New York and Texas: Diplomatic and Foreign Policies

Abstract

New York and Texas have different motivations for pursuing diplomacy, although they both rely on the mechanisms provided by the U.S. federal foreign policy. The aim of this study is to find out the different approaches to diplomacy used by New York and Texas. The main method of collecting data was to analyze secondary research and collect information from official government sources. The study also relied on literature review and a number of international relations theories to provide a background understanding for interpreting its findings and discussing them. The limitations of the study included reliance on secondary literature and the limited availability of sources. The study recommends practitioners to consider policies that add to the existing gains made in economic and social developments in international relations pursued by the individual states. This should be done in the context of a globalizing world.

This research falls within the field of international relations, with a focus on international diplomacy. It examines and compares diplomatic and foreign policies of two states; New York and Texas. The findings show that Texas concentrates much on trade, with cultural aspects appearing in international cultural exchange opportunities, which are also evident in New York’s affairs. New York appears to take a direct approach at foreign relations by establishing missions abroad.

Research question

The research aimed to find out whether there is an increasing need for effective diplomatic and international relations on the part of individual U.S. states. Other questions were as follows, what are the benefits of international relations of a sub-country? How does globalization influence diplomatic relations between political actors/institutions that are sub-units of states?

Statement of the problem

Research by Wendt1 explained that there is a high possibility of a global state, which should increase the importance of foreign policy among nations. There are also increasing interconnections between cultures, individuals, and institutions across countries that are creating new formats of international relationships. These new formats go beyond the traditional structures of consulates and embassies. Thus, there is a need to find out the involvement of countries in international relations at a sub-national level. Emerging information in this field will be instrumental in informing diplomats and other state actors about the leading factors to consider when implementing international policy. States face a high demand for diplomatic associations and international relationships from their citizens as they try to promote growth and development. The emergence of a global village has ensured that states do not face major hurdles as they did in the past.2 Instead, they now have both the opportunity and reason to engage in foreign affairs, both formally and informally.

Background of the study

This part of the report will provide a background on the issue of economic diplomacy as covered in international relations studies. It will then discuss the elements of economic diplomacy in New York and Texas. Scholars across the world can have different literature and contextual definitions of the same term. According to Kissinger3, the world’s center of power seems to change every century. This change in power arises due to a country’s intellectual and moral incentive to influence the complete international system. The element of power rests with different entities in successive centuries. In the 20th century, countries followed national interests as their main motivators for control.4 However, there have been changes in the construct of a nation state in the 21st century.

Globalization is helping countries to realize that they are more porous to international influence than they thought, despite their investment in adequate shielding mechanisms like international statutes of sovereignty. As this paper is going to show, the elements of international relations among countries are the interactions between states within those countries. National governments may enact and follow diplomatic policies, but the proliferation of diverse ways of interaction internationally for economic interests also allows multinational corporations and specific government or state agencies to enter into diplomatic ties and maintain the ties across the globe.

What is Economic Diplomacy?

It is essential to find a definition of diplomacy that is suitable for explaining foreign relations expressed and maintained by the states of Texas and New York. The rest of the paper will concentrate on analyzing and reporting the findings. An appropriate definition of economic diplomacy can be found in the work of Smith5, which focuses on EU-China diplomatic relationship. Smith6 explains that in basic terms, economic diplomacy is the type of diplomacy where economic expression is the main element of the entire strategy and exercise of diplomacy. However, the same term can mean complex interrelationships between two diplomatic entities that create various perceptions of sensitivity and vulnerability to economic factors.

It is normal for countries and regions to enter into broader strategic relationships, but they have to pay attention to the critical factors as they come up with a set of policies to govern their economic relationships. Likewise, this report will pay attention to material factors, which were concepts introduced by Smith7 when explaining how the EU-China economic diplomacy experienced challenges. As the author explains, material factors are the substantial dimensions of policy that have the ability to create real clashes of interest. Therefore, these factors occupy the attention of negotiators and policy makers from both sides of a diplomatic relationship. For example, trade can be a material factor; policy makers consider the balance of trade and motivating factors for the balance when they are making the policies. Furthermore, as Smith8 says, material factors have the potential to cause problems with the conclusion of key economic agreements. Other than trade, other material factors include the existing treaties and sanctions placed by a country or a global body.

