1

IR202 Foreign Policy Analysis Full Unit 2016-17 Version Course Co-ordinator: James Strong Office: CLM 5.08 Office Hours: TBC, book via LSE for You Twitter: @dr_james_strong Teaching Assistants: Emma Blanc (groups 1 and 2)

Pilar Elizalde (groups 3, 4 and 5) Benjamin Ho (group 6) Sidharth Kaushal (group 7) Till Spanke (group 8) Dimitrios Stroikos (groups 9 and 10) William Wang (group 11) Administrator: Adnan Khan CLM 6.08 Overview Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is the study of decision-making in international relations. It looks at how international, domestic and individual pressures shape the decisions leaders make and the actions states take. In the first half of the course we will discuss conceptual matters, gradually building a toolkit of approaches that together help us explain and understand how and why states and individuals behave the way they do. In the second half we work through a series of detailed case studies, covering foreign policy decision-making and outcomes in Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and China. Aims of the Course This course aims to:

1) Introduce students to the International Relations sub-field of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA).

2) Provide a grounding in the key theories and concepts used by FPA scholars.

3) Promote critical engagement with a wide range of scholarly literature.

4) Support students in making, substantiating and defending complex arguments both orally and in writing.

2

Learning Outcomes By the end of this course students should be able to:

1) Understand and critically analyze the actors, structures and processes driving foreign policy decision-making, and the contests, pressures and constraints holding it back.

2) Demonstrate an ability to engage in comparative analysis without losing a sense of historical context.

3) Provide evidence of some specialised knowledge of the post-1945 foreign policies

and foreign policy processes of the major or emerging major powers in the international system.

Teaching and learning methods The first thing to remember about studying IR202 is that you are responsible for your own learning. Your lecturers and class teachers will guide you through the topics you need to know, hopefully identifying what is interesting about each individual aspect of FPA as well as showing how they all link together. They will also help you develop both knowledge and, crucially, a deeper critical understanding of the materials discussed, as well as providing advice and feedback on both written essays and oral presentations, to help you further extend your skill-set. Ultimately, though, it is up to you what you get out of this course. Work hard, think carefully and, above all, participate and you will do well. In terms of some specific guidelines to follow:

1) Come to the lectures. There will be ten lectures in Michaelmas Term on the conceptual underpinnings of FPA (IR202.1) and fifteen in Lent Term on contemporary foreign policy in practice (IR202.2), including three lectures each on the US, UK, Russia and China. The lecture slides will be available on Moodle after each lecture, but reading slides is no substitute for being there in person – not least because there will be time in each lecture session to ask questions about the week’s topic.

2) Do the readings. You cannot possibly read everything on the reading list. That is deliberate. You’ll learn more (and we’ll find what you say and write more interesting) if you haven’t all read exactly the same things. At minimum you should each read ALL of the core readings identified for each topic. Ideally you should also aim to read three or four further readings. Your lecturers and class teachers will provide guidance on the relative merits of different readings, but you should also use your own judgment to decide whether you think the arguments the different authors make work.

3) Prepare properly for classes. There will be twenty weekly classes, beginning in

Week 2 of Michaelmas Term and concluding with a revision session in Week 1 of Summer Term. Classes give you the chance to test out your ideas and to ask any questions raised by the lectures and readings. That means you need to do the readings before going to class, and to be ready to ask and answer questions arising from the materials.

4) Take good notes as you go along. You’ll need them to write your formative essays,

and to prepare for the exam in the summer. Good notes identify the most important points made by a lecture or a reading, as well as highlighting what you think are

3

the main strengths and weaknesses of the arguments discussed. If you want to quote a reading directly, make sure you note down the number of the page the quote appears on in the original text – it’ll save time later.

