Foreign Policy Analysis

Foreign policy analysisC. Alden2790137

2006

Undergraduate study in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences

This guide was prepared for the University of London External Programme by:

Dr Chris Alden, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Department forInternational Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science.

This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that dueto pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to,or arising from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourableor unfavourable, please use the form at the back of this guide.

This subject guide is for the use of University of London External students registered forprogrammes in the fields of Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences(as applicable). The programmes currently available in these subject areas are:

Access routeDiploma in EconomicsDiplomas for GraduatesBSc Accounting and FinanceBSc Accounting with Law/Law with AccountingBSc Banking and FinanceBSc BusinessBSc Development and EconomicsBSc EconomicsBSc Economics and FinanceBSc (Economics) in Geography, Politics and International Relations, and SociologyBSc Economics and ManagementBSc Information Systems and ManagementBSc International RelationsBSc ManagementBSc Management with Law/Law with ManagementBSc Mathematics and EconomicsBSc PoliticsBSc Politics and International RelationsBSc Sociology.

The External ProgrammePublications OfficeUniversity of LondonStewart House32 Russell SquareLondon WC1B 5DNUnited Kingdom

Web site: www.londonexternal.ac.uk

Published by: University of London Press

© University of London 2006 (E7883)

Printed by: Central Printing Service, University of London, England

Contents

i

ContentsIntroduction i

Aim of the unit 1Learning outcomes 1The structure of this guide 1How to use this guide 2Hours of study 2The syllabus 3Reading advice 3The examination 5Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview 9Essential reading 9Recommended reading 9Further reading 9Additional resources 9Aims and learning objectives 9Learning outcomes 9Introduction 9Realism: the state, national interest and foreign policy 10Behaviourism: the ‘minds of men’ and foreign policy decision making 11Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy 11Pluralism: linkage politics and foreign policy 12FPA and the study of International Relations 12A reminder of your learning outcomes 13Sample examination questions 13

Part 1: Decision making 15

Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments 17Essential reading 17Recommended reading 17Further reading 17Additional resources 17Aims and learning objectives 17Learning outcomes 17Introduction 17Foreign policy and power 18Formulating foreign policy: the national interest and the balance of power 19Instruments of foreign policy 20Conclusion 22A reminder of your learning outcomes 22Sample examination questions 22

Chapter 3: Rational decision making 23Essential reading 23Recommended reading 23Further reading 23Additional resources 23Aims and learning objectives 23Learning outcomes 23Introduction 23Rationality and foreign policy 24A critique of rational decision making 24Reconciling rational and non-rational approaches: bounded rationality, cybernetics and

polyheuristics 25Conclusion 26A reminder of your learning outcomes 26Sample examination questions 26

Chapter 4: Perception, cognition and personality 27Essential reading 27Recommended reading 27Further reading 27Additional resources 27Aims and learning objectives 27Learning outcomes 27Introduction 27The role of perception 28The role of cognition 28The role of personality 29The role of the group 29Critique of the psychological approach to foreign policy decision making 30Conclusion 30A reminder of your learning outcomes 31Sample examination questions 31

Chapter 5: Bureaucratic politics 33Essential reading 33Recommended reading 33Further reading 33Additional resources 33Aims and learning objectives 33Learning outcomes 33Introduction 33Allison’s three models of foreign policy decision making 34Bureaucratic politics and its critics 35Conclusion 36A reminder of your learning outcomes: 36Sample examination questions 36

Part 2: Actors and Structures 37

Chapter 6: Major, middle and small powers 39Essential reading 39Recommended reading 39Further reading 39Additional resources 39Aims and learning objectives 39Learning outcomes 39Introduction 39Major powers and the search for primacy 40Middle powers and multilateralism 41Small states and the search for security 42Conclusion 42A reminder of your learning outcomes 43Sample examination questions 43

Chapter 7: The role of the external environment 45Essential reading 45Recommended reading 45Further reading 45Additional resources 45

Foreign policy analysis

ii

Aims and learning objectives 45Learning outcomes 45Introduction 45The role of the material environment: geography, natural resources, economicdevelopment 46Problems with the material environment and foreign policy 47The role of the international political environment: trade, 47security and international lawThe external environment, determinism and foreign policy 49Conclusion 49A reminder of your learning outcomes 49Sample examination questions 49

Chapter 8: The role of the domestic environment 51Essential reading 51Recommended reading 51Further reading 51Additional resources 51Aims and learning objectives 51Learning outcomes 51Introduction 51The sociological approach: state structures and regimes 52The ‘structuralist’ approach: economic systems and social class 53The pluralist approach: sub-state actors and interests 54Foreign policy decision making and the ‘two-level game’ 55Conclusion 56A reminder of your learning outcomes 56Sample examination questions 56

Part 3: Foreign policy in the era of globalisation 57

Chapter 9: Transnational actors and foreign policy 59Essential reading 59Recommended reading 59Further reading 59Additional resources 59Aims and learning objectives 59Learning outcomes 59Introduction 59Inter-governmental organisations and foreign policy 60Non-state actors and foreign policy 61Complex interdependence and foreign policy 62Conclusion 63A reminder of your learning outcomes 63Sample examination questions 63

Chapter 10: The foreign policy of states in transition 65Essential reading 65Recommended reading 65Further reading 65Additional resources 65Aims and learning objectives 65Learning outcomes 65Introduction 65Transitional foreign policy and international recognition 66Transitional foreign policy and domestic structure 66Transitional foreign policy and charismatic leadership 67

Contents

iii

Conclusion 67A reminder of your learning outcomes 68Sample examination questions 68

Chapter 11: Conclusion 69Aims and learning objectives 69Foreign policy analysis and International Relations 69

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper 71

Appendix 2: Advice on answering the sample examination paper 73


iv

Introduction

This subject guide provides an introduction to the field of Foreign policyanalysis. Foreign policy is, to use Christopher Hill’s definition,‘purposive action with the view towards promoting theinterests of a single political community or state’.1 The study offoreign policy is referred to as foreign policy analysis, and its focus is theintentions and actions of (primarily) states aimed at the external world andthe response of other actors (again, primarily states) to these actions. Thisunit is not designed to give you detailed exposure to the changing foreignpolicies of any particular country, though of course you will have manyopportunities to learn about the foreign policies of major, middle and smallpowers through the reading material. It is aimed at giving you the tools toanalyse, interpret and, ultimately, understand the dynamics of foreignpolicy generally so that you might apply these to your study of the role ofstates in international affairs.

Aim of the unitThe aim of this unit is to:

• introduce you to the central concepts in foreign policy analysis

• develop your comparative skills of analysis of differing foreign policiesin practice

• promote critical engagement with the foreign policy analysis literatureand enable you to display this engagement by developing an ability topresent, substantiate and defend complex arguments.

Learning outcomesBy the end of this unit you should be able to:

• demonstrate a critical understanding of the processes involved inforeign policy decision making

• demonstrate an understanding of the contexts, pressures andconstraints with which foreign policy makers have to deal

• demonstrate an understanding of the contrasting theoreticalapproaches used in foreign policy analysis.

The structure of this guideThis subject guide consists of 10 chapters and a concluding chapter whichprovides a summary perspective on the issues covered in the unit. Chapter 1is an overview of the field of Foreign policy analysis and its relationship toInternational Relations, while subsequent chapters are grouped into threeparts:

• Part 1 focuses on the decision-making process in foreign policy.

• Part 2 focuses on the actors and structures involved in foreign policy.

• Part 3 examines the role and impact of rapid globalisation on theforeign policy process.

Introduction

1

1 Hill, C. The changing politics

of foreign policy. (Basingstoke:

Palgrave, 2003)

[ISBN 0333754239] p.285.

Following the overview on Foreign policy analysis, Part 1 introduces youto the state and the setting of foreign policy, including the role of power,rationality and psychological approaches to understanding the dynamicsinvolved in individual and group decision making. It concludes with ananalysis of the part played by bureaucracies in shaping foreign policy.

