Domino Theory in Scientific Discourse
https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2016.14.2.45/5
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the international political and academic discourse concerning the origins, nature, and implications of domino theory in U.S. foreign policy. It presents the game-theoretic and rational foundations of domino theory, the cases of its use as a tool for rationalizing U.S. foreign policy throughout the past fifty years, as well as the criticism of the representatives of the global academic community regarding its application. In the course of the study a conclusion is made about the simplicity and high effectiveness of domino theory that earned it popularity among the American foreign policy elite. Domino theory acquired the most recognition due to the fact that its effectiveness could only be determined by the hypothetical possibility of U.S. intervention. In contrast to the balance of power principle taking into account the strategic behavior of a large number of actors and the current state of the international environment, domino theory suggested only two possible behavior options for the U.S. in resolving internal political conflicts in other states. Domino theory eventually became ideologized, which made it extremely controversial. Its controversial nature led to the emergence within the political and academic community of several groups offering their own vision of the meaning and significance of this conceptual framework. The largest group comprises “universalists”, who believe that the domino effect is a universal theory similar to the balance of power principle, while the “historicists” see the theory as only a local U.S. foreign policy strategy of the Cold War era.
About the Author
Alexei Zobnin
Ivanovo State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr Alexei Zobnin – Senior Research Fellow, Ivanovo State University
Ivanovo, 153025
References
1. Achen C., Snidal D. (1989). Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies. World Politics. Vol. 41. № 2. P. 143-169.
2. Arandia S.R. (2010). Burden of the Cold War: The George H.W. Bush Administration and El Salvador. A Thesis Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Texas. 135 p.
3. Bator F. (2007). No Good choices LBJ and the Vietnam/Great Society Connection. Cambridge, MA. 44 p.
4. Beinart P. (1996). The Domino Theory. The New Republic. P. 6-7.
5. Betts R.K. (2012). From Cold War to Hot Peace: The Habit of American Force. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 127. № 3. P. 353-368.
6. Butterly L. (2012). Rhetoric and Reality - A History of the Formation of the 'Domino Theory'. History Studies. Vol. 13. P. 25-46.
7. Forsberg E. (2013). Do Ethnic Dominoes Fall? Evaluating Domino Effects of Granting Territorial Concessions to Separatist Groups. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 57. № 2. P. 229-240.
8. Glad B. (2010). The Many Metaphors of War: A Critique of Rank’s Essay. Political Psychology. Vol. 31. № 1. P. 27-31.
9. Haag E. van den. (1985).The Busyness of American Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs. P. 114-129.
10. Huvi J. (2009). Teoriya domino: Esli padaet pervaja fishka, ostal'nye posledujut za nej.Teorija i metody v sovremennoj politicheskoj nauke: Pervaja popytka teoreticheskogo sinteza. [Domino Theory: If the First Domino Falls, the Others Will Follow, Theory and Methods of Contemporary Political Science: First Attempt at Theoretical Synthesis]. Ed. by S.U. Larsena. M.: ROSSPEN. 751 p.
11. Ivanov N. (2014). Gosudarstvennyj perevorot 1954 g. v Gvatemale (k 60-letiju operacii CRU «Uspekh») [The 1954 Coup D’etat in Guatemala (60-year Anniversary of the “Success” CIA Operation)]. Latinoamerikanskij istoricheskij al'manah. № 14. P. 174-190.
12. Jervis R. (1991). Domino Beliefs and Strategic Behavior. Dominoes and Bandwagons. In: Strategic Beliefs and Great Power Competition in the Eurasian Rimland. Ed. by R. Jervis, J. Snyder. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 30-42.
13. Kennan G. (2015). The Sources of Soviet Conduct (The “X” Article). URL: http://www.cnn.com/specials/cold.war/episodes/04/documents/x.html (Accessed 05.12.2015).
14. Ladha R. (2012).A Regional Arms Race. Testing the Nuclear Domino Theory in the Middle East. Online Journal of Southwest Asia and Islamic Civilization. P. 1-9.
15. Leeson P.T., Dean A.M. (2009). The Democratic Domino Theory: An Empirical Investigation. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 53. № 3. P. 533–551.
16. Leeson P.T., Sobel R.S., Dean A.M. 2010. Contagious Capitalism. Working Paper of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. 44 p.
17. Litwak R.S. (1993). Containment. In: The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World. Ed. by J. Krieger. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 191-199.
18. Meyer M., Brown F. (2005). Domino Theory. Newsweek (Atlantic Edition). P. 7-8.
19. Miyagi T. (2011). Post-War Asia and Japan — Moving beyond the Cold War: An Historical Perspective. Asia-Pacific Review. Vol. 18. № 1. P. 25-44.
20. Ninkovich F. (1994). Modernity and Power: A History of the Domino Theory in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 418 p.
21. Olson J.S., Roberts R. (2008). Where the Domino Fell (Revised 5th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 336 p.
22. Quine W.V.O. (1963). From a Logical Point of View. Second Edition. N.Y.: Harper and Raw Publishers. 190 p.
23. Rosato S., Schuessler J. (2011).A Realist Foreign Policy of the United States. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 9. № 4. P. 803-819.
24. Schaffer M.B. (2010). The Iraq Experiment and Domino Theory Revisited. JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly. P. 56-62.
25. Schwarz B. (1997). Permanent Interests, Endless Threats Cold War Continuities and NATO Enlargement. World Policy Journal. Vol. 14. № 3. P. 24-30.
26. Schwartz B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. N.Y.: Harper Collins. 288 p.
27. Selten R. (1978). The Chain Store Paradox. Theory and Decision. Vol. 9. № 2. P. 127-159.
28. Slater J. (1987). Dominos in Central America: Will they fall? Does it matter? International Security. Vol. 12. № 2. P. 105–134.
29. Slater J. (1993). The Domino Theory in International Politics: The Case of Vietnam. Security Studies. Vol. 3. № 2. P. 186-196.
30. Stratton S.A. (1989). The Ties That Bind: The Domino Theory in American Foreign Policy, 1947-1968. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts. Ontario, McMaster University. 152 p.
31. Tran J. (2007). The Vietnam War as Theo-Drama: Balthasar, Kenosis, and the Cold War’s Temporal Desperation. Political Theology. Vol. 8. № 3. P. 319-340.
32. Vesely M. (2003). Debunking The Domino Theory. Middle East. P. 2-7.
33. Walt St. M (2011). Where Do Bad Ideas Come from and Why Don’t They Go Away? Foreign Policy. P. 50-58.
34. Warner G. (2003). Review article Lyndon Johnson’s war? Part I: Escalation. International Affairs. Vol. 79. № 4. P. 829-853.
35. Whitaker C. (2011). The Domino Theory in the Popular Geopolitics of the U.S. News Media. A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Geography in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Florida State University. 279 p.
36. Zobnin A. (2014a). K opredeleniju principa balansa sil: opyt neoinstitucional'nogo podhoda k mezhdunarodnoj srede [Towards a Definition of the Balance of Power Principle: the Neoinstitutionalist Approach to the International Environment]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 12. № 3 (38). P. 55-69.
37. Zobnin A. (2014b). Racional'nyjvybor – jetomif?! Paradoks ogranichennogo vybora v sisteme paradoksov: konspekt lekcii [Is Rational Choice a Myth? The Paradox of Limited Choice in a System of Paradoxes: Lecture Notes]. Ivanovo: Izdatel'stvo IGIKM im. D. G. Burylina. 44 p.
Review
For citations:
Zobnin A. Domino Theory in Scientific Discourse. International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 2016;14(2):65-77. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2016.14.2.45/5
Views:
1
Email this article 