The Shape of Elite Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy, 1992 to 2004
Research has demonstrated considerable diversity in the evolution of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders. Holsti and Rosenau's three-headed eagle, Wittkopf's four-headed eagle, and Rosati and Creed's six-headed eagle produced a number of categories that help to explain the significance of this diversity since the collapse of the Cold War consensus. This article expands upon this research by observing even greater complexity and diversity in the shape of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders since the end of the Cold War. Using a content analysis of national opinion and foreign policy journals between 1992 and 2004, it identifies and details nine foreign policy orientations (missionaries, hegemonists, globalizers, global capitalists, narrow realists, progressive internationalists, anti-imperialists, neighbors, and disengagers) held by elite opinion leaders. It also suggests that elites are altering their foreign policy orientations by absorbing profound global changes into their belief systems.
The Plight of the Poor: The United States Must Increase Development Aid
The recent downturn has affected not only the Asian tigers and other developing countries but also states that are too poor to be considered emerging markets. Africa's growth for 1998, once expected to exceed 4 percent, has in fact been closer to 2.2 percent. In Latin America, growth forecasts have been scaled down from 5.3 percent before the crisis to 2.6 percent for 1999. Furthermore, even before the inter national financial crisis cut the global growth rate in half and plunged more than a third of the world's economies
Public Attitudes toward Key Foreign Policy Events
This study considers the attitudes of Americans toward contemporary foreign affairs. It links these opinions to the literature and theory regarding public opinion and foreign policy that have developed over the last several decades. Based on the underlying attitudes identified in this literature, measures were operationalized to describe Americans with differing opinions about the means of achieving foreign policy goals. These measures were used in a series of surveys conducted in 1986 focusing on foreign affairs events. Public opinion on these events is examined in light of the fundamental attitude variations identified and implications are drawn regarding the challenges of building any type of public opinion foreign policy consensus. It appears that an overarching foreign policy opinion consensus is impossible. Rather, the makeup of public opinion majorities will vary from issue to issue.