UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO Going Public Abroad
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO Going Public Abroad: When and why leaders address foreign publics A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Kelly S. Matush Committee in charge: Professor David A. Lake, Chair Professor Matthew A. Baum, Co-Chair Professor Marisa A. Abrajano Professor John S. Ahlquist Professor Christina J. Schneider Professor Branislav L. Slantchev 2018 Copyright Kelly S. Matush, 2018 All rights reserved. The dissertation of Kelly S. Matush is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Co-Chair Chair University of California San Diego 2018 iii DEDICATION To my parents. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page . iii Dedication . iv Table of Contents . .v List of Figures . vii List of Tables . viii Acknowledgements . ix Vita ...............................................x Abstract of the Dissertation . xi Chapter 1 Introduction . .1 1.1 Head of State International Public Diplomacy . .3 1.2 A common strategy . .5 1.3 Actors . .8 1.4 A Cost-Benefit analysis of Going Public Abroad . 11 1.5 Persuasion . 14 1.6 Backlash . 16 1.7 Outline of the Dissertation . 18 Chapter 2 Which leaders can get attention in foreign publics? . 21 2.1 Condition 1: The visiting leader’s relevance to the destination country . 22 2.2 Condition 2: The media environment of destination country . 25 2.3 Condition 3: When does a leader want to speak to a foreign audience? . 27 2.4 Global attention to international visits . 29 2.5 Determinants of international visits . 40 2.6 Conclusion . 46 Chapter 3 Persuasion: When low-cost statements from leaders can influence a foreign audience . 51 3.1 When can a leader persuade a foreign public? . 55 3.2 When are foreign elites credible? . 60 3.3 Conclusion . 69 Chapter 4 Can leaders change foreign opinions? Two cases of persuasion . 72 4.1 The “Back of the Queue”: Obama on Brexit, 2016 . 75 4.2 The Hot Dog Summit: The British King and Queen in the US, 1939 . 97 4.3 Conclusion . 109 v Chapter 5 Backlash: Why leaders go public abroad to antagonize a foreign audience . 113 5.1 Mr. Bibi goes to Washington . 115 5.2 A theoretical model of foreign backlash . 119 5.3 Who can provoke a backlash? . 126 5.4 Netanyahu’s benefit from backlash . 129 5.5 Israeli public opinion . 135 5.6 Conclusion . 143 Chapter 6 Conclusion . 147 Appendix A Measuring attention: Google Trends . 153 Appendix B Head of state international travel data . 157 Appendix C Attention analysis robustness tables . 160 Appendix D International Visits analysis robustness tables . 170 Appendix E Measure of trade exposure to US . 179 Appendix F Persuasion cases robustness tables . 181 Appendix G Backlash model . 185 References . 193 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Actors . .5 Figure 1.2: Annual head of state travel. Data collected from individual government web- sites. .7 Figure 1.3: Countries visited by Heads of Government, 2005-2015, from Brazil, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, the U.S., and the U.K. .7 Figure 2.1: Predicted level of attention by UN voting ideal point difference . 34 Figure 2.2: Predicted level of attention by polity score difference . 35 Figure 2.3: Marginal probability of a visit for an autocratic (polity=-6)and a democratic country (polity=6) . 48 Figure 4.1: British public support for Brexit, January 1-June 23, 2016 . 78 Figure 4.2: News articles in the UK containing the word “Obama” . 82 Figure 4.3: Google search volume of “Obama” from within the UK . 83 Figure 4.4: Google search volume of “TTIP” or “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Part- nership” from within the UK . 84 Figure 4.5: Google search volume of “Abe” and “Obama” from within the UK . 85 Figure 4.6: News Articles in UK Containing the words “Obama” and “queue” . 87 Figure 4.7: News Articles in UK Containing the words “Obama” and “TTIP” . 87 Figure 4.8: News Articles in UK Containing the words “Obama” and “trade” . 87 Figure 4.9: Marginal effect of Obama’s speech by US Export Reliance . 95 Figure 4.10: King George IV and Queen Elizabeth’s 1939 route, FDR Library . 104 Figure 4.11: Change in Support for Intervention, by Approval of Roosevelt . 109 Figure 4.12: Change in Support for Intervention, by Allied Ancestry . 111 Figure 5.1: Backlash Game . 120 Figure 5.2: Google searches from within the US. American public attention to “Netanyahu” “Israel,” and “Iran” spiked during Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on March 3, 2015. 133 Figure 5.3: Marginal effect on Netanyahu’s speech on favorability towards Netanyahu by partisanship. 136 Figure 5.4: Marginal effect on Netanyahu’s speech on favorability towards Netanyahu by approval of Obama. 