Other than the limitations of economic diplomacy due to a number of factors that this report expresses as part of discussing the situation in Texas and New York, the entire subject of economic diplomacy has also been historically neglected. Although there is a growing interest in economic diplomacy seen in its importance in many countries or regions’ foreign economic policies, there is still limited examination of the way economic diplomacy becomes important.9 The influencing factors in the making of particular economic policies to govern international relationships often come from governments and affect smaller players, such as firms and government departments. Meanwhile, there is an overly neglected role played by companies that have a huge role in sustaining economic growth, and whose influence has been a fundamental contributor to the information used in carrying out economic diplomacy.10 Therefore, highlighting the bottom-up influence is not only refreshing, but it also provides a different and useful source of data that does not overly rely on ambassadors, foreign missions, and their political policy debates.11

After making the considerations above, one question arises naturally about the possibility of maintaining a generalist spirit that would be able to synthesize viewpoints from many different interests.

Notable Developments in international relations

There have been key developments that have so far created particular perceptions of international relationships relating to economic development in the world in the last century or so. The creation of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), the East Asian financial crisis 1990s, and the emergence of the BRIC nations and their movement of economic power beyond the Western world are indications of the way international economic relations play an important role in shaping international engagement policies. The effects of the recent global recession of 2008 highlighted the interconnectedness of specific industries and firms in a country that is connected to markets in foreign countries, thereby being vulnerable to the economic performance of other countries. In addition, there is a persistent influence of foreign trade in the internal affairs of countries.

When looking at the economic diplomacy of Texas and New York, the focus is not limited to the broad diplomatic agendas that come out of the integration of markets. For example, countries find themselves in negotiations for intellectual property rights, electronic commerce agreements, transactional financing, and carbon emissions. Moreover, there are developments in diplomacy tactics, such that it is possible to miss some details of a particular international relationship when focusing on diplomats only.12

The motivation for entering into international relationships with several countries shifts according to the happenings in the global marketplace.13 However, there are persistent internal policy frameworks affecting the overall outward U.S. policy, which also determines the particular policies on economic diplomacy that an individual state will follow. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Congress enacted the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) laws that guide the president of the country when pursuing international trade agreements that will support the creation of jobs in the United States.14 Moreover, the guidelines bring up solutions that remove barriers to trade, which affect exports from the United States. Based on this finding, it is apparent that the type of laws has an effect on the particular agreements and specific initiatives that states will use to enhance their exports.

Methodology

Findings from the study came from a number of published reports and literature on the subject of international relations. The research relied on secondary literature and as the main source of data. There was a collection of relevant scholarly literature to help draft the theoretical framework of the study. In addition, the researcher established the dependent and independent variables that would be studied to aid in analyzing and answering the research questions. The objective of the study was to find out the influences of diplomacy on the foreign policies of New York and Texas. Thus, the research sought the examples of foreign relations activities implemented or affecting the states and the motivations behind the noted activities. Globalization was the independent variable. Its effects destroy traditional structures of diplomacy and create avenues for direct state involvement.

The choice of secondary sources came from the fact that the research was based on historical accounts of international relations; therefore, an affordable way to obtain information was through secondary research. Moreover, most of the available published literature came from reputable sources, such as government agencies and peer reviewed study reports.

Literature review

Alexander Wendt is among the most influential researchers in the field of international relations because of his version of the constructivism theory that is useful for analyzing foreign policies of specific states. As explained by Wendt15, meanings and sharing of ideas play a key role in the efficacy of international relationships. In addition, Hobson16 presented the stucturationsist theory as a model for understanding diplomacy in the modern world. The liberal theory17 is also applicable when analyzing state diplomacy, with the emphasis being the development of policies based on preferences, rather than the capabilities of states.18

Changes in the world after the Cold War provided a favorable environment for international relationships to pursue the U.S. individual state diplomacy in the 21st century, as explained by Waltz.19 Based on the author’s description, states do not have to concentrate on political and trade relations only, but they can benefit from the participation of nonprofit organizations in the international scene. These organizations work alongside official diplomatic channels and they are able to foster good relationships with individual countries on behalf of their states. The support comes from travel, media, and immigration, among other areas.20

The number of theories applicable to international relationships and the case of the U.S. individual state involvement in diplomacy are many. However, those highlighted in this literature review are relevant for providing an understanding of the underlying factors behind the involvement of Texas and New York in international relations.