Assessment Like most LSE courses, IR202 involves both formative and summative assessments. With the exception of some General Course students, for most of you formative assessments provide useful feedback on your understanding of the material but do not count towards your final course mark. You will complete four formative essays of 1,500 words each for your class teachers during Michaelmas and Lent Terms. Your class teachers will explain the essay deadlines to you during your first class meeting. You will also complete at least one classroom presentation, and be expected to contribute regularly to ongoing class discussions. The main summative assessment for IR202 takes the form of a three-hour unseen written exam in the Summer Term (100% of the grade). Past exam papers are available on the LSE Library website (https://library-2.lse.ac.uk/protected-exam/index.html), and you should familiarize yourself with the format and typical content of the exam as soon as possible. You will be expected to answer three questions, including at least one conceptual question and at least one question looking at US, UK, Russian or Chinese foreign policy. Feedback You can expect to receive feedback from your class teachers in a number of formats. To begin with, you will receive written comments on your four formative essays, explaining the grade assigned and indicating ways to improve. You will also receive direct feedback on any classroom presentations you give. If you wish to discuss your progress further, it is your responsibility to book an appointment with your class teacher. Class teachers are always happy to talk about readings, workload management, essay writing, class participation and other aspects of the studying process. They will also offer more immediate forms of feedback by commenting on and responding to the ideas you raise in class. What next? IR202 provides a good general grounding in one of the main sub-fields of International Relations, and can lead on to a whole range of third year options in the IR department. It offers a particularly useful introduction to some of the issues and approaches discussed on the following third year courses: IR305 Strategic Aspects of International Relations (Professor Coker) IR313 Managing China’s Rise in East Asia (Dr Haacke) IR314 Southeast Asia: Intra-Regional Politics and Security (Dr Haacke) IR317 American Grand Strategy (Professor Trubowitz) IR399 Dissertation

4

Reading list In addition to the topic-specific readings set out below, you may find it useful to buy a copy of one or more of the following text books: Alden, Chris and Amnon Aran (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches

• A good general introduction to FPA by Professor Alden, who designed IR202. Features a useful discussion of foreign policy change, a topic often neglected.

Hill, Christopher (2003) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy

• Professor Hill spent many years in the IR department at LSE before moving to Cambridge. This text reflects a long career thinking, writing about and teaching FPA.

Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (2012) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors and Cases

• A slightly different type of text, offering a series of introductory essays by leading FPA scholars covering most of the topics discussed on this course (and some others!) and providing a useful set of introductory case studies.

5

MICHAELMAS TERM

Week 1: The subject of Foreign Policy Analysis Also known as “what is FPA”? In this first lecture, we’ll talk in general terms about what it means to study decision-making in international relations. In particular, we’ll discuss the wide range of different approaches in the FPA toolkit, and begin to think about how to fit them together conceptually. Required readings (make sure you read these) Introductory Hudson, Valerie (2005) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1:1, pp1-30.

• A very good overview of the range of different ideas and approaches in FPA from one of the leading scholars working today.

Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (Eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors, Cases. Foreword, Introduction and chapter by Valerie Hudson.

• Some helpful first thoughts from three leading British FPA scholars (though Sir Steve Smith is now Vice-Chancellor of Exeter and Tim Dunne has moved to Australia), a useful guide to the history of FPA from Professor Hudson and some thoughts from James Rosenau, one of the founders of FPA.

Alden, Chris and Amnon Aron (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Chapter 1.

• Professor Alden’s take on how FPA works. Dr Strong hasn’t written a textbook (yet), but this should give you a good insight into the LSE approach to FPA.

Hill, Christopher (2003) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Chapters 1 and 2.

• Professor Hill’s overview of the study of foreign policy in an IR setting, again with an LSE flavor.

Further readings (read some of these to provide greater depth) Non-western/non-traditional foreign policy and FPA: Braveboy-Wagner, Jacqueline (2003) The Foreign Policies of the Global South: Rethinking Conceptual

Frameworks. Clapham, Christopher (1977) Foreign Policy Making in Developing States: A Comparative Approach. Chan, Steve and Andrew Williams (1995) Renegade States: The Evolution of Revolutionary Foreign

Policy. East, Maurice and Justin Robertson (2005) Diplomacy and Developing Nations: Post Cold War

Foreign Policy-Making Structures and Processes. Giacolone, Rita (2012) ‘Latin American Foreign Policy Analysis: External influences and

internal circumstances’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 8:4, pp335-354. Hudson, Valerie (2015) The Hillary Doctrine: Sex and American Foreign Policy. Miyagi, Yukiko (2009) ‘Foreign policy making under Koizumi: Norms and Japan’s role in

the 2003 Iraq War’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5:4, pp349-366.