Part 2 provides you with an introduction to the key actors in foreignpolicy, namely states, and assesses their foreign policy orientation interms of a hierarchy of power and capability. This is followed by anexamination of the differing impacts of the external or materialenvironment and the domestic environment on foreign policy.

Part 3 looks at the changing international system and how the overallrise of transnationalism, which has fostered a growth in linkages betweenstates, intergovernmental organisations and non-state actors, haschallenged the state’s pre-eminence in international affairs. This isfollowed by an examination of the onset of democratic transitions withinmany states in the contemporary era and how this has affected foreignpolicy making in these states.

Finally, the conclusion summarises the main themes in the subject guideand discusses the relationship between Foreign policy analysis andInternational Relations.

How to use this guideFor some units that you study, you are directed to read your essentialtextbooks after you have worked through the chapter in the guide. Forthis unit, the best thing to do is skim-read through the chapter in theguide to give you an idea of what the chapter is about, then familiariseyourself with the assigned readings in your textbooks. Then work slowlyand carefully through the chapters, and take note of the learningoutcomes.

When you have finished the chapter make sure that you can ‘tick off’ allof the points you should have covered. If you can’t, go back and readagain carefully. Recommended and Further Readings may be useful toconsult as well, both for pursuing a topic in depth and for additionalclarity around a particular idea or event.

Hours of studyIf you are studying for this unit over the course of a standard academicyear we would suggest that you study for no less than six hours eachweek and preferably more if you are to do all the reading and thinkingrequired to gain higher marks. If you are taking more time to prepare forthe examination, adjust this figure. The unit is equivalent to one LSE unitand full-time students study four units over the course of one year.


2

The syllabusPrerequisites: unit 11 Introduction to international relations is aprerequisite unit, if you are taking this unit as part of a BSc degree.

This unit examines the key concepts and schools of thought in foreignpolicy analysis, concentrating particularly on the process of decisionmaking, the internal and external factors which influence foreign policydecisions, the instruments available to foreign policy decision makers andthe effect of changes in the international system on foreign policy. The unitcombines a discussion of these theories with their application to selectedcountries in the north, the south, international organisations andtransnational actors.

The principal themes to be addressed by the unit are:

• the role and relevance of foreign policy in the era of globalisation

• how different theoretical approaches to FPA shape our understandingof foreign policy

• the role of leadership, the bureaucracy and interest groups in settingthe state’s foreign policy agenda

• what challenges face democratising states in constructing a newforeign policy

• the scope for affecting change in the international system by non-stateactors.

Reading adviceThe reading for this unit is divided into three categories: Essential,Recommended and Further.

You are advised to purchase or have regular access to the textbooks listedas essential reading. You are not required to read either the recommendedor further reading, but they should be considered in that order ofpreference.

Essential readingClarke, M. and B. White (eds) Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy

systems approach. (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989) [ISBN 1852781254].Hill, C. The changing politics of foreign policy. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)

[ISBN 0333754239].Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Heaney (eds) Foreign policy analysis: continuity and

change in its second generation. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002) [ISBN0130605751].

Webber, M. and M. Smith Foreign policy in a transformed world. (Harlow:Prentice-Hall, 2000) [ISBN 013087575].

Further and recommended readingTo help you read extensively, all external students have free access to theUniversity of London online library where you will find the full text or anabstract of some of the journal articles listed in this guide. You will need ausername and password to access this resource. Details can be found inyour handbook or online at:www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/index.asp?id+lse&id=

For ease of reference we provide here a full listing of all readingsmentioned in this guide.

Introduction

3

Alden, C. and M. Vieira ‘The new diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Braziland India and trilateralism’, Third World Quarterly 26(7) 2005,pp.1077–096.

Allison, G. and P. Zelikow The essence of decision. (New York: Longman, 1999)second edition [ISBN 0321013492].

Bennet, L. and D. Paletz (eds) Taken by storm: the media, public opinion andUS foreign policy in the Gulf War. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1994) [ISBN 0226042596].

Carlnaes, W. ‘The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis’,International Studies Quarterly 36, 1992, pp.245–70.

Cooper, A., R. Higgot and K. Nossal Relocating middle powers: Australia andCanada in a changing world order. (Vancouver, BC: University of BritishColumbia, 1993) [ISBN 0774804505].

Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink ‘International norm dynamics and politicalchange’, International Organization 52(4) 1998.

Fearon, J. ‘Rationalist explanations for war’, International Organization 49(3)1995.

Gordao, P. ‘Regime change and foreign policy: Portugal, Indonesia and the self-determination of East Timor’, Democratization 9(4) 2002, pp.142–58.

Gourevitch, P. ‘The second image reversed: the international sources ofdomestic politics’, International Organization 32(4) 1978, pp.881–912.

Halperin, M. Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. (Washington, DC:Brookings Institute, 1974) [ISBN 0815734077].

Handel, M. Weak states in the international system. (London: Frank Cass,1990) [ISBN 0714633852].

Hart, P., E. Stern and B. Sundelius (eds) Beyond groupthink: political groupdynamics and foreign policy decision-making. (Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press, 1997) [ISBN 0472066536].

Hermann, C. ‘Changing course: when governments choose to redirect foreignpolicy’, International Studies Quarterly 34(3) 1990, pp.3–22.

Hermann, M. ‘Explaining foreign policy behaviour using the personalcharacteristics of political leaders’, International Studies Quarterly 24(7)1980, pp.7–46.

Hill, C. The changing politics of foreign policy. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)[ISBN 0333754239].

Hook, S. (ed.) Comparative foreign policy: adaptive strategies of the great andemerging powers. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002) [ISBN 0130887897].

Hudson, V. ‘Foreign policy analysis: actor-specific theory and the ground ofinternational relations’, Foreign policy analysis 1(1) 2005, pp.1–30.

Huntington, S. The third wave: democratisation in the late twentieth century.(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1991) [ISBN 0806125160].

James, P. and E. Zhang ‘Chinese choices: a polyheuristic analysis of foreignpolicy crises, 1950-1996’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1) 2005, pp.31–54.

Jervis, R. Perception and misperception in international politics. (New York:Columbia University Press, 1976) [ISBN 0691056560].

Kahler, M. (ed.) Liberalization and foreign policy. (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1997) [ISBN 0231109431] Introduction.

Keohane, R. and J. Nye Transnational relations and world politics. (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1971) [ISBN 0674904818].

Keohane, R. After hegemony: co-operation and discord in the world politicaleconomy. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984) [ISBN0691022283].

Lenin, V. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Lenin Internet Archive,www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

Light, M. ‘Foreign policy analysis’ in Light, M. and A.J.R. Groom (eds)Contemporary international relations: a guide to theory. (London: Pinter,1994) [ISBN 185567128X].


4

Martin, L. ‘Interests, power and multilateralism’, International Organization46(4) 1992, pp.756–92.

Mintz, A. (ed.) Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policymaking: the polyheuristic theory of decision. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)[ISBN 0312294093].

Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. (NewYork: Alfred Knopf, 1950).

Nincic, M. Democracy and foreign policy. (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1992) [ISBN 023107669X].

Parker, G. Geopolitics: past, present and future. (London: Pinter, 1998) [ISBN 1855673975].

Putnam, R. ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of the two-level game’,International Organization 42(3) 1988, pp.427–60.

Risse-Kappen, T. ‘Public opinion, domestic structure and foreign policy inliberal democracies’, World Politics 43(3) 1991, pp.479–512.

Risse-Kappen, T. ‘Ideas do not float freely: transnational coalitions, domesticstructures and the end of the Cold War’, International Organization 48(2)1994, pp.185–214.

Shain, Y. and J. Linz (eds) Between states: interim governments and democratictransitions. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) [ISBN 0521484987].