137 Figure A.1: Google Trends output for “pumpkin” within the United States, 2017 . 154 Figure A.2: Google Trends output for “pumpkin” and “tree” within the United States, 2017 155 Figure A.3: Google Trends output for “pumpkin” and “tree” within the United States, and “pumpkin” within Australia, 2017 . 155 Figure A.4: Google Trends output for “book” and “libro” within the Mexico, 2017 . 156 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Table of Means . 32 Table 2.2: Attention from public to State A towards State B . 33 Table 2.3: Attention within selected years . 36 Table 2.4: Attention from public to State A towards State B, State A Fixed Effects . 39 Table 2.5: Attention from public of State A towards State B, Media controls . 41 Table 2.6: Visits from public of State A towards State B . 45 Table 2.7: Visits and political vulnerability . 47 Table 2.8: Visits and political vulnerability, conditioned on democratic level . 49 Table 4.1: Balance Table . 92 Table 4.2: Probit model: Support for EU following Obama’s Speech . 94 Table 4.3: Balance Table . 107 Table 4.4: Support for intervention following Royal Visit, by Approval for Roosevelt . 108 Table 4.5: Support for intervention following Royal Visit, by Allied Ancestry . 110 Table 5.1: Favorable opinion of Netanyahu following speech and partisanship . 138 Table 5.2: Favorable opinion of Netanyahu following speech and approval of Obama . 139 Table 5.3: Balance Table . 141 Table 5.4: Change in support for Likud-led coalition following Netanyahu’s visit to US . 142 Table 5.5: Change in favorability towards Netanyahu following his visit to US . 144 Table C.1: Attention within years: 2004-2007 . 161 Table C.2: Attention within years: 2008-2011 . 162 Table C.3: Attention within years: 2012-2015 . 163 Table C.4: Monthly attention from public of State A towards State B . 164 Table C.5: Standardized attention from public to State A towards State B . 165 Table C.6: Attention from public of State A towards State B, high internet access states . 166 Table C.7: Attention from public of State A towards G20 states . 167 Table C.8: Visits and Media access, internet . 168 Table C.9: Visits and Media access, TV . 169 Table D.1: Visits from public of State A towards State B, Lebovic and Saunders model . 172 Table D.2: Visits from public of State A towards State B, OLS . 173 Table D.3: Visits from public of State A towards State B, Probit . 174 Table D.4: Visits from public of State A towards Democratic State B . 175 Table D.5: Political vulnerability and visits, OLS . 176 Table D.6: Political vulnerability and visits, Probit . 177 Table D.7: Political vulnerability and visits to democratic states . 178 Table F.1: Support for EU following Obama’s Speech by Regional Exports to the US . 182 Table F.2: Unordered Multinomial Logit: Support for EU following Obama’s Speech . 183 Table F.3: Support for EU following Obama Speech, contingent on UKIP membership . 184 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have a rich community of colleagues, friends, and family that have helped through this dissertation, and I am truly grateful for each of the people that I have relied on. My co-chairs have been exemplary in their patience and assistance. I am profoundly grate- ful to David Lake for his thoughtful and kind guidance and to Matt Baum for the encourage- ment and inspiration he gave me. I am extremely thankful to my committee Branislav Slantchev, Christina Schneider, Marisa Abrajano, and John Ahlquist for their continuous support and sugges- tions throughout this project. I benefit from a deep field of brilliant and supportive friends and colleagues that deserve credit for many hours of feedback and optimism. I am grateful to Matt Bergman, Chris Bryan, Cesi Cruz, Michael Davidson, Maya Duru, Nazita Lajevardi, David Lindsey, Daniella Kaufman, Rupal Mehta, Brandon Merrell, Sean Morgan, Kristy Pathakis, Caleb Scoville, Deborah Seligsohn, Abigail Vaughn, Alex Verink, Neil Visalvanich, and Jason Wu. I am lucky to have a family that never stops pummeling me with love, insightful ideas and, often, a very hands-on approach to assisting me in this dissertation. John, Susie, Brad, Lauren, and Patrick- thank you. Finally, I thank my husband, Dotan, for his apparently infinite belief in my abilities, thought- ful input, and proofreading, and for the joy he brings to both the highs and lows of this journey. ix VITA 2010 Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Minors in Mathematics and Philoso- phy, Texas A&M University 2014 Master of Arts in Political Science, University of California San Diego 2018 Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science, University.