1 the Relevance of Advocacy Coalitions for The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 The Relevance of Advocacy Coalitions for the Ethnic Interest Groups: unveiling this causal mechanism João Paulo Nicolini Gabriel Do not publish. Introduction Ethnic interest groups are politically-aimed organizations whose activism represents the interests of a given diaspora in a public debate. Ethnic lobbies, diaspora lobbies, or ethnic minority groups are used as synonyms by the existing literature (Rubenzer 2008). Studies about this subject provided significant contributions to the scholarly science debate about exogenous actors attempting to influence institutional decisions (Snider 2004). The body of this literature focuses on foreign policy. Hence this research agenda became a sort of intersection between political science studies on interest groups and analyses on foreign policy (cf. Milner and Tingley 2015). Existing works usually rely on characteristics unveiled by the case studies to infer about whether a given ethnic lobby enjoyed the ability to persuade decisionmakers. Some scholars reviewed studies and clustered the causal conditions in systematic categories. It represented a significant progress for the field in methodological terms. Rubenzer and Redd (2010) tackled this methodological issue by testing some of these criteria to determine which were the most relevant to scrutinize these actors. Their article represented the most sophisticated initiative in this field due to the employed experimental design. Our article aims to complement their conclusions by claiming that some of these causal criteria can be theorized as parts of a causal mechanism, the advocacy coalition. Previous within-case studies relied on historical-descriptive analyses to explain the process between a cause and an outcome. Inferences were specific elements without robust theoretical elaboration. The strategy to add causal criteria to a list of conditions is under stress because these elements are exceeding the number of groups assessed (Rubenzer 2008). Hence this paper congregates some criteria into a single mechanism to advance methodological refinement of this field. It facilitates the assessment of the influence of ethnic interest groups during a significant foreign policy decision-making process that occurs in the Congress of the United States. This article proceeds as follows. Firstly, we describe the methodological design employed throughout the investigation. Secondly, we draw some methodological considerations over the field of ethnic interest groups based upon a systematic bibliographic review. It aims to depict the relevance 2 of taking into consideration the presence of an advocacy coalition to avoid bias or omitting of causal conditions. Thirdly, we delineate the qualitative thresholds of this causal mechanism. Fourthly, a case study is applied to test our affirmatives. We investigate the role played by Indian Americans1 during the legislative debates of the 2008 Civil Nuclear Agreement between India and the United States. It is a typical case to analyze our theoretical proposition because scholars debate whether ethnic lobbies were a sufficient condition to explain the reasons for congresspeople to forsook their entrenched nonproliferation concerns against India and endorse the deal (cf. Abraham 2014; Kirk 2008; Kjølseth 2009; Lantis 2018; Mistry 2014; Pant 2011; Sharma 2016). An in-depth investigation of this event demonstrates that authors provided more accurate inferences when assuming that Indian Americans enjoyed success to the degree that their efforts complemented other groups' actions. Finally, there is a section of final considerations. Methodological Design Qualitative small-n studies prevail among studies on ethnic interest groups. (cf. Ahrari 1987; Ambrosio 2002b; Haney and Vanderbush 1999; Kirk 2008; Koinova 2013; LeoGrande 2019; Mearsheimer and Walt 2006; Mistry 2014; Ross 2013; Rytz 2013; Sharma 2016; Shain 1995; Vanderbush 2009; Watanabe 1984). Among these within-case investigations, a minority used quantitative techniques such as regressions or logit analysis (cf. Kastner and Grob 2009). Very few authors applied either mixed-methods (cf. Paul and Paul 2009) or experimental (cf. Rubenzer and Redd 2010) research designs, notwithstanding the aim was to build a comprehensive explanation over ethnic interest groups role in the United States foreign policy (cf. Ambrosio 2002a; Uslander 2004; Shain and Barth 2003; Smith 2000). Rubenzer (2008) was the only author to employ the QCA. To that end, we set a research design aimed to support the methodological development of the field. Hence this article employs a qualitative methodology based upon two methods: systematic literature review and deductive process tracing. Once we advocate that many criteria listed by previous works could be parts of a causal mechanism, this analytical strategy provides insights about the definition of advocacy coalition. It enables the investigation of a causal mechanism not only to theorize the qualitative thresholds of the concept but also to observe an advocacy coalition working in a political process. The literature, for example, acknowledges the process tracing as the most accurate method to understand the causal effects of a given mechanism (Beach and Pedersen 2016). 