I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Steve Brams, Kristian Gleditsch, Peter Katzenstein, Cecelia Lynch, Covadonga Meseguer, Kathryn Sikkink, Beth Simmons, Art Stein, and Mike Ward, as well as ISQ editor Bill Thompson. Tanja Boerzel and Herman Schwartz commented on early versions. I also thank Josh Malnight, Heather Cox, Beijie Tang, Tom Le, Celia Reynolds, and Wilfred Wan for research assistance.
Of Dominoes and Firewalls: The Domestic, Regional, and Global Politics of International Diffusion1
Article first published online: 16 DEC 2012
© 2012 International Studies Association
International Studies Quarterly
Volume 56, Issue 4, pages 631–644, December 2012
How to Cite
Solingen, E. (2012), Of Dominoes and Firewalls: The Domestic, Regional, and Global Politics of International Diffusion. International Studies Quarterly, 56: 631–644. doi: 10.1111/isqu.12034
- Issue published online: 16 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 16 DEC 2012
Solingen, Etel. (2012) Of Dominoes and Firewalls: The Domestic, Regional, and Global Politics of International Diffusion. International Studies Quarterly, doi: 10.1111/isqu.12034 © 2012 International Studies Association
The Great Recession, Euro contagion, Middle East upheavals, nuclear proliferation, and expansion of rights, among others, highlight the centrality of diffusion to international studies. This Presidential Address outlines building blocks for a shared conceptualization of diffusion that is attentive to the initial stimulus; the medium through which information about the stimuli may/may not travel to other destinations; the political agents un/affected by the stimulus’ positive or negative externalities, who aid or block the stimulus’ journey to other destinations; and outcomes that enable discrimination among grades of diffusion and resulting equilibria. Various issue areas illustrate how initial stimuli may/may not change preferences, transform identities, trigger emotions, alter strategic choices, and affect outcomes. I advance three related considerations. First, to avoid selection bias, understanding what does not diffuse (the “Vegas counterfactual”) should be as central as what does. Concepts such as firewalls and sedimentation are essential for gauging a medium’s relative immunity/vulnerability to diffusion. Second, weaving domestic, regional, and global considerations into a single analytical framework reduces omitted variable bias and enables systematic cross-regional comparisons. Third, these building blocks imbue the study of diffusion with political dynamics—entailing strategic interaction, contingency, incomplete information, and unintended effects—that defy determinism, automaticity, or teleology. Similar causal mechanisms may yield different outcomes under different domestic, regional, and global conditions. And different mechanisms may yield similar outcomes under comparable circumstances. I highlight the challenges inherent in assessing the outcomes of diffusion given competing empirical findings, epistemologies, and normative readings of what does/does not and should/should not diffuse, and outline an agenda for future research.