6

The history of FPA: Hey, Jeanne, Patrick Haney and Laura Neack (1995) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and

Change in its Second Generation. Smith, Steve (1986) ‘Theories of foreign policy: An historical overview’, Review of International

Studies 12:1, pp13-29. More extended introductory accounts: Clarke, Michael and Brian White (1989) Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems

Approach. Hermann, Charles, Charles Kegley and James Rosenau (1987) New Directions in the Study of

Foreign Policy. Hudson, Valerie (2007) Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Rosenau, James (1980) The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. Snyder, Richard, H.W. Bruck, Burton Sapin et al. (2002) Foreign Policy Decision-Making

Revisited.

7

Week 2: Power, Capability and Instruments In this lecture we look at the material and systemic drivers of foreign policy behavior. In particular, we will talk about power, national interest and the tools decision-makers have available to them. Required readings Introductory Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (Eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors, Cases. Chapter by William Wohlforth.

• Professor Wohlforth is a leading ‘realist’ IR scholar, meaning he thinks the key thing driving foreign policy behavior is power.

More advanced Nye, Joseph (2008) ‘Public diplomacy and soft power’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616:1, pp94-109.

• A different take on power from Professor Nye. Wang, Jisi (March/April 2011) ‘China’s search for a grand strategy: A rising great power finds its way’ Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/china/2011-02-20/chinas-search-grand-strategy

• A discussion of power and national interest from a Chinese perspective. Baldwin, David (2000) ‘The sanctions debate and the logic of choice’, International Security, 24:3, pp80-107.

• Looks at how and why states employ ‘sanctions’ as foreign policy tools, and in the process touches on some of the key considerations that shape all foreign policy behavior.

Further readings (aim to read one of each) On national interest Brown, Chris (2001) ‘Ethics, interests and foreign policy’ in Smith, Karen and Margot

Light (Eds.) Ethics and Foreign Policy, pp15-32. Clinton, W. David (1994) The Two Faces of National Interest. Finnemore, Martha (1996) National Interests in International Society. Frankel, Joseph (1970) National Interest. Huntington, Samuel (September/October 1997) ‘The erosion of American national interests’

Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/1997-09-01/erosion-american-national-interests.

Rosenau, James (1980) The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. Chapter on ‘the national interest’. On capability Deutsch, Karl (1963) The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control.

8

Evans, Peter, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam (1993) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics.

Putnam, Robert (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games’, International Organization, 42:3, pp427-460.

On instruments Allen, Susan and Tiffiny Vincent (2011) ‘Bombing to bargain? The air war for Kosovo’,

Foreign Policy Analysis, 7:1, pp1-26. Atkinson, Carol (2010) ‘Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange

programs 1980-2006’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 6:1, pp1-22. Bially Mattern, Janice (2005) ‘Why soft power isn’t so soft: Representational force and the

sociolinguistic construction of attraction in world politics’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33:3, pp583-612.

Cooper, Andrew (1997) Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War. Morgan, T. Clifton and Glenn Palmer (2000) ‘A model of foreign policy substitutability:

Selecting the right tools for the job(s)’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 44:1, pp. 11-32. Nye, Joseph (2006) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Smith, Steve and Michael Clarke (1985) Foreign Policy Implementation.

9

Week 3: External Influences This week we will seek to put the capabilities of the state in their proper context, considering in particular the importance of inter-state relations, geopolitics and systemic pressures. Required readings Introductory Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (Eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors, Cases. Chapter by Brian Schmidt. More advanced Hey, Jeanne (1993) ‘Foreign policy options under dependence: A theoretical evaluation with evidence from Ecuador’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 25:3, pp543-574. Klare, Michael (2001) ‘The new geography of conflict’, Foreign Affairs 80:3, pp49-61. Rose, Gideon (1998) ‘Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy’, World Politics 51:1, pp144-172. Peters, Susanne (1999) ‘The West against the Rest: Geopolitics after the end of the Cold War’ Geopolitics 4:3, pp29-46. Further readings On geopolitics: Agnew, Jonathan (2003) Geopolitics: Re-Visioning World Politics Ayoob, Mohammed (1995) The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict and

the International System. Clover, Charles (1999) ‘Dreams of the Eurasian heartland’, Foreign Affairs 78:2, pp9-13. Dalby, Simon and Tuathail, Gearoid (1998) Rethinking Geopolitics. Groom, Amy and Margot Light (1994) Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory.

Chapter by Geoffrey Parker. MacKinder, Halford (1944) Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction. Parker, Geoffrey (1998) Geopolitics: Past, Present and Future. Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics.