Main Findings

New York and diplomacy

New York is home to the largest diplomatic and consular community worldwide. Therefore, this report postulates that New York has broad diplomatic policies as a state, beyond those advanced by the United States as a country. The governor of New York has made foreign trips. A recent one touted as a diplomatic trip was in Cuba, where Governor Andrew Cuomo interacted with officials of the Cuban government. The governor explained that human rights dialogue required engagement, rather than isolation, which was one of the reasons for the trip.21 Other than the trade mission to Cuba, the governor’s office has also been behind other initiatives to position New York as a favorable international investment destination. This includes the Global NY initiative that includes a fund to finance New York trade missions to Mexico, Canada, Italy, China, and Israel. The initiative also includes a partnership with the Federal Export-Import Bank that New York sees as a critical link to allowing local businesses from the state to export more than they currently do.22

The approach used by New York is a realization of the importance of cultural exchanges in fostering richer diplomatic ties.23 In fact, in an advisory paper drafted for the Committee for Cultural Diplomacy in the U.S., the authors note that culture is a point of access and interest.24 Although the reference was made in relation to an internal exchange event of artists whose works were displayed at a museum in New York, the words had profound meaning to state diplomacy throughout the United States. In addition, the report by the Committee for Cultural Diplomacy urges the U.S. Secretary of State to do a number of things that can promote cultural exchange and diversity to improve diplomatic ties. The report also calls for the widening of international cultural exchange programs.25 While it does not provide details of the right way of running this program, the nature of the activities presented as cultural exchange programs happen within the jurisdiction of state governments. The federal government and federal policy makers for international relationships will rely on the parameters presented to them by state government officials.26

The report elaborates that semi-autonomous institutions that facilitate cultural exchanges and not tightly linked to the federal government provide a safety net for international participation of citizens. They allow people who are weary of the trappings of international governments to keep distance and still meet their international commitments.27 This report sees this avenue as a bypass of the embassies that have become too occupied with security concerns and often neglect matters of great importance, but they are of less concern to the federal government. Such matters include the intercity exchange program run by the City of New York.28

This report highlights the fact that initiatives take a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach for state governments and institutions involved in international relationships. An avenue that articulates this point clearly is international education. A report by Lane, Owens, and Ziegler29 explains that grassroots efforts have historically been responsible for fostering the internationalization of colleges. Only recently did national governments get into the picture. This was mainly due to the increased awareness of public diplomacy, national security, and economic development reasons. The fact remains that in the U.S., higher education is left to state and local governments. Lane, Owens, and Ziegler30 indicate that a number of states, including New York and Texas have become influential actors in international educational efforts. The report contributes to the facts presented earlier on the importance of cultural exchange in fostering diplomatic ties without relying on rigid structures of embassies.31

Texas and Diplomacy

The numbers of companies benefiting from export trade in Texas are more than 40,000. These companies export from Texas locations, according to official government statistics. The companies play an important role in sustaining jobs and providing the Texas authorities with sufficient fiscal revenues for development and other uses. In addition, Texas relies on exports to sustain other businesses in its economy. In fact, statistics presented by the Department of Commerce show that about 93% of exporting companies from Texas locations are small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that have less than 500 workers. These businesses rely on the existing and any upcoming trade agreements that the United States has or will have with 20 countries around the world. Between 2005 and 2014, the State of Texas experienced a 118% growth in exports to markets that had signed trade pacts with the federal government. The markets included Chile, Colombia and trading blocs such as NAFTA.

From these statistics, it is apparent that Texas must maintain cordial relationships with other countries that are the recipients of its exports to survive economically. A number of upcoming trade agreements will also play a role in influencing diplomatic relations of Texas and its trading partners. In most cases, these agreements should support growth and development efforts in Texas because they are following federal guidelines aimed at improving prospects for the U.S. economy. The TPP, the TTIP, and the TISA are some of the most important agreements and partnerships made between Texas and important partners like Australia, Mexico, Singapore, and Japan, among countries. A unified agreement will make it simpler for companies from Texas to interact with foreign governments and companies as they enter into import-export relationships.32