Smith, S. ‘Allison and the Cuban missile crisis: a review of the bureaucraticpolitics model for foreign policy decision making’, Millennium 9(1) 1980,pp.21–40.

Snyder, G. ‘The security dilemma in alliance politics’, World Politics 36 (4)1984.

Snyder, R., H.W. Bruck, B. Sapin and V. Hudson Foreign policy decision making(revisited). (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) [ISBN 1403960763].

Steinbruner, J. The cybernetic theory of decision: new dimensions of politicalanalysis. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974) [ISBN 0691021759].

Wallace, W. and D. Josselin (eds) Non state actors in world politics.(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001) [ISBN 033396814X].

Additional resourcesForeign policy analysis web site: http://www.uwm.edu/~ebenc.fpa/

The examinationImportant: the information and advice given in the following section isbased on the examination structure used at the time this guide waswritten. Please note that subject guides may be used for several years.Because of this we strongly advise you to check both the currentRegulations for relevant information about the examination, and thecurrent Examiners’ reports where you should be advised of anyforthcoming changes. You should also carefully check therubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow thoseinstructions.

This unit is assessed by a three-hour unseen written exam. You mustanswer FOUR from a total of TWELVE questions. A sample examinationpaper is provided at the end of the subject guide and there is a sampleexaminers’ report that shows the sorts of things examiners are looking forin your answers. There are also additional questions at the end of eachchapter.

Introduction

5

In preparing for the examination you need to bear a number of things inmind. You must attempt four questions and try and share your timeequally between them. Even if you write two excellent answers, but failto attempt any other questions, it will be very difficult to pass. Moststudents who fail a unit do so because they fail to complete theexamination!

Remember that you are being asked to answer a question. The questionsare often permissive, in that they allow you to answer them from morethan one perspective – you might for example endorse or criticise anargument. However, remember that you are being asked to answer aquestion and not merely being invited to write all you can rememberabout a particular topic. Your answer should have a clear structure – abeginning, a middle and an end. In your introductory paragraph spell outwhat you take the question to mean and outline briefly how you proposeto answer the question. The main body of the answer should demonstrateyour understanding. Where relevant, you should include illustrativeexamples. Make your points clearly and concisely.

We are often asked how to refer to texts or quotations. Here are someguidelines:

• Do not waste time on irrelevant or contextual material. A question willrarely ask you to write all you know about the detailed eventssurrounding a particular foreign policy crisis or the life and times of aforeign policy decision maker. You can of course use backgroundmaterial to illustrate a point, but make sure it is clear why this isrelevant in your answer.

• Refer to texts using author surname and short title, such as Hill,Changing foreign policy. Do not give additional references unless theyare correct!

• You are not expected to memorise quotations, but if you have a goodmemory and can do so accurately then do so. No one will be penalisedfor not quoting passages from the authors discussed.

One of the skills the examiners will be looking for is the ability toparaphrase an argument. This ability will illustrate how well you haveunderstood it and your judgments about relevance and irrelevance. Inintroducing an example to highlight a particular point, always make sureyour illustration is clear, well focused and relevant. Always be guided byrelevance – if you are not sure, leave it out – you have very little timeand space. Finally, your conclusion should sum up your argument andyour answer. However brief, a conclusion indicates that you have finishedand have not merely run out of time.

The sample examination paper contains four questions. Most questionsare aimed at drawing upon a particular component of the course (e.g.bureaucratic politics) and, therefore, can be answered without referenceto other components. At the same time, you may find it useful or relevantto contrast one approach to foreign policy analysis with another one.Whatever you do, it is not advisable to repeat any portion of a previousanswer in another response. And, most importantly, be sure to read thequestion thoroughly.

When you begin to answer the exam paper take time to read it throughcarefully. Sketch out your answer in rough notes as this will help you tostructure it. Notes will not be accepted as an answer. Give yourself timeto re-read your answer in the final minutes of the exam.


6

Finally, although you will not normally be penalised for poor spelling,grammar and punctuation, you should still aim to maintain a highstandard in each.

Introduction

7

Notes


8

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: anoverview

Essential readingHill, C. The changing politics of foreign policy. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)

Chapters 1 and 2.Webber, M. and M. Smith Foreign policy in a transformed world. (Harlow:

Prentice-Hall, 2000) Chapter 1.

Recommended readingHudson, V. ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: actor-specific theory and the ground of

international relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1:1 March 2005, pp.1–30.Light, M. ‘Foreign Policy Analysis’, in Light M. and AJR Groom (eds)

Contemporary international relations: a guide to theory. (London: Pinter,1994).

Further readingCarlnaes, W. ‘The agency-structure problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’,

International Studies Quarterly 36, 1992, pp.245–70.Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Haney (eds) Foreign Policy Analysis: continuity and

change in its second generation. (Harlow: Prentice-Hall, 1995) Chapters 1and 2.

Additional resourcesForeign policy analysis web site: http://www.uwm.edu/~ebenc/fpa/

Aims and learning objectivesThe aim of this chapter is to introduce you to the basic concepts and keydebates that constitute Foreign policy analysis (or FPA) as well as providean overview of the evolution of the field and its relationship toInternational Relations more generally.

Learning outcomesBy the end of this chapter and the relevant readings, you should be able to:

• identify the key concepts of FPA

• describe and define the centrality of the state and national interest toFPA

• discuss the challenges that behaviourism and pluralism introduced totraditional realist approaches to the study of foreign policy

• discuss the relationship between FPA and the discipline ofInternational Relations.

IntroductionForeign policy analysis is the study of the conduct and practice of relationsbetween different actors, primarily states, in the international system.Diplomacy, intelligence, trade negotiations and cultural exchanges all formpart of the substance of Foreign policy analysis. At the heart of the field is

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview

9

an investigation into decision making, the individual decision makers,processes and conditions that affect foreign policy and the outcomes ofthese decisions. By virtue of this approach, Foreign policy analysis isnecessarily concerned with the boundaries between the externalenvironment outside of the nation state and the internal or domesticenvironment, with its variety of sub-national sources of influence.

FPA, as Foreign policy analysis is often referred to, developed as a separatearea of enquiry within the discipline of International Relations, bothbecause of its initially exclusive focus on the actual conduct of interstaterelations and due to its normative impulse. While International Relationsscholars understood their role to be to interpret the broad features of theinternational system, FPA specialists took as their mandate a concentrationon actual state conduct and the sources of decisions themselves. Moreover,scholars working within FPA saw their task to be normative, that is to say,as one aimed at improving foreign policy decision making so that statescould achieve better outcomes and, in some instances, even enhance thepossibility of peaceful relations between states.

To put this in the context of David Singer’s well-known schema ofInternational Relations, he says that in grappling with world politics, onenecessarily focuses on either the study of phenomena at the internationalsystem level, the state (or national) level or the individual level. FPA hastraditionally emphasised the state and individual levels to be the key areasfor understanding the nature of the international system. At the same time,as globalisation has transformed the international system, makinginterconnectivity outside of traditional state-to-state conduct more likely,FPA has had to expand its own outlook to account for an increasinglydiverse range of non-state actors such as global environmental activists ormultinational corporations. An underlying theme within the study of FPA isthe ‘structure–agency’ debate. Like the other branches of the social sciences,FPA scholars are divided as to the amount of influence to accord tostructural factors (the constraints imposed by the international system) orhuman agency (the role of individual choice in shaping the internationalsystem) in analysing foreign policy decisions and decision-makingenvironments.

FPA shares much with other policy-oriented fields that seek to employscientific means to understand phenomena. Debate within FPA over theutility of different methodological approaches, including rational choice,human psychology and organisational studies, has encouraged thedevelopment of a diversity of material and outlooks on foreign policy. Atthe same time, there remains a significant strand of FPA that, likediplomatic studies, owes a great debt to historical method.

