IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2015-46.html

Reluctant Powers: A Concept-Building Approach and an Application to the Case of Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Destradi

Abstract

Reluctance is an extremely widespread phenomenon in international politics. For example, several rising powers have displayed an inconsistent, flip-flopping approach towards their regions and have not conformed to the expectations and wishes of their potential regional followers. While the notion of reluctance is frequently employed to describe this type of incoherent and unresponsive foreign policy, the concept of reluctance has not been systematically defined and discussed in the fields of International Relations (IR) and Foreign Policy Analysis. This paper develops a conceptualization of reluctance by identifying the concept’s semantic field and discussing how reluctance relates to similar but distinct notions in the field of IR (concept reconstruction) and, on that basis, by outlining the constitutive dimensions of reluctance and their operationalization (concept building). To illustrate how this conceptualization of reluctance can provide new insights in empirical analyses, the concept is applied to the case of Germany’s approach to crisis management in Europe and the European neighborhood.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Destradi, 2015. "Reluctant Powers: A Concept-Building Approach and an Application to the Case of Germany," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/46, European University Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2015/46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/36279/RSCAS_2015_46.pdf?sequence=1
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/36279
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margit Tavits, 2007. "Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy Shifts and Political Competition," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 151-165, January.
    2. Burden, Barry C., 2004. "Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 211-227, April.
    3. Adcock, Robert & Collier, David, 2001. "Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 529-546, September.
    4. repec:cup:apsrev:v:64:y:1970:i:04:p:1033-1053_13 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. William E. Paterson, 2011. "The Reluctant Hegemon? Germany Moves Centre Stage in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(Supplemen), pages 57-75, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seok-ju Cho & Jooyong Jun, 2026. "Flip-flopping and valence in two-candidate competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 38(1), pages 3-27, January.
    2. Christopher Williams & Jae-Jae Spoon, 2015. "Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 176-193, June.
    3. Renato Tibiriçá de Saboya & Otavio Martins Peres, 2025. "CHASM: A configurational measure of socio-spatial residential segregation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 52(6), pages 1464-1481, July.
    4. Hans Gersbach & Philippe Muller & Oriol Tejada, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Electoral Competition with Costly Policy Changes," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 17/270, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    5. Nathaniel Copsey & Tim Haughton, 2013. "Editorial: Edging Away from the Abyss – The EU in 2012," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51, pages 1-5, September.
    6. Schakel, Arjan Hille, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of Regional Government," MPRA Paper 21596, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    8. Zim Nwokora & Riccardo Pelizzo, 2017. "Measuring Party System Change: A Systems Perspective," Research Africa Network Working Papers 17/048, Research Africa Network (RAN).
    9. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    10. Tom Christensen & Mads Dagnis Jensen & Michael Kluth & Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson & Kennet Lynggaard & Per Lægreid & Risto Niemikari & Jon Pierre & Tapio Raunio & Gústaf Adolf Skúlason, 2023. "The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 658-676, July.
    11. Malte Luebker, 2019. "Can the Structure of Inequality Explain Fiscal Redistribution? Revisiting the Social Affinity Hypothesis," LIS Working papers 762, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    12. Denise Currie & Paul Teague, 2017. "The eurozone crisis, German hegemony and labour market reform in the GIPS countries," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 154-173, March.
    13. Fabian Gouret & Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Rossignol, 2011. "An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 309-340, July.
    14. J. C. Sharman, 2007. "Rationalist and Constructivist Perspectives on Reputation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(1), pages 20-37, March.
    15. Michael K Miller, 2011. "Seizing the mantle of change: Modeling candidate quality as effectiveness instead of valence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 52-68, January.
    16. E. M. Hoeben & W. Steenbeek & L. J. R. Pauwels, 2018. "Measuring Disorder: Observer Bias in Systematic Social Observations at Streets and Neighborhoods," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 221-249, March.
    17. Jørgen Møller, 2016. "Composite and Loose Concepts, Historical Analogies, and the Logic of Control in Comparative Historical Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(4), pages 651-677, November.
    18. Nora Lustig, 2013. "Commitment to Equity: Diagnostic Questionnaire," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 02, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    19. Alessia Damonte & Giulia Bazzan, 2024. "Rules as data," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 657-673, July.
    20. Nuno Garoupa & Rok Spruk, 2024. "Measuring Political Institutions in the Long Run: A Latent Variable Analysis of Political Regimes, 1810–2018," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 867-914, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2015/46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RSCAS web unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.