10

Week 4: Rational Decision Making This week we turn our attention to decision-making at the individual level, beginning with the rationality paradigm borrowed from political science and economics. We’ll look at what it means to say an actor is behaving ‘rationally’, and consider how realistic it is to treat foreign policy decision-making as a ‘rational’ process. We’ll also talk about possible ways to use rational assumptions to help us understand foreign policy without necessarily assuming decision-making is objectively rational, including notions of ‘bounded’ rationality and polyheuristic theories. Required readings Introductory Alden, Chris and Amnon Aron (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Chapter 2. OR Hill, Christopher (2003) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Chapters 1 and 5. Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (Eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors, Cases. Chapter by Janice Gross Stein.

• Places the concept of rationality in FPA in a broader context by comparing it to other models of how humans make decisions.

More advanced Barkin, Samuel (2009) ‘Realism, prediction and foreign policy’, Foreign Policy Analysis 5:3, pp233-246.

• Raises questions about how rational and predictable foreign policy behavior can possibly be.

Ye, Min (2007) ‘Poliheuristic theory, bargaining and crisis decision-making’, Foreign Policy Analysis 3:4, pp317-344.

• A discussion of polyheuristic theory, a method for integrating rational choice models with cognitive insights into the limitations of decision-makers.

Further readings On rationality: McGinnis, M. (1994) ‘Rational choice and foreign policy change: The arms and alignments

of regional powers’ in Rosati, Jerel, Joe Hagan and Martin Sampson (Eds.) Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change.

Neack, Laura (2003) The New Foreign Policy: US and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, pp44-54.

Oneal, John R., ‘The rationality of decision-making during international crises’, Polity, 20 (1988), pp. 598-622.

Putnam, Robert (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games’, International Organization, 42:3, pp427-460.

Simon, Herbert (1991) ‘Bounded rationality and organizational learning’, Organization Science 2:1, pp125-134.

Snidal, Duncan, ‘The game theory of international politics’, World Politics 38 : 1 (Oct., 1985), pp. 25-57.

11

Stein, Janice Gross and Raymond Tanter (1980) Rational Decision-Making: Israel’s Security Choices: 1967.

On polyheuristic approaches: Mintz, Alex (2004) ‘How do leaders make decisions? A Poliheuristic perspective’, Journal of

Conflict Resolution 48:1, pp3-13. Stern, Eric (2004) ‘Contextualizing and critiquing the poliheuristic theory’, Journal of Conflict

Resolution 48:1, pp105-126.

12

Week 5: Cognitive and Psychological Factors Having talked about how easy our job would be if individual decision-makers always behaved rationally, we next move on to consider how they actually do behave. In this lecture we discuss the cognitive and psychological factors that shape individual decision-making. We also look to pin down the relationships and differences between the two. Required readings Introductory Alden, Chris and Amnon Aron (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Chapter 2. Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (Eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors, Cases. Chapter by Janice Gross Stein. More advanced George, Alexander (1969) ‘The operational code: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making’, International Studies Quarterly, 13:2, pp190-222.

• An early effort to introduce ideas from psychology into FPA. Hermann, Margaret (1980) ‘Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of political leaders’, International Studies Quarterly, 24:1, pp7-46.

• Proposes using ‘leadership trait analysis’ to understand why states act the way they do, on the assumption that state behavior reflects individual leaders’ psychological characteristics.

Larson, Deborah Welch (1994) ‘The role of belief systems and schemas in foreign policy decision-making’, Political Psychology 15:1, pp17-33.

• Introduces the notion of the ‘schema’ to FPA. Schemas are cognitive structures comprising historical analogies, personal experiences and values that decision-makers use to categorize information.

Further readings Axelrod, Robert (1976) Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Badie, Dina (2010) ‘Groupthink, Iraq and the War on Terror: Explaining US policy shift

towards Iraq’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 6:4, pp277-296. Boulding, Kenneth (1961) The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Breuning, Marijke (2003) ‘The role of analogies and abstract reasoning in decision-making:

Evidence from the debate over Truman’s proposal for development assistance’, International Studies Quarterly 47:2, pp229-245.

Clarke, Michael and Brian White (1989) Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach. Chapter by John Vogler.

Gallagher, Maryann and Susan Allen (2014) ‘Presidential personality: Not just a nuisance’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10:1, pp1-21.

Hermann, Margaret and Joe Hagan (1998) ‘International decision-making: Leadership matters’, Foreign Policy 110, pp124-137.