Realism: the state, national interest and foreign policyFPA’s starting point is the state and its interactions with other states, be thisthrough direct bilateral relations or through multilateral institutions such asthe United Nations. In keeping with the realist paradigm, FPA understoodthe state to be a unitary actor, that is to say, one in which it is not necessaryto analyse the role of the discrete components of government (be it theexecutive or the legislature) in order to assess a state’s foreign policy. Inthis context, a key concept in FPA is that of the ‘national interest’. A muchdisputed term, the national interest nonetheless remains a centralpreoccupation of foreign policy decision makers and a reference point for


10

interpreting state action. Hans Morgenthau defines national interest assynonymous with power and, as such, both the proper object of a state’sforeign policy and the best measure of its capacity to achieve its aims.

What constitutes national interest, how it is determined and ultimatelyimplemented are crucial to understanding the choices and responsespursued by states in international affairs. Realists assert that the characterof the international system, that is to say its fundamentally anarchic nature,is the most important guide to interpreting foreign policy. The pursuit ofsecurity and efforts to enhance material wealth place states in competitionwith other states, limiting the scope for co-operation to a series of selective,self-interested strategies. In this setting, the centrality of power – especiallymanifested as military power – is seen to be the key determinant of a state’sability to sustain a successful foreign policy. Geographic position, materialresources and demography are other important features in this equation aswell.

Realists believe that all states’ foreign policies conform to these basicparameters and that, above all, scholars need to investigate the influencesof the structure of the international system and the relative power of statesin order to understand the outcomes of foreign policy decisions.Calculations of national interest are self-evident and can be rationallyarrived at through a careful analysis of material conditions of states as wellas the particulars of a given foreign policy dilemma confronting states.

Behaviourism: the ‘minds of men’ and foreign policydecision making

The original studies of foreign policy in the 1950s and 1960s wereexplicitly aimed at challenging the realist assumptions that were thedominant approach to International Relations at the time. Rather thanexamine the outcomes of foreign policy decisions, behaviourists sought tounderstand the process of foreign policy decision making itself. Inparticular, scholars like Robert Jervis, Harold and Margaret Sproutinvestigated the role of the individual decision maker and theaccompanying influences on foreign policy choice.

This emphasis on the individual decision maker led to a focus onpsychological and cognitive factors as explanatory sources of foreign policychoice. For instance, Jervis asserted that the psychological disposition of aleader, the cognitive limits imposed by the sheer volume of informationavailable to decision makers and the inclination to select policy options thatwere patently second-best all contributed to imperfect foreign policyoutcomes. In addition, other scholars pointed out that the decision-makingprocess was itself subject to the vagaries of group dynamics, while theconstraints imposed by crises introduced further distortions to foreignpolicy choice. The result was a comprehensive critique of many of the keyfindings on foreign policy found in the traditional realist perspective.

Bureaucratic politics and foreign policyThe focus on individual decision makers, despite its insights, was seen bysome scholars to be excessively narrow. Even within states, the conflictingoutlooks and demands of foreign policy bureaucracies such as the Ministryof Trade and the Ministry of Defence clearly influence foreign policydecisions in ways that reflect parochial concerns first over considerations ofnational interest. For Graham Allison and others, an analysis of foreignpolicy decision making had to start with these bureaucracies and the


11

various factors that caused them to play what was, in their view, thedetermining role in shaping foreign policy outcomes. This approach tounderstanding foreign policy therefore emphasises the interplay betweenleaders, bureaucratic actors, organisational culture and, to an extent,political actors outside of the formal apparatus of the state. Broader thanthe behaviourists’ singular focus on the individual decision maker,advocates of the bureaucratic politics approach to FPA began a process ofinvestigation into sources of influence on foreign policy beyond the statethat was to culminate in a radical rethinking of the importance of the stateitself in International Relations.

Pluralism: linkage politics and foreign policyWhile the previous approaches sought to understand FPA through,respectively, recourse to the structure of the international system and thedecision-making process within states, a third approach introduced a newmeans of interpreting foreign policy. Pluralists disputed the belief thatstates formed the only significant actors in international politics andasserted that, at least since the 1970s (if not earlier), increased linkagesbetween a variety of state, sub-state and non-state actors were eroding thetraditional primacy of the state in foreign policy. Indeed, the possibility ofmultinational companies exercising de facto foreign policy through theirfinancial resources or non-governmental organisations through their abilityto mobilise votes was recognised as a central feature of the globalisingworld. Thus for pluralists, an analysis of the influences upon foreign policywhich are derived from domestic and transnational sources – and whichwere not necessarily tied to the state – is crucial to understanding foreignpolicy outcomes. This environment of complex interdependency effectivelydiminishes the scope of state action in foreign policy making to that of amanager of a diversity of forces inside the domestic sphere, includinggovernment, and outside the boundaries of the state.

Robert Putnam’s ‘two-level game’ attempts to capture the challengesimposed by complex interdependency on foreign policy decision makers.He suggests that the decision-making process involves both a domesticarena, where one set of rules and interests govern, as well as aninternational arena, where a different set of rules and interests prevail.Balancing the logic and demands of the two arenas, which are often inconflict, forms the central dilemma of foreign policy making as seen bypluralists.

FPA and the study of International RelationsAs can be seen from this brief overview of the field, FPA provides manydifferent ways of understanding the conduct and significance of state, sub-state and non-state actors in foreign policy making. Though there is noconsensus among these approaches, each is seen to contribute to a fullerpicture of the workings of states and ultimately the international system.Indeed, FPA illuminates much that is otherwise left obscure in the study ofInternational Relations. While International Relations emphasises the roleand influence of structural constraints on the international system, FPAfocuses on the inherent possibilities of human agency to affect and evenchange the international system. In short, as Valerie Hudson says:

‘The single most important contribution of FPA to IR theoryis to identify the point of theoretical intersection betweenthe primary determinants of state behaviour: material and


12

conceptual factors. The point of intersection is not thestate, it is human decision makers. If our IR theoriescontain no human beings, they will erroneously paint for usa world of no change, no creativity, no persuasion, noaccountability.’ (Hudson, 2005, p.3 )

In the chapters that follow, we will develop the themes introduced above,providing further analysis and examples that illustrate the key concerns ofFPA.

Activity

Make a list of all the different approaches (realism, behaviourism, bureaucratic politicsand pluralism) to understanding the importance of the state, the individual andinternational organisations to foreign policy making.

A reminder of your learning outcomesYou should now be able to:

• identify the key concepts of FPA

• describe and define the centrality of the state and national interest toFPA

• discuss the challenges that behaviourism and pluralism introduced totraditional realist approaches to the study of foreign policy

• discuss the relationship between FPA and the discipline ofInternational Relations.

Sample examination questions1. What is Foreign policy analysis?

2. How do different approaches in FPA contribute to our understandingof International Relations?


13

Notes


14

Part 1: Decision making

Part 1: Decision making

15

Notes


16

Chapter 2: Power, capability andinstruments


Chapter 6.Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Haney (eds) Foreign Policy Analysis: continuity and

change in its second generation. (Harlow: Prentice-Hall, 1995) Chapter 11.

Recommended readingClarke, M. and B. White Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systems

approach. (Aldershot, Edward Elgar, 1989) Chapter 7.Snyder, G. ‘The security dilemma in alliance politics’, World Politics 36(4)

1984.

Further readingFearon, J. ‘Rationalist explanations for war’, International Organization 49(3)

1995.Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. (New

York: Alfred Knopf, 1950).


Aims and learning objectivesThe aim of this chapter is to introduce the student to the relationshipbetween foreign policy and power, the formulation of ‘national interest’ andthe different means available to states to achieve their foreign policyobjectives.


• identify the key concepts of power and national interest

• describe the impact of the international system in defining the tasks offoreign policy for states

• discuss the utility of different foreign policy instruments in achievingforeign policy goals.