Texas expects to get access to new markets as part of the TPP. The TPP is supposed to pave way for a number of countries to lower their barriers to entry for an increased number of export commodities. The countries that will eliminate their tariffs after the passage of TPP are Japan, Vietnam, New Zealand, and Malaysia. If they go ahead with the planned removal of tariffs because of the agreement, then they should jump up the ranks as the biggest receivers of Texas exports. The biggest beneficiary of the TPP agreement will be chemicals, minerals and fuels, and machinery products from Texas that are already the most favorable exports under the TPP terms. The gain will come from the effects of tariff removal and opening up of markets in the target countries, which already depict a deficiency and an outright demand that Texas companies can fill.33

The TTIP is an ambitious and comprehensive agreement for trade and investment, as described by the Department of Commerce.34 It covers trade relationships with the European Union and provides the U.S. companies with tariff-free access to countries in the EU. Trade envoys make such an agreement from the United States and the EU. There are representatives from different industry and government interests on either side. Therefore, the expectation is that Texas has a representative to advance its interests during the formulation of policy and negotiations within the federal U.S. government and the team representing individual countries of the EU.35

Other than goods, there are service sectors that promote the coexistence of different cultures and create appropriate channels for fostering inter-country relationships. Texas as a state in the U.S. will be affected by the TISA agreement because it plays a part in making the U.S. the world’s largest and most competitive provider of services.36 States within the U.S. will use the highest standard international service agreement to get numerous opportunities for improving employment rates.

According to a case study of Texas, presented in the report by Lane, Owens and Ziegler,37 the top five places of international origin for students in Texas are India, China, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam. Incidentally, these are also some of the biggest trading partners with Texas in terms of imports and exports. In fact, the number of international students in Texas has increased steadily since 1970 when it was less than 20,000 to the present about 70,000 international students. The Texas state government involvement in international diplomacy follows four pillars, which are as follows. The first pillar aims to develop an international policy agenda. Here, the governor of Texas in 2010 issued a proclamation in support of the International Education week. The Senate resolution No. 532 of 2005 also acknowledges the importance of international education and urges the Texas institutions to meet the challenges of the international society.38 The second pillar aims to conduct strategic planning and goal setting. Texas sought to establish a foreign language task force under this pillar. The most active involvement of Texas is in the third pillar of international exchange and studying abroad, where the state government runs a good neighbor scholarship program, operates a worldwide assistance emergency evacuation program, and has standard policies for hiring of foreign nationals. The final pillar for Texas handles collaborative and innovative research programs led by the Texas international education consortium.39

Imports and Exports for the Two States

In the year 2011, the state of Texas made a 16% contribution to the national exports. They jumped to 17.5% the following year, according to the official statistics of the U.S. government.40 At the same time, the U.S. Census Bureau provides statistics for imports for individual states in the country. The breakdown of export lists Mexico, Canada, Brazil, China, Netherlands, and South Korea, ranked from the highest to the lowest, as the biggest recipients of exports from Texas. Therefore, these countries play a critical role in sustaining the economy of Texas and that of the United States. Any policy that affects the relationship between the U.S. with these and other countries trading with Texas will affect the economic prospects of Texas. As a result, when examining the need for increased diplomacy and international relationship of Texas, it will be important to also consider the existing relationships with these countries directly to Texas or as mediated by the federal government.41

In terms of imports, Texas made up 14.4% in 2011 and 12.9 per cent in 2014 of the total imports by the United States from other countries. On the other hand, a breakdown of the imports reveals that Mexico was the biggest exporter to Texas. It was followed by China, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Venezuela, and South Korea. From the report, Mexico appears as a major overall trading partner with Texas, and so do China and South Korea.42

In New York, the percentages of exports as a share of the total exports by the U.S. were 5.7% in 2011 and 5.3% in 2014. The biggest importing countries from New York were Canada, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel, and the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, the statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau also indicated that the share of the U.S. imports contributed by the State of New York was 5.8% in 2011 and 5.7% in 2014.43 For imports, the big partners were China, Canada, India, Israel, and France. A clear outlook of the trade patterns shows that New York had varied important trading partners than Texas when the two statistics for imports and exports are combined. For example, New York’s biggest importing country partner is not its biggest exporting country partner. The diversity expressed by the trade statistics in the two states demonstrates their differing role in any economic diplomacy that the United States would engage with other regions or countries.

Concluding remarks

The recognition of the importance of a highly educated workforce and a culturally aware citizenry in a knowledge-based global economy is a major motivating factor for individual state involvement in international relations. Unlike the federal government, individual states do not have diplomatic offices in foreign countries. However, they have a number of semi-autonomous institutions that allow them to make positive policy contributions to their affairs with other countries.

