TRANSFORMATION OF FOREIGN POLICIES 375 to organize all its internal resources for the purpose of self-preservation. This is the supreme law of the state." The other tradition is the democratic one,which also is normative and which stresses the primacy of domestic over foreign affairs.Unlike the Rankean tradition,associated originally with monarchic foreign policies and later with totalitarian ones,this tradition stresses the pa- cific nature of policy,its formulation by representative legislative groups,and the control of external cvents by open rather than closed- door diplomacy.In this sense,democracies were thought to suffer severe disabilities in the conduct of foreign affairs. In either case,there is an assumption that there exists an ontological divorce betwecn forcign and domestic affairs that carries with it in political analysis normative tendencies to stress one of the two while ignoring the other.Foreign policy has been thought to differ from domestic policy in its ends(the national interest as opposed to particular intcrcsts),its means (any mcans that can be invoked to achieve the ends,as opposed to domestically"legitimate"means),and its target of operation (a decentralized,anarchic milieu over which the state in question maintains little control,as opposed to a centralized domestic order in which the state has a monopoly of the instruments of social order).Whether the substance of the distinction stresses domestic or foreign affairs,the scparation of the two has a strong empirical founda- tion.Levels of interdependence among all nonmodernized socicties were generally so low that governments could take independent ac- tions cither domestically or abroad with fairly little likelihood that much spillover between them would take place.The instruments used to implement either domestic or foreign policics had effects on either that were in normal times negligible.The "externalities"generated by either domestic or foreign policies did not significantly alter policies in the other field. This is not to say that domestic factors did not affect foreign policy at all,nor that the general international setting did not affect the substance of policies.What it does suggest is that the normative distinc- tion between foreign and domestic activities was quite well matched by actual conditions.The degrees to which they did not coincide led to debates about ways to improve the efficacy of foreign or domestic policies,or about their goals.But the degrce of divergence was not so grcat as to call the distinction into question. Regardless of how the distinction is made,it breaks down once 6 Leopold von Ranke,"A Dialogue on Politics,"reprinted in Theodore H.Von Laue,Lcopold Ranke:The Formative Years (Princeton 1950),168
376 WORLD POLITICS societies become fairly modernized.This does not mean,as Friedrich has argued,that "foreign and domestic policy in developed Western systems constitutes today a seamless web."Distinctions along the analytic lines I have suggested above still obtain,and governments still formulate policies with a predominant extcrnal or internal orientation. But foreign and other policies formulated under modern conditions affect each other in ways that are not salient in nonmodernized or pre- modernized socicties and that derive from both the domestic and inter- national interdependencies associated with modernization.They also derive from the increased scope of governmental activities under mod- ern conditions.Before the Western socictics became highly modernized, for cxample,the major part of government expenditures was devoted to foreign affairs,which was the central concern of government.As the role of the government in the economy and in domestic social life increascs,conccrn for foreign affairs must decrease relative to concern for domestic affairs.In addition,as a result of growing international interdependencics,the external and internal consequences of domestic and foreign policies become more significant,and consequences that are not intended and that may or may not be recognized tend also to increase.Therefore,undesirable policy-conscquenccs also increase. This is true,for examplc,in terms of allocations of resources,regard- less of the multiplicr effect. One example of the growing interdependencc of foreign and do- mestic affairs in all modcrnized societies is related to the emphasis on a favorable balance of payments position.A requisite of favorable trade and services balance may be the restraint of domestic economic growth and the maintenance of economic stability at home in order to prevent domestic prices (and wages)from rising.At the same time, domestic growth is required to meet demands for raised living stand- ards.But,in order to foster growth and meet demands for increased wages,a favorable balance of trade may have to be sacrificed. The linkages between domestic and foreign policies constitute the basic characteristic of the breakdown in the distinction between foreign and domestic affairs in the modernized,interdependent international system.This statement does not imply that foreign and domestic poli- cies are indistinguishable;for with regard to articulated goals and problems of implementation,they remain separate.Rather,it is sug- gestive of the ways in which foreign policies are transformed by the Carl J.Friedrich,"Intranational Politics and Foreign Policy in Developed (Western) Societies,"in R.Barry Farrell,ed.,Approaches to Comparative and International Poli- ticr(Evanston Ig的6)，g7. See Russett and others,World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators,308-309
TRANSFORMATION OF FOREIGN POLICIES 377 processes of modernization and the development of high levels of in- terdependence.These processes have put an end to the normative dis- tinctions asserting the primacy of the one or the other.They also overshadow the empirical distinction according to which foreign poli- cies vary in type with the political institutions in which they are formulated. THE DYNAMICS OF FOREIGN POLICIES IN MODERNIZED SOCIETIES Foreign policies,like other sorts of policics,can be analyzed in terms of their substance,or content,the processes by which they are formu- lated,and their outcomes.Each of these three dimensions is trans- formed under the impact of modernization. First,in terms of content,the ideal pattern of foreign policies,with its emphasis on the "high policy"functions of security and defense, or,alternatively,on expansion of some attribute of the state,has been widened into if not replaced by a new pattern.Either there is a broad- ening of the spectrum of policy goals to include goals of wealth and welfare in addition to those of power and position associated with high policies,or these older ideal patterns are completely overshadowed by the advent of"low policies."What is distinctive and new about these policics is that they are primarily non-confictual.Like the relations of which they are a part,some are merely fleeting and casual.Others are explicitly cooperative and pertain to the production of international collective goods,which require compatible efforts on the part of official and nonofficial groups in diverse societies.In the case of highly modernized societics,their chief trait is that they are seen as economic goods.They arise from growth in international trade and the con- comitant necessity to regulate trade imbalances,to produce additional liquidity,to finance trade,and to create all the other regulative devices Stanley Hoffmann offers another argument on "low policies"and "high policies" in his essay "Obstinate or Obsolete?The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe,"Daedalus,xcy (Summer 1g66),862-915.Hoffmann feels that nuclear stalemate has served to reinforce the attributes of the nation-state by stabilizing the structure of postwar international society,and chat low policies do not generate the spillover expected of them by prophets of international integration.Although Hoff- mann is quite right in saying that the integrationists overescimated the potential of eco- nomic exigencies for creating international integration,his denial of any effect of low policies is overstated. 10 In definitions of public goods,the emphasis is usually placed on one society rather than on a group of societies.The focus is then on nonexclusivity or the incapacity of a single organization or government to prevent any individual members from re- ceiving its benefits.See Mancur Olson,Jr.,The Logic of Collective Action:Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge,Mass.1g65).It is also truc,however, that incentives exist for cooperation within a group,based on the lure of greater benefits