IntroductionA successful foreign policy is measured in terms of a state’s ability to assertitself and promote its interests with consistency within the internationalsystem. Crucial to this success is an understanding of power, its sources andan assessment of the means needed to achieve state aims. Equallyimportant is an ability to forge these dimensions into a coherent foreignpolicy appropriate to the state in question, its particular material conditionsas well as its position within the international system. In this chapter we

Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments

17

will examine the relationship between foreign policy and power, theformulation of ‘national interest’ and the different means available to statesto achieve their foreign policy objectives.

Foreign policy and powerTraditionally, foreign policy makers have assumed that it is the very natureof the international system itself – being anarchic, that is without anyrecognised central authority – which compels states to pursue a relentlessquest for security and wealth. With states in direct competition with oneanother to achieve security and wealth needs, co-operation between themis ultimately tactical and limited to a series of selective, self-interestedalliances. A ‘security dilemma’ prevails, whereby efforts by one state toincrease its sense of security through arms acquisition or other defensivemeasures merely inspire other states to adopt similar strategies, andironically perpetuates a general sense of insecurity among all states.

In this contentious setting, the centrality of power – especially manifestedas military power – is seen to be the most important factor in determining astate’s ability to sustain a successful foreign policy. Power is defined as theability of a state to cause another state to take actions which are to the firststate’s advantage and which the latter state might not otherwise pursue.Christopher Hill suggests that there are three ways of interpreting the roleof power in foreign policy: as an end in itself, as a means to an end andas a context within which states operate. There are two basic ways thatthis can be achieved: through direct action (force or coercion) or throughindirect action (influence or persuasion). The coercion involves compellingthe target state through overt threat or outright intervention into its vitalaffairs. This could include military demonstration, such as the mobilising oftroops, or actual military strikes and even invasion. It may also involve vitaleconomic targets, such as cutting off oil supplies or a trade embargo, whichhave the effect of strangling the target state’s economy. Persuasion is morenuanced in that it involves compelling the target state through diplomaticmeans, appeals to rationality or universal principles and other sources ofinfluence. These could include appeals to cultural affinity or historicalpartnerships, with the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ being one ofthe most enduring. Joseph Nye characterises this ability of a state to induceothers to adopt its own foreign policy preferences as ‘soft power’, whilecoercive means ‘hard power’.1

The sources of a state’s power can be found primarily in its military andeconomic capabilities which give it the means to exercise coercive and non-coercive influence. Other factors that influence a state’s ability to pursue asuccessful foreign policy are its geographic position, the material resourcesavailable to it and the size of its population. The society’s level of economicdevelopment and the pervasiveness of new technologies, especially asgenerated through local ‘research and development’ programmes, areadditional indicators of power.


18

1 ‘Hard power is the ability to get

others to do what they otherwise

would not do through threat of

punishment or promise of

reward. Soft power is the ability

to get desired outcomes because

others want what you want.’

Nye, J. ‘Propaganda isn’t the

way: soft power’, International

Herald Tribune, 10 January 2003.

Formulating foreign policy: the national interest andthe balance of power

Classic approaches to foreign policy focus on the formulation of aims andobjectives based upon ‘national interest’. An elusive concept, nationalinterest is defined by the influential International Relations scholar HansMorgenthau as synonymous with power and, as such, both the properobject of a state’s foreign policy and the best measure of its capacity toachieve its aims. What constitutes national interest, how it is determinedand ultimately implemented are crucial to understanding the foreign policychoices and responses pursued by states. For realists like Morgenthau, thefundamentally anarchic condition of the international system is the mostimportant guide to decision making in foreign policy. Classic assumptions ofrationality, which are founded on the belief that foreign policy aims(‘preferences’) of decision makers are self-evident, further reinforce therealist view (see Chapter 3). However, other scholars dispute the self-evident nature of national interest and see it as founded on a narrowersocietal basis, such as representing the influence of strong lobby groups orsocial class structures on foreign policy. According to this interpretation,just whose interests are being elevated to the status of ‘national interest’and why they are adopted by the state, is a manifestation of the strugglebetween segments of the power elite that dominate society. The ability ofconflicting interests within the domestic environment to mobilise resources,be it through financial incentives or populist claims, determines theirsuccess in construing their parochial concerns as worthy of state action (seeChapter 8).

In this context, the ‘balance of power’ can be seen as the primarymechanism for ordering the international system and keeping it inequilibrium. Simply put, states act to offset an accumulation of power byone or more states by joining up with like-minded states. This coalitionstrategy is both descriptive – it reflects the historical conduct of states inEurope – and normative – it can be taken as a foreign policy imperative formaintaining international peace. The idea of a balance of power hasexercised considerable influence over foreign policy making though, due toits underlying assumptions of systemic anarchy, some have suggested that itfosters the very sense of instability which it purports to alleviate.

In spite of the problem of determining exactly the basis of national interest,it is clear that virtually all states subscribe by necessity to maintainingterritorial integrity and economic prosperity as central preoccupations ofthe government of the day in their international dealings. Moreover,historically states have frequently used the balance of power approach tomaintaining order and stability within the international system. What isopen to dispute is whether these aims are best achieved through the pursuitof short-term strategies based on limited provisions for co-operation orwhether states gain more through adopting long-term strategies thatemphasise co-operative institution building. Britain’s Foreign Secretary, LordPalmerston, articulated the former posture in the mid-nineteenth centurywhen he said that England had ‘no permanent friends or permanentenemies; only permanent interests’. Canada’s Foreign Minister, LloydAxworthy, presented the latter position in the late twentieth century whenhe declared that it was in Canada’s interests to use its resources to promotea permanent ban on landmines through the auspices of the United Nations.


19

Instruments of foreign policyOf course, the best formulated foreign policy in the world is renderedirrelevant without a clear sense of the tools available to politicians andtheir respective utility. Traditionally, states have had recourse todiplomacy, economic, subversion and military instruments toachieve their respective aims. More recently, these ‘hard power’ instrumentshave been supplemented by a recognition of the importance ofincorporating ‘soft power’ into a state’s repertoire. The promotion ofvalues through governmental and non-governmental actors is one of the‘soft power’ tools which can help states shape a target country’s foreignpolicy aims. Each of these has strengths and weaknesses in relation to agiven foreign policy problem and it is a state’s ability to capitalise on thesediverse sets of instruments that determines whether it has a successfulforeign policy or not.

Diplomacy is the prime currency of the international system and occupiesthe bulk of activity between states. It consists of formal and informaldiscussions aimed at resolving matters of mutual concern. These talks,negotiations or mediation can take place at a bilateral level (between twostates) or multilateral level (involving a number of states). Usually, officiallyrecognised diplomats trained in the intricacies of international protocolconduct such discussions. Alliances with like-minded states, or at leaststates that share a common perception of threat, and trade relations withpreferred states are common topics in the diplomatic arena. More oftenthan not, however, the work of diplomats is preoccupied with the mundaneday-to-day tasks of maintaining positive relations between states, attendingto the concerns of its citizens abroad and protocol-related issues. In thoseinstances when one state’s behaviour causes persistent concern or alarm,diplomatic actions – ranging from formal notes of protest to the applicationof diplomatic sanctions such as the withdrawal of official recognition of anoffending government – can be utilised to express a state’s rancour.

Contemporary diplomacy owes its formal practices and codes to theconventions developed in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies. Secretive agreements tying states to the defence of one anotherformed the backbone of European diplomacy up to the First World War. Inthe twentieth century, the rise of democracies, the media and internationalinstitutions such as the League of Nations and its successor, the UnitedNations, has brought about a shift towards a more public form ofdiplomacy. International summitry, when states’ leaders come together todiscuss high-profile foreign policy issues, has played an increasing role fromthe mid-twentieth century onwards as well.