International relations issues are filled with matters of the U.S. diplomacy. A number of research reports exist to justify the fact. However, the current report fits uniquely in the available literature because it presents findings and discussions of a study that not many scholars have undertaken, despite the fact that there are notable studies showing an increased involvement of states.44 In fact, many studies only mention the involvement, but do not break down the actual numbers and policy considerations that particular states cover. Thus, in light of the structuration theory, this paper fits in well in describing the agents and structures that motivate state diplomacy in Texas and New York. The two states have cultural and economic motivations for international relations.

The findings also show that the institutions in Texas and New York allow people to bypass official diplomatic channels that may represent federal interests, but are too cumbersome for individual citizens and business dealings. It is also apparent that states work within the policy frameworks of the federal government. They provide a mechanism for the national government to realize its foreign policy objectives through decentralization.45 National borders are increasingly becoming porous for individuals and businesses due to increased globalization, yet increased security and safety concerns threaten to curtail the free association of people internationally. In addition to such shortcomings and motivations for changes in international diplomacy, states appear to have led the way in providing the means for citizens of a country to facilitate the hegemony of the United States in international commerce, politics, and social affairs.

Other than just repeating facts about the global village phenomenon being unstoppable, this research shows actual examples of the way a state finds it impossible to ignore international relations. In fact, the success of domestic factors, such as employment, fiscal revenue, cultural, and social development and overall economic growth at the state level have become connected to global factors that exist beyond the control of a state. However, Texas and New York have found ways of sustaining initiatives that increase their prospects of international trade and attracting foreign nationals for economic and cultural exchange reasons. Although particular motivating factors for the two states are different, the existence of common directives of the Congress and several federal departments puts the right foundation for individual state involvement. This report shows that both Texas and New York do not take the existing national policy frameworks the way they are, but they use them as guidelines for specifying their initiatives for promoting state-level diplomatic endeavors.46

In terms of political relevance globally, the two states appear to play different roles in promoting the U.S. affairs and interests.47 Texas, for example, acts as a major contributor to trade and a direct economic partner to some of the countries that have existing trade agreements with the United States. The balance of trade helps to foster U.S. hegemony; thus, Texas is already a major player in the U.S. foreign relations. The state also implements a set of policies and interventions to boost the participation of foreign nationals in the development of various services through its immigration policies.

On the other hand, New York’s position as a capital of diplomacy in the world places it at an advanced position to gain from the U.S. international relations activities. Relying on official reports by government and trusted publications helps this research to show that New York benefits from its intercultural engagement with the citizens and other foreign sub-national entities. Although the state is not a major manufacturing destination, it has substantial commercial interests that enhance its economic diplomacy endeavors. Moreover, it is in New York that cultural collaborations and other international engagements appear to have the most profound effect on assisting the state to meet its domestic goals. It is apparent that facilitating the movement of people and ideas contributes to the development of a well-connected state that can tap the socioeconomic opportunities emerging in the global scene.

Limitations of the Study

Although there are many studies dealing with the diplomacy of the United States and the rest of the world, most of them approach the subject from the federal point of view. The domination of the United States in international relations of the world also makes it an easy target for research on regional involvement in foreign affairs. The attractive features of the country have also been detrimental factors when it comes to state-level diplomacy. Many scholars have succeeded in providing sufficient information on federal foreign policy. They remain relevant in the field of international relations without having to break down the U.S. policy details to countries. Thus, finding studies relevant for this research was an uphill task. In addition, the secondary data can be accurate and relevant only to the degree of its original study’s accuracy and motivations. Thus, in case there is any validity issue relating to the studies quoted in this report, the conclusions of the report may also be affected. However, the reliance on official documents and peer reviewed scholarly works reduces the risk. It also makes this study reputable and sufficient to inform other scholars on particular issues relating to New York and Texas diplomatic undertakings.48

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this research, both New York and Texas need to come up with sufficient policies that can enhance their foreign affairs approaches in the next decade. The two states need to expand their current scope of international relations beyond trade, culture, and social undertakings. States need to mimic national governments, which have dedicated missions in their main trading partners. States should also expand their current initiatives to improve their visibility across the world. Connecting people with global interests will be the best way to sustain this diplomacy. For researchers, there is a need to break down sub-national diplomacy efforts and motivation to increase the available literature. This can help practitioners make informed choices regarding their strategies for engaging in international relations. It will also help in breaking down various theories on diplomacy and international relations when used as theoretical frameworks by researchers.