1 This community is composed of both Indians who permanently reside in the United States and U.S-born citizens who have Indian origins (Chakravorty, Kapur and Singh 2016; Saxena 2009). 3 The first step is to systematically review the existing literature to draw some descriptive inferences over the body of works about ethnic interest groups within foreign policy studies. Unlike other scholarly areas on interest groups, these researchers focus on international affairs inasmuch they assume an interaction between two levels of analysis – i.e., the domestic institutional context and international relations. Therefore, this method aims at collecting data to enable a fine-grained investigation over the idiosyncrasies of this are vis-à-vis the mainstream methodological strategies to research interest groups. The body of literature about ethnic lobbies assesses the context of the legislative branch of the United States, so our review focuses on this analytical scope. Likewise, this step provides observable implications about the qualitative threshold of how previous works evaluate the presence of an advocacy coalition as a relevant aspect to the ethnic interest groups. It enables the theoretical operationalization of this causal mechanism. We employed the technique of qualitative literature review (cf. Grant and Booth 2009; Snyder 2019) to appraise systematic characteristics within the previous works. In this sense, we culled some articles from the entire population found after a research at the Google Scholar database using the key-words: “ethnic interest groups”; “ethnic lobbies”; “diaspora lobbies”; and “ethnic minorities groups”. We gave preference for books and articles published in leading foreign policy analysis- related journals, according to the Scimago Journal & Country ranking on Political Science and International Relations. It reduces number of sources to only the ones that have been subject to a robust peer-review process (Grant and Booth 2009). Thus, we focus only on most sophisticated and innovative research designs applied in this field. Collected data are applied to describe each part of the causal mechanism called "advocacy coalition". Some authors introduced terms such as Israel lobby (Mearsheimer and Walt 2006) or India lobby (Mistry 2014). They are sorts of coalitions comprising both individuals and organizations that persuade decisionmakers to assume a compatible position with the interests of a given country (Mearsheimer and Walt 2006). It is worthwhile to refine such a definition to both avoid a conceptual stretching of this mechanism and differentiate it from in-group attributes and contextual conditions. Furthermore, we employ the deductive process tracing (Falleti and Mahoney 2015) to scrutinize the case of Indian American efforts in the Capitol Hill to pass the civil nuclear agreement. The scrutinized period ranges from 2005, when the executive branch unveiled the plan to work with India, to October 2008, when it received legislative approval. This method searches for empirical material to reconstruct the causal process (cf. Beach and Pedersen 2016). We attempt to gain insights to unfold not only the entities that worked to produce the observed outcome but also the intervening linkages that connected their actions (Checkel 2008; Mahoney 2016). The ultimate aims are to attest whether 4 an advocacy coalition was present and to test whether the success of ethnic interest groups was due to the influence of this causal mechanism. We set a Bayesian informal logic to assess the pieces of evidence according to their uniqueness to enable the drawing of the causal pathways traced (Beach and Pedersen 2016; cf. Collier 2011). It means that we built the causal sequence after assessing empirical materials that confirm the presence of a given entity or event. The preference for primary sources hinges on the necessity to both avoid a time-consuming "soaking-and-probing"2 observation collection and to build the historical sequences using smoking-gun shreds of evidence (cf. Beach and Pedersen 2016; Bennett and Checkel 2015). This methodological design draws on a qualitative archival analysis to assess primary sources such as official documents, interviews, speech transcriptions, reports, and statements. Likewise, we scrutinized sources from the Indian American