Economic instruments are used by states when standard diplomaticpractices are seen to be insufficient in achieving their aims. They include:economic sanctions, such as imposing trade restrictions against a targetstate; and military sanctions, such as imposing restrictions on trade ormanufacture of arms to a target state.

With few exceptions, sanctions are only really effective if implemented by acollectivity of states and rigorously enforced by all of them. For this reason,it is often said that the importance of sanctions lies more in its symbolicvalue as a sign of displeasure with a particular state than its actual effectupon that state.

Subversion is an instrument favoured by leaders for its purported abilityto offer a state a tactical advantage over other states. The gathering ofintelligence and its analysis by specialists trained in assessing designs and


20

capabilities of other states can provide insight into alternative courses ofaction to be pursued by an opponent and a willingness to pursue theseactions. Less frequently – though certainly popularly associated withespionage – is the promulgation of covert operations aimed at destabilisingan opponent in one way or another. Grey and black propaganda (theformer partially based on truth, the latter an outright fabrication) againstthe target state or its leader, providing covert financial or military supportto opposition movements, and even political assassinations, all form part ofthe arsenal utilised in this form of espionage. Debate within democraticstates rages as to the morality of pursuing covert operations in times of(relative) peace, though historically these states have shown nocompunction against their use when state security was believed to bethreatened.

Values promotion is an explicitly ‘soft power’ approach to foreign policythat is operationalised through a variety of means. Government agenciesthat promote the society’s cultural values through, for example, educationalexchanges and scholarships to élites or prospective élites, are ways ofshaping the aims and choices pursued by foreign policy actors in anothercountry. States can also fund non-governmental actors with an explicitvalues promotion agenda, such as human rights groups, trade unionsupport or electoral assistance. The strength of this approach is thatdomestic actors within a particular target country embrace the underlyingvalues of another country and then this becomes the basis for foreign policychoice that, perhaps unconsciously, conforms to the interests of thepromoter state.

Military instruments remain the ultimate expression of a state’swillingness to pursue its foreign policy. For the renowned strategist Karl vonClausewitz, the use of the military was ‘politics pursued by other means’.States employ their military principally in times of crisis to defend theirinterests, be they territorial, resources or citizens, or in support of foreignpolicy aims such as acquiring new territory, gaining access to strategicresources or upholding international principle. The military, in the hands ofan expert, can be a much more diversified foreign policy instrument than isimmediately apparent. For instance, it can mark the strength of a state’scommitment to a security alliance through the presence of permanentmilitary bases or the sending of a naval fleet to a region in dispute. Equally,public displays of technological prowess such as the launching of ballisticmissiles or the testing of nuclear weapons can be important signals topotential adversaries and friends alike. With modern military technologyoutside of the reach of most states, global force projection is increasinglylimited to merely a handful of states, with the United States as the foremostmilitary power today.

Until the end of the Cold War, the military was seen to be the most obviousmeasure of a state’s power, but subsequently many International Relationsscholars have argued that economic strengths or even cultural reach areequally significant indicators. This gave impetus to proponents of ‘softpower’ instruments, who argued that their approach was more suited to thechanging international environment. More generally, the advent of totalwarfare in the twentieth century introduced to the world conflict on such adestructive scale that both the efficacy and the morality of the use of forceas an instrument of foreign policy has been called into question.Peacekeeping forces, usually under the auspices of an internationalorganisation like the United Nations, are a more recent innovation of theclassic military tool and some states include a specially trained battalion onhand for such missions.


21

ConclusionAs Winston Churchill famously said, ‘it is better to jaw–jaw than it is towar–war’. Thus, despite the assumptions of anarchy and the accompanying‘security dilemma’ facing states, the impulse towards diplomatic solutions inforeign policy remain paramount. Calibrated use of foreign policyinstruments in the service of national interest is the most effective means ofensuring that a state’s vital security and economic concerns are preserved.In this context, accurately assessing the capacity and will of other statesbecomes a crucial preoccupation of foreign policy makers as they seek toformulate and implement a successful foreign policy. The next chapter willexamine in greater detail the actual process of devising a rational foreignpolicy.

Activity

Choose one of the powers in East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea or the United States)and outline the possible foreign policy instruments it can use in response to NorthKorea’s determination to pursue its programme of nuclear proliferation. This activity canbe done on one’s own or with a group. For country information, see the BBC’s web siteunder regions in the news section of: http://news.bbc.co.uk. For information on NorthKorea’s proliferation, see the International Crisis Group’s web site:http://www.crisisgroup.org


• identify the key concepts of power and national interest

• describe the impact of the international system in defining the tasks offoreign policy for states

• discuss the utility of different foreign policy instruments in achievingforeign policy goals.

Sample examination questions1. What is national interest and how is it determined?

2. How do states exercise their influence over other states?


22

Chapter 3: Rational decision making


Chapter 5.

Recommended readingMintz, A. (ed.) Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy

making: the polyheuristic theory of decision. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Haney (eds) Foreign Policy Analysis: continuity and

change in its second generation. (Harlow: Prentice-Hall, 1995) Chapter 11.Snyder, R., H.W. Bruck, B. Sapin and V. Hudson Foreign policy decision making

(revisited). (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002).

Further readingJames, P. and E. Zhang, ‘Chinese choices: a polyheuristic analysis of foreign

policy crises, 1950–1996’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1) 2005, pp.31–54.Steinbruner, J. The cybernetic theory of decision: new dimensions of political

analysis. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974).


Aims and learning objectivesThe aim of this chapter is to introduce you to rational decision making inforeign policy and the accompanying critiques of this approach as well asthe efforts to reconcile rationalism with non-rational approaches.


• identify the key concepts of rationality in foreign policy decisionmaking

• describe and define the difference between the operational andpsychological environment for foreign policy decision making

• discuss attempts to reconcile rationalism with the non-rationalapproaches to foreign policy decision making.

IntroductionRationality and its application to foreign policy decision making is one ofthe most influential approaches to understanding contemporaryinternational politics. Derived from public choice theory (which itselfemerged out of the fields of economics and policy sciences), rational choicescholars have actively sought to utilise a well-established methodology ofdecision making to enhance and assess foreign policy decision making. Atthe same time, the use of rationalist approaches to foreign policy hasinspired considerable commentary and criticism. Indeed, much of the workof FPA has been devoted to assessing the weaknesses of this school ofthought and its links to the assumptions underlying realism.


23

Rationality and foreign policyRealists believe that all states’ foreign policies conform to basic parametersset by the anarchic international system and that, above all, scholars needto investigate the influences of the structure of the international system andthe relative power of states in order to understand the outcomes of foreignpolicy decisions. Calculations of national interest are self-evident and canbe rationally arrived at through a careful analysis of material conditions ofstates as well as the particulars of a given foreign policy dilemmaconfronting states.

The classical realism formulation of balance of power provides a crude buteffective tool for analysing state action in international affairs (see Chapter2). Rational choice theory (sometimes called public choice theory), asapplied to international affairs, sought to introduce a more rigorous,methodologically sound approach that could use the basic laws of choice toassess the process and outcome of foreign policy decision making. Fromthis perspective, the maximisation of utility by actors (in this case, states) isthe ultimate aim of foreign policy decision makers. By maximisation ofutility, we mean a state first identifies and prioritises foreign policy goals; itthen identifies and selects from the means available to it which fulfil itsaims with the least cost. In this regard, the focus of this approach istraditionally on policy outcomes and therefore assumes a relativelyundifferentiated decision-making body for foreign policy (a ‘unitary actor’),rather than one composed of different decision makers. However, somescholars have recognised that an assessment of national interest – definedas enhancing security and wealth maximisation (or, to use the public choicejargon, ‘preference formation’) – is crucial to determining policy choice. Inany case, as all states reside within the same international setting in whichthe conditions of anarchy tend to structure the ‘rules of the game’ in asimilar fashion for all states, coming to an interpretation of action andreaction should not be out of reach for foreign policy analysts. Gametheory, with its application to nuclear strategy, is one concrete expression ofthis approach to foreign policy.