Implications of the Study

The findings are useful in persuading the U.S. government to review and improve its foreign policies, especially concerning promoting the exchange of ideas and the movement of people. While it may be impractical to relax safety and security concerns expressed by the federal government, individual states in the U.S. have the opportunity to provide mechanisms for people to engage others beyond the national borders in a citizen-motivated diplomacy drive. Such a move can open up additional channels for fostering international relationships to make use of the existing multinational agreements and enhance the ongoing activities with foreign interests. Additionally, it is important for practitioners to pay attention to the core relations partners of their states as they formulate their policies because the intention is to increase the relevance of the current policy, rather than introduce new ones that have not been tested.

Bibliography

Abrams, Elliot. Gov. Cuomo Visits Cuba, and What Could Be Wrong with That?. Web.

Advisory Committe on Cultural Diplomacy. “Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy.” U.S. Department of State, Web.

Aldecoa, Francisco, and Michael Keating. Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Badel, Laurence. “Conflicting Identities: French Economic Diplomacy between the State and Companies in the Twentieth Century.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 25 no. 3 (2014): 432-452.

Cohen, Saul Bernard. Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.

Department of Commerce. “Texas: Expanding Exports and Supporting Jobs through Trade Agreements.” International Trade Administration, Web.

Donna, Lee, and Brian Hocking. “Economic Diplomacy”. In The International Studies Encyclopedia, vol. II, edited by Robert A. Denmark, 1216-1227. New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.

Donnelly, Jack. Realism and International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Fearon, James D. “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1998): 289-313.

Friedberg, Aaron L. “The Future of US-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?” International Security 30, no. 2 (2005): 7-45.

Fry, Earl H. “State and Local Governments in the International Arena.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509, no. 1 (1990): 118-127.

Fry, Earl H. The Expanding Role of State and Local Governments in US Foreign Affairs. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1998.

Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19, no. 4 (1997): 451-463.

Hobson, John M. The State and International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Howard, Peter. “The Growing Role of States in US Foreign Policy: The Case of the State Partnership Program.” International Studies Perspectives 5, no. 2 (2004): 179-196.

Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy, 4th Ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012.

Lane, Jason E, Taya L Owens, and Patrick Ziegler. States Go Global: State Governemnt Engagement in Higher Education Internationalization. Rockefeller Report, The Nelson A. Rockefeller institute of Government, New York: The State University of New York, 2014.

Maxwell, William, Ernest Crain and Adolfo Santos. Texas Politics Today. New York: Cengage Learning, 2013.

McMillan, Samuel Lucas. The Involvement of State Governments in US Foreign Relations. New York: Cengage Learning, 2013.

Melissen, Jan. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by Jan Melissen, 3-28. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51, no. 3 (2006): 513-553.

New York State. Governor Cuomo Launches New ‘Global NY’ Initiatives to Attract International Investment and Trade to New York. Web.

Sargent, Daniel J. A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Saunders, Elizabeth N. “Setting Boundaries: Can International Society Exclude Rogue States?” International Studies Review 8, no. 1 (2006): 23-53.

Smith, Michael. “EU-China Relations and the Limits of Economic Diplomacy.” Asia Europe Journal 12 no. 1-2 (2014): 35-48.

The City of New York. Mayor’s Office for International Affairs. 2005. Web.

United States Census Bureau. “Foreign Trade.” United States Census Bureau, 2005. Web.

Waltz, Kenneth N. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics.” International Security 18, no. 2 (1993): 44-79.

Waltz, Kenneth. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25, no. 1 (2000): 5-41.

Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391-425.

Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Footnotes

  • 1. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992), 425.
  • 2 Laurence Badel, “Conflicting Identities: French Economic Diplomacy between the State and Companies in the Twentieth Century”, Diplomacy & Statecraft 25 no. 3 (2014), 432-434.
  • 3. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, (Simon & Schuster: New York, 4th ed., 2012), 23-34.
  • 4 Raymond Hinnebusch, “The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19, no. 4 (1997), 453.
  • 5. Smith Michael, “EU-China Relations and the Limits of Economic Diplomacy”, Asia Europe Journal 12, no. 1-2 (2014), 36
  • 6. Ibid, 38.
  • 7. Smith Michael, “EU-China Relations and the Limits of Economic Diplomacy”, Asia Europe Journal 12, no. 1-2 (2014), 40
  • 8. Ibid
  • 9 Elizabeth Saunders N, “Setting Boundaries: Can International Society Exclude Rogue States?”, International Studies Review 8, no. 1 (2006), 26.
  • 10. Samuel Lucas McMillan, The Involvement of State Governments in US Foreign Relations (New York: Cengage Learning, 2013), 41.
  • 11. Laurence Badel, “Conflicting Identities: French Economic Diplomacy between the State and Companies in the Twentieth Century,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 25 no. 3 (2014), 433.
  • 12. Lee Donna and Brian Hocking, “Economic Diplomacy” in The International Studies Encyclopedia, vol. II, ed. Robert A. Denmark, 1216-1227 (New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2010), 1217
  • 13. Peter Howard, ‘The Growing Role of States in US Foreign Policy: The Case of the State Partnership Program’, International Studies Perspectives 5, no. 2 (2004), 179.
  • 14. Department of Commerce, “Texas: Expanding Exports and Supporting Jobs through Trade Agreements,” International Trade Administration, last modified 2015, http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_005356.pdf.
  • 15. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 40.
  • 16. John M. Hobson, The State and International Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 40.
  • 17. Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization 51, no. 3 (2006), 513.
  • 18. Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 8
  • 19. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War”, International Security 25, no. 1 (2000), 39.
  • 20. Fry H Earl, The Expanding Role of State and Local Governments in US Foreign Affairs (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1998), 34.
  • 21. Elliot Abrams, Gov. Cuomo Visits Cuba, and What Could Be Wrong with That?, Last Modified 2015, http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2015/04/22/gov-cuomo-visits-cuba-and-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/
  • 22. New York State, Governor Cuomo Launches New ‘Global NY’ Initiatives to Attract International Investment and Trade to New York, Last Modified 2014, https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-launches-new-global-ny-initiatives-attract-international-investment-and-trade.
  • 23. Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 7.
  • 24 Advisory Committe on Cultural Diplomacy, “Cultural diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy”, U.S. Department of State, last modified 2015, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/54374.pdf., 15
  • 25. Ibid.
  • 26. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992), 425.
  • 27. Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization 51, no. 3 (2006), 513.
  • 28. The City of New York, Mayor’s Office for International Affairs, last modified 2005, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ia/html/home/home.shtml.
  • 29. Jason Lane E, Taya L Owens, and Patrick Ziegler, States Go Global: State Government Engagement in Higher Education Internationalization, Rockefeller Report, The Nelson A. Rockefeller institute of Government (New York: The State University of New York 2014), 14-15
  • 30. Ibid, 14
  • 31. Fry, Earl H, “State and Local Governments in the International Arena”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509, no. 1 (1990), 119.
  • 32. Department of Commerce, “Texas: Expanding Exports and Supporting Jobs through Trade Agreements”, International Trade Administration, last modified 2005, http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_005356.pdf.
  • 33. Ibid.
  • 34. Ibid.
  • 35. James D. Fearon, “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations”, Annual Review of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1998), 309.
  • 36. Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice,” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 23.
  • 37. Jason Lane E, Taya L Owens, and Patrick Ziegler, States Go Global: State Government Engagement in Higher Education Internationalization, Rockefeller Report, The Nelson A. Rockefeller institute of Government (New York: The State University of New York 2014), 43
  • 38. Ibid, 44
  • 39 Ibid. 45
  • 40. United States Census Bureau, “Foreign Trade”, United States Census Bureau, last modified 2015, http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/tx.html.
  • 41. Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Emerging Structure of International Politics”, International Security 18, no. 2 (1993), 76.
  • 42. United States Census Bureau, “Foreign Trade”, United States Census Bureau, last modified 2015, http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/tx.html.
  • 43. Ibid.
  • 44. Aaron L. Friedberg, “The Future of US-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?”, International Security 30, no. 2 (2005), 13.
  • 45. Francisco Aldecoa and Michael Keating, Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments (New York: Routledge, 2013), 123.
  • 46. Saul Bernard Cohen, Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 121.
  • 47. Daniel J. Sargent, A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 79.
  • 48. William Maxwell, Ernest Crain and Adolfo Santos, Texas Politics Today (New York: Cengage Learning, 2013), 14.