IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v66y2022i2p217-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s Fair in International Politics? Equity, Equality, and Foreign Policy Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen E. Powers
  • Joshua D. Kertzer
  • Deborah J. Brooks
  • Stephen G. Brooks

Abstract

How do concerns about fairness shape foreign policy preferences? In this article, we show that fairness has two faces—one concerning equity, the other concerning equality—and that taking both into account can shed light on the structure of important foreign policy debates. Fielding an original survey on a national sample of Americans, we show that different types of Americans think about fairness in different ways, and that these fairness concerns shape foreign policy preferences: individuals who emphasize equity are far more sensitive to concerns about burden sharing, are far less likely to support US involvement abroad when other countries aren’t paying their fair share, and often support systematically different foreign policies than individuals who emphasize equality. As long as IR scholars focus only on the equality dimension of fairness, we miss much about how fairness concerns matter in world politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen E. Powers & Joshua D. Kertzer & Deborah J. Brooks & Stephen G. Brooks, 2022. "What’s Fair in International Politics? Equity, Equality, and Foreign Policy Attitudes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 217-245, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:217-245
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027211041393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027211041393
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027211041393?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Bernauer & Robert Gampfer & Aya Kachi, 2014. "European unilateralism and involuntary burden-sharing in global climate politics: A public opinion perspective from the other side," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 132-151, March.
    2. Jonathan A. Chu, 2019. "A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1140-1164, May.
    3. Trump, Kris-Stella, 2018. "Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 929-952, October.
    4. E. Ostrom, 2010. "A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action Presidential Address, American political Science Association, 1997," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 5-52.
    5. Grieco, Joseph M., 1988. "Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 485-507, July.
    6. Chilton, Adam S. & Milner, Helen V. & Tingley, Dustin, 2020. "Reciprocity and Public Opposition to Foreign Direct Investment," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 129-153, January.
    7. Nelson, Thomas E. & Clawson, Rosalee A. & Oxley, Zoe M., 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 567-583, September.
    8. Liberman, Peter, 2006. "An Eye for an Eye: Public Support for War Against Evildoers," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 687-722, July.
    9. Andrew Bertoli & Allan Dafoe & Robert F. Trager, 2019. "Is There a War Party? Party Change, the Left–Right Divide, and International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(4), pages 950-975, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:517-533 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daniel A. DeCaro & Marci S. DeCaro & Jared M. Hotaling & Joseph G. Johnson, 2020. "Procedural and economic utilities in consequentialist choice: Trading freedom of choice to minimize financial losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 517-533, July.
    3. David A. Steinberg & Yeling Tan, 2023. "Public responses to foreign protectionism: Evidence from the US-China trade war," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 145-167, January.
    4. François Bousquet & Valérie Barbat, 2021. "Capital social collectif et rites de passage," Post-Print hal-03768511, HAL.
    5. Mubashar Hasan & Mushfique Wadud, 2020. "Re-Conceptualizing Safety of Journalists in Bangladesh," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 27-36.
    6. Kaplan Yilmaz, 2017. "China’s OBOR as a Geo-Functional Institutionalist Project," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 7-23, June.
    7. Bruce Desmarais, 2012. "Lessons in disguise: multivariate predictive mistakes in collective choice models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 719-737, June.
    8. Simon Hartmann & Thomas Lindner & Jakob Müllner & Jonas Puck, 2022. "Beyond the nation-state: Anchoring supranational institutions in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 1282-1306, August.
    9. Johanna Dunaway & Regina P. Branton & Marisa A. Abrajano, 2010. "Agenda Setting, Public Opinion, and the Issue of Immigration Reform," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(2), pages 359-378, June.
    10. Anne-Sophie Merot & Frédérique Grazzini & Jean-Pierre Boissin, 2014. "Gouvernance et développement durable : Le cas de la responsabilité élargie du producteur dans une filière de gestion des déchets," Post-Print halshs-01185814, HAL.
    11. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Michal Kolmas, 2016. "China’s Approach to Regional Cooperation," China Report, , vol. 52(3), pages 192-210, August.
    13. Prather, Lauren, 2024. "Ideology at the Water’s Edge: Explaining Variation in Public Support for Foreign Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Jonathan A. Chu, 2019. "A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1140-1164, May.
    15. Felicia Robertson & Sverker C. Jagers & Björn Rönnerstrand, 2018. "Managing Sustainable Use of Antibiotics—The Role of Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, January.
    16. Richter, Andries & Grasman, Johan, 2013. "The transmission of sustainable harvesting norms when agents are conditionally cooperative," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 202-209.
    17. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    18. Andrea Gerlak & Jonathan Lautze & Mark Giordano, 2011. "Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 179-199, May.
    19. Marc L. Busch & Eric R. Reinhardt, 1993. "Nice Strategies in a World of Relative Gains," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 427-445, September.
    20. Christopher W. Blair & Jonathan A. Chu & Joshua A. Schwartz, 2022. "The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 677-703, May.
    21. Lu-Ming Tseng, 2019. "How Implicit Ethics Institutionalization Affects Ethical Selling Intention: The Case of Taiwan’s Life Insurance Salespeople," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 727-742, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:217-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.