From this perspective, developing foreign policy goals and implementingthem therefore involves a relatively straightforward assessment of thesituation and other actors’ potential actions based on their status andmaterial endowment within the international system. Optimal outcomes,albeit within the framework of available choices, are both the goal and theguide for foreign policy choice. Good foreign policy is achievable and,presumably, a realistic source for ordering the international system throughsome form of balancing or trade-off mechanism.

A critique of rational decision makingHarold and Margaret Sprout introduced one of the most defining critiquesof the rational approach to foreign policy. They examined the environmentwithin which foreign policy decisions are taken, distinguishing between the‘operational environment’ – which they posited as objective reality – andthe ‘psychological environment’ – which they held to be subjective andunder the influence of a myriad of perceptual biases and cognitive stimuli.Foreign policy decision makers take decisions on the basis of theirpsychological environment, relying upon perceptions as a guide, ratherthan any cold weighing of objective facts. The Sprouts believed that theaccompanying gap between the ‘operational environment’ and the‘psychological environment’ within which decision makers act introduced


24

significant distortions to foreign policy making with important implicationsfor foreign policy as a whole. Richard Snyder and his colleagues took thisfurther and pointed out that it is a misnomer to ascribe decision making tothe autonomous unitary entity known as the state. In their view, the ‘blackbox of foreign policy decision making’ needed to be opened up so that onecould both recognise the actual complexity underlying decisions (whichincluded individual biases and bureaucratic processes) and to develop abetter analysis of foreign policy itself.

For these critics of rationality, foreign policy decision makers do not act in apurely rational manner that conforms to the core assumptions of realismand public choice theory. At best, foreign policy decision makers could besaid to operate within the framework of the information available to themand make decisions on that limited basis. Moreover, decision makers arealso subject to other influences such as their perceptions, pre-existingbeliefs or prejudices and cognitive limitations on handling informationwhich introduce further distortions to the process. Much of the substance ofthis latter critique against rationality as a source for foreign policy decisionmaking was made by the behaviourists in their work on individual decisionmakers and is covered in Chapter 4. Critics of rationality believe thatattempts at rational foreign policy decision making are misguided and evenpotentially dangerous for states.

Reconciling rational and non-rational approaches:bounded rationality, cybernetics and polyheuristics

Efforts to rehabilitate rationality as a source for foreign policy decisionmaking resulted in a number of innovative approaches that attempted toincorporate the insights and criticisms levelled against it. Herbert Simon’swork (though he himself is not an International Relations scholar but ratheran economist) suggests that while decision makers cannot achieve purerationality, they nonetheless conduct themselves along the lines of‘procedural’ rationality when faced with a particular policy dilemma.Foreign policy makers therefore operate within the framework of whatSimon calls ‘bounded rationality’; that is, they act rationally within thecontext of partial information and other limitations placed on decisions.

John Steinbruner, responding to the general critique on rationality, theproblem of group decision making (see Chapter 4) and the issues raised bythe bureaucratic politics model (see Chapter 5), introduced what he calleda cybernetic processing approach to foreign policy. He posits that there arethree paradigms of decision making – analytical (or rational),cybernetic and cognitive – and that the integration of the latter twoparadigms more accurately captures the actual process of decision makingand the foibles of individual and group actors.

More recently, Alex Mintz has proposed another way of reconciling thecritique against rationality in foreign policy decision making whilemaintaining much of the substance of rational choice approaches. Calledthe ‘polyheuristic method’, Mintz declares that foreign policy decisions arebest understood as a two-stage process. The first step is one in which thenon-rational elements govern decision making, in particular considerationsof what is politically possible by the leader of the state. Once courses ofaction which are not politically palatable or attainable, such as thesurrendering of sovereign territory in response to a foreign ultimatum, arediscarded, the second step of decision making occurs. In this latter stage,policy options are introduced and selected in a rational manner thatconforms to the rules of public choice theory, namely that foreign policy


25

decisions are driven primarily by a search for the maximisation of utilitywithin a particular framework. The strength of Mintz’s approach is that itattempts to account for the variants in outcome through the integration ofthe impact of cognition and other non-rational factors.

ConclusionWhat is clear from the previous analysis is that a purely rational account offoreign policy decision making cannot hold up against the variouscriticisms, be they psychological or empirical in content. At the same time,the durability of rationality as a means of analysing foreign policy continuesand, in part, reflects the willingness of FPA scholars to accept the basictenets of criticism but their reluctance to abandon the methodology ofpublic choice.

It should be pointed out that the influence of rationality is morewidespread than in the realm of FPA theory debates alone. Rationalanalyses of foreign policy underlie much of our ordinary interpretation ofinternational events, and we are making assumptions about the unitarynature of decision makers when we talk about, for example, ‘French foreignpolicy’ without accounting for different influences on decision makingwithin governments. Thus, while the criticisms of rationality remain bothpowerful and valid, its assumptions still play an important part in much ofour day-to-day understanding of foreign policy. In the next chapter we willdelve more deeply into one of the main critiques of rationality, which is theimpact of the psychological assessment of foreign policy on ourunderstanding of FPA.

Activity

With a group of friends, debate the question of whether foreign policy decisions are theproduct of rationality or are fundamentally irrational.


• identify the key concepts of rationality in foreign policy decisionmaking

• describe and define the difference between the operational andpsychological environment for foreign policy decision making

• discuss attempts to reconcile rationalism with the non-rationalapproaches to foreign policy decision making.

Sample examination questions1. What is a rationalist approach to foreign policy decision making and

how does it differ from other approaches?

2. Can foreign policy ever be considered rational?


26

Chapter 4: Perception, cognition andpersonality


Chapter 5.

Recommended readingHart, P., E. Stern and B. Sundelius (eds) Beyond groupthink: political group

dynamics and foreign policy decision-making. (Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press, 1997).

Jervis, R. Perception and misperception in international politics. (New York:Columbia University Press, 1976).

Clarke, M. and B. White Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systemsapproach. (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989) Chapter 6.

Further readingHermann, M. ‘Explaining foreign policy behaviour using the personal

characteristics of political leaders’, International Studies Quarterly 24(7)1980, pp.7–46.

Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Haney (eds) Foreign Policy Analysis: continuity andchange in its second generation. (Harlow: Prentice-Hall, 1995) Chapter 4.


Aims and learning objectivesThe aim of this chapter is to introduce you to the role of perception,cognition, personality and groups in shaping foreign policy decisionmaking.


• identify the key concepts of perception, cognition and personality andtheir influence on foreign policy

• describe the process of foreign policy decision making in groupsettings

• describe and discuss the impact that the psychological approach hason rational accounts of foreign policy.

IntroductionForeign policy is the product of human agency, that is to say, individuals ina leadership position identifying foreign policy issues, making judgmentsabout them and then acting upon that information. It is this fundamentalinsight – the product of the critique of rationality in decision making – thatinitiated a concentrated study of the impact of individual psychology onforeign policy. Underlying this approach was the recognition that individual

Chapter 4: Perception, cognition and personality

27

leaders of states exercised a seminal influence over the foreign policyprocess by dint of their experience, outlook and limitations, and weretherefore worthy of special attention. Among the diversity of psychologicalfactors said to play a role in shaping foreign policy are the influence ofindividual perceptions, human cognition, a leader’s personality and thedynamics of group decision making.

For proponents of the psychological approach, foreign policy decisionmakers operate in a highly complex world and their decisions carry withthem significant risks. These include linguistic–cultural barriers, stereotypesand high volume of, yet incomplete, information. Hence through processesof perception and cognition, decision makers develop images, subjectiveassessments of the larger operational context, that when taken togetherconstitute the ‘definition of the situation’. These definitions are always adistortion of reality, as the purpose of perception is to simplify and orderthe external environment. Policy makers can therefore never be completelyrational in applying the maximisation of utility approach to decisions.

