation of American foreign policy.

When engaging with other countries, the U.S. government has a number of different policy instruments at its disposal, including foreign aid, international trade, and the use of military force. But what determines which policies are chosen? Does the United States rely too much on the use of military power and coercion in its foreign policies? Sailing the Water's Edge focuses on how domestic U.S. politics--in particular the interactions between the president, Congress, interest groups, bureaucratic institutions, and the public--have influenced foreign policy choices since World War II and shows why presidents have more control over some policy instruments than others. Presidential power matters and it varies systematically across policy instruments. Helen Milner and Dustin Tingley consider how Congress and interest groups have substantial material interests in and ideological divisions around certain issues and that these factors constrain presidents from applying specific tools. As a result, presidents select instruments that they have more control over, such as use of the military. This militarization of U.S. foreign policy raises concerns about the nature of American engagement, substitution among policy tools, and the future of U.S. foreign policy. Milner and Tingley explore whether American foreign policy will remain guided by a grand strategy of liberal internationalism, what affects American foreign policy successes and failures, and the role of U.S. intelligence collection in shaping foreign policy. The authors support their arguments with rigorous theorizing, quantitative analysis, and focused case studies, such as U.S. foreign policy in Sub-Saharan Africa across two presidential administrations. Sailing the Water's Edge examines the importance of domestic political coalitions and institutions on the formation of American foreign policy.

How the unequal burdens of climate change are reshaping both domestic and international politicsClimate change is no longer an abstraction, as the world experiences extreme heat, rising sea levels, and brutally destructive wildfires. In Climate Fault Lines, Alexander Gazmararian and Helen Milner show that the effects of climate change are far from equal, with the most severe damages concentrated in the world’s hottest regions. They argue that this divide—a fault line that cuts across existing social, economic, and political divisions—will produce diverging political responses to the changing climate. People, businesses, and governments on the more vulnerable side of the fault line are highly motivated to address climate change because they directly experience its intensifying effects. Those on the other side, however, have less motivation to address the problem, and when they do enact climate policy, it’s mainly for other reasons—cleaner air, economic gains, or greater energy security.Gazmararian and Milner support their argument—which departs from the prevailing wisdom that Northern European states are climate leaders whereas developing nations are free riders—by bringing together models from economics, geosciences and political science. The data show that voters and businesses with the most to lose are reshaping the incentives and policies of local and national governments below the fault line. Unequal harm, not shared global vulnerability, increasingly informs climate politics.

How the unequal burdens of climate change are reshaping both domestic and international politicsClimate change is no longer an abstraction, as the world experiences extreme heat, rising sea levels, and brutally destructive wildfires. In Climate Fault Lines, Alexander Gazmararian and Helen Milner show that the effects of climate change are far from equal, with the most severe damages concentrated in the world’s hottest regions. They argue that this divide—a fault line that cuts across existing social, economic, and political divisions—will produce diverging political responses to the changing climate. People, businesses, and governments on the more vulnerable side of the fault line are highly motivated to address climate change because they directly experience its intensifying effects. Those on the other side, however, have less motivation to address the problem, and when they do enact climate policy, it’s mainly for other reasons—cleaner air, economic gains, or greater energy security.Gazmararian and Milner support their argument—which departs from the prevailing wisdom that Northern European states are climate leaders whereas developing nations are free riders—by bringing together models from economics, geosciences and political science. The data show that voters and businesses with the most to lose are reshaping the incentives and policies of local and national governments below the fault line. Unequal harm, not shared global vulnerability, increasingly informs climate politics.