The role of perceptionIn dividing the setting of foreign policy decision making between the‘operational’ and ‘psychological’ environments, Harold and MargaretSprout, among the first scholars to address FPA concerns, opened up thepossibility of FPA scholars investigating the interior life of the mind ofindividual foreign policy makers. Robert Jervis produced one of the mostinfluential studies in this area on the role of ‘misperception’ on foreignpolicy decisions, which he says stems from the fact that leaders makeforeign policy based upon their perceptions rather than the actual‘operational environment’. For Kenneth Boulding, this suggests that foreignpolicy decisions are largely the product of ‘images’ which individual leadershave of other countries or leaders and, therefore, are based uponstereotypes, biases and other subjective sources that interfere with theirability to conduct rational foreign policy. Both scholars see leadership asbringing its particular experience and outlook, perhaps shaped byindividual and societal prejudices or media imagery, to the foreign policyprocess and thus introducing distortions to ‘definitions of the situation’.

The role of cognitionAnother dimension of the psychological approach that affects foreign policyis cognition. Cognition, the process by which humans select and processinformation from the world around them, introduces important problems tothe decision-making process. Indeed, the limits that cognition – whencoupled with the role of perception – introduces to a rational account offoreign policy are such that it is difficult to describe these decisions asanything but the product of an incomplete (and therefore unsatisfactory)process.

According to Alexander George, an eminent diplomatic historian, theinternational environment is filtered by decision makers through their own‘operational code’, that is, a set of rules and perceptions that havepreviously been established within their minds and which are used toassess new situations and develop policy responses to them. RobertAxelrod, an international relations scholar, suggests that this process leadsto the development of a ‘cognitive map’ that combines perception, prejudiceand an understanding of ‘historical lessons’, and applies these to the task ofdecision making. Moreover, his research findings suggest that foreign policy


28

makers tend towards those policy choices that involve the fewest trade-offs,not necessarily the ‘best’ or ‘optimal’ policies that rational choice theoristswould have us believe, but the ones that involve taking the path of leastresistance. Indeed, some have characterised this sub-optimal decisionmaking as ‘satisficing’, that is the decision maker’s impulse to choose apolicy option that addresses the immediate pressures and concerns ratherthan weighing the merits of a given policy.

Building upon these insights, other behaviourist scholars in FPA havehighlighted the distortions on rational foreign policy imposed by the searchfor cognitive consistency by individual leaders. The academician, LeonFestinger’s concept of ‘cognitive dissonance’, that is, the effort by which adecision maker deliberately excludes new or contradictory information, inorder to maintain his existing image or cognitive map, is one example ofthis. Jervis’ investigation into ‘cognitive consistency’ points out that foreignpolicy makers habitually screen out disruptive effects by finding a logicalway of incorporating it into the rationale behind a given foreign policychoice.

The role of personalityIn addition to perception and cognition, FPA scholars have sought to assessthe impact of a leader’s personality on foreign policy. They note thatdifferent leaders bring their own biases to office and – this is most evidentin the removal of one leader and the installation of another – can exercisedramatically different influences over their country’s foreign policy. Forexample, Anthony Eden’s harkening back to Britain’s imperialist past was amajor factor in his ill-advised intervention into Suez in 1956, while JohnKennedy’s inexperience and youth caused him to respond aggressively tothe deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962. Psychological profilingof leaders, analysing the origins of their patterns of behaviour as a clue totheir possible actions, became a priority activity. All of these individualisticand deeply personal elements are said to affect leadership and ultimatelyforeign policy outcomes.

In their study of personality, Irving Janis and Leon Mann introduced a‘motivational’ model of foreign policy decision making that emphasised thefact that leaders are emotional beings seeking to resolve internal decisionalconflict. The role of emotions is most pronounced in a crisis and at thispoint stress intervenes, causing a lack of ability to abstract and tolerateambiguity, as well as an increased tendency towards aggressive behaviour.‘Tunnel vision’, a fixation on single solutions to the exclusion of all others,may also ensue.

The role of the groupThe same human psychological and cognitive limitations which challengethe rational actor model of decision making apply to groups as well. Groupdecision-making structures, which are put into place in order to broadenthe information base and provide alternative sources of analysis andexperience – in other words, to combat some of the perceptualmisconceptions that arise in individual decision making – themselvesintroduce a new set of problems. Janis’s investigation of foreign policymaking by groups concluded that they suffer from ‘group think’, that is tosay individuals tend to seek to maintain consensus when operating in agroup even at the expense of promoting their own particular (and possiblymore sensible) perspective on an issue under discussion. Through this


29

process, the objectively best (or ‘optimal’) decision to a given foreign policydilemma can become diluted or even abandoned as individuals strive tocome up with a common group position on how to address a specificforeign policy challenge.

Considerable scholarship has been devoted to ameliorating the worst effectsof ‘group think’. George proposed a number of measures, including theimposition of a ‘devil’s advocate’ to question pending decisions, to combatthis tendency, but the fact remains that under circumstances in which timeis an issue, such as is the case in foreign policy crises, the impulse towardsseeking consensus for sub-optimal policy positions is strong.

Critique of the psychological approach to foreign policydecision making

The psychological approach is in many respects a devastating one forproponents of rationality in foreign policy. Nevertheless, its limitations asan interpretive tool in FPA have become evident to many working in thediscipline. Jervis, for one, ultimately seeks to downplay the significance ofpsychological factors in foreign policy by stressing the importance of theoperational environment as determinative of foreign policy independent ofthe psychological environment. He says foreign policy cannot be usefullyexplained if one doesn’t take into account several levels of analysis inaddition to the individual level (where considerations of perception,cognition and personality do matter), namely bureaucratic constraints,domestic influences and the external environment. Moreover, images,perceptions and ideology are not the products of individuals but ratheremerge out of society (they are ‘socially constructed’), and therefore it isnot especially relevant to focus on individuals alone. It would be moremeaningful to focus on the social context within which they operate.

The importance of personality in foreign policy is discounted by somescholars as well. Steve Smith’s study of the Iran hostage crisis suggests thatpersonality is not as significant as the actual role assumed by individualsholding a position of authority. Others point out the difficulty of measuringthe degree of input psychological factors have on foreign policy outcomes –can one really ascribe the decision by Charles De Gaulle to pull France outof Algeria to formative events in his childhood, and if so, why was this anymore important than the social, economic and security reasons for takingaction? All in all, personality – as well as perception and cognition – canusefully explain aspects of the process of choice in foreign policy but itcannot serve as its sole or overarching explanatory source.

ConclusionPsychological approaches in FPA provide a window into decision makingthat enrich our understanding of the myriad of possible influences on theforeign policy choices made by leaders. At the same time, the relationshipbetween the decision maker, the state and the structure of the internationalsystem is a complex one and the utility of such concepts as misperceptionin explaining different types of foreign policy depends, it can be argued, asmuch on the characteristics of the state, the issue being addressed and thetype of policy being formulated as on the leader’s cognitive constraints. Allforeign policy decisions are the product of the foreign policy institutionswithin which decisions are taken. In the next chapter we will take up theexamination of the impact of these organisations upon the foreign policyprocess.


30

Activity

Identify the personality characteristics of important world leaders (for example, WinstonChurchill, George W Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev, Charles de Gaulle and Nelson Mandela)that have influenced their choice and conduct of their country’s foreign policies.


• identify the key concepts of perception, cognition and personality andtheir influence on foreign policy

• describe the process of foreign policy decision making in groupsettings

• describe and discuss the impact that the psychological approach hason rational accounts of foreign policy.

Sample examination questions1. Explain how one of the following influences foreign policy:

perception, cognition or personality.

2. Is group decision making in foreign policy better than individualdecision making?


31

Foreign Policy Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Foreign Policy Analysis