Janis, Irving (1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Jervis, Robert (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics.

13

Kaarbo, Juliet (1997) ‘Prime ministerial leadership styles in foreign policy decision-making: A framework for research’, Political Psychology, 18:3, pp553-581.

Sprout, Harold and Margaret Sprout (1956) Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics.

Stein, Arthur (1982) ‘When misperception matters’, World Politics, 34:4, pp505-526. Vertzberger, Yaacov (1989) The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition and

Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking.

14

Week 6: Reading Week This week offers you a chance to catch up on further readings you missed, to consolidate your notes, to work on your formative essay assignments and to read ahead in preparation for upcoming topics. Reading week activity: Dates and times TBC, sign-up via Doodle: A 2-hour walk and talk with Dr Strong around the local streets on the subject of “How London remembers and forgets Britain’s historic role in the world”. All welcome. Bring warm clothes if cold and umbrellas if wet!

15

Week 7: History and Identity This week serves as a bridge between the cognitive and psychological factors considered in the previous week, and the constructivist ideas considered next week. History offers decision-makers a set of analogies, or comparisons, that affect how they understand information (a cognitive process). It also shapes collective identities within a state (a process of social construction). Required readings Introductory Alden, Chris and Amnon Aron (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Chapter 2. More advanced Breuning, Marijke (2003) ‘The role of analogies and abstract reasoning in decision-making: Evidence from the debate over Truman’s proposal for development assistance’, International Studies Quarterly 47:2, pp229-245.

• A case study of US foreign policy decision-making tracing the influence of historical analogies on President Truman’s approach to foreign aid.

Gong, Gerrit (2001) ‘The beginning of history: Remembering and forgetting as strategic issues’, The Washington Quarterly 24:2, pp45-57.

• A broader account of how contemporary actors view history in different states, and what this means for foreign policy.

Vertzberger, Yaacov (1986) ‘Foreign policy decision-makers as practical-intuitive historians: Applied history and its shortcomings’, International Studies Quarterly 30:2, pp223-247.

• An attempt to link history as a social fact to individual decision-making behavior. Further reading Ashizawa, Kuniko (2008) ‘When identity matters: State identity, regional institution-

building and Japanese foreign policy’, International Studies Review 10:3, pp571-598. Barkan, Elazar (2001) The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. Berger, Thomas (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan. Buffet, Cyril and Beatrice Heuser (1998) Haunted by History: Myths in International Relations. Gong, Gerrit (1996) Remembering and Forgetting: The Legacy of War and Peace in East Asia. Gordon, Philip (1993) A Certain Idea of France: French Security Policy and the Gaullist Legacy. Hemmer, Christopher (1999) ‘Historical analogies and the definition of interests: The

Iranian hostage crisis and Ronald Reagan’s policy toward the hostages in Lebanon’, Political Psychology 20:2, pp267-289.

Hunt, Michael (1996) The Genesis of Chinese Communist Foreign Policy. Khong, Yuen Foong (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu and the Vietnam

Decisions of 1965. May, Ernest (1973) ‘Lessons of the Past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy’. Morris, Stephen (1999) Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia: Political Culture and the Causes of War. Neustadt, Richard and Ernest May (1986) Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-

Makers.

16

Rose, Caroline (1988) Interpreting History in Sino-Japanese Relations: A Case Study in Political Decision-Making.

Smith, Michael, Steve Smith and Brian White (1988) British Foreign Policy: Tradition, Change and Transformation. Chapter by Christopher Hill.

17

Week 8: Constructivism Things get a bit technical this week as we consider constructivist approaches to FPA. For constructivists, the way we as societies think about the world shapes the kinds of foreign policy decisions leaders make. Required readings Introductory* (* Still a bit difficult. Constructivism is hard, sorry…). Houghton, David Patrick, ‘Reinvigorating the study of foreign policy decision-making: toward a constructivist approach’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 3:1 (2007), pp. 24-45.

• Highlights the relationship between constructivism, which deal with how ideas develop and affect policymaking across societies, and cognitive approaches, which look at the same thing but inside the heads of policymakers.

More advanced Weldes, Jutta. ‘Constructing national interest’, European Journal of International Relations, 2:2 (1996), pp. 275-318.

• Professor Weldes breaks down the idea of ‘national interest’, showing how much it depends on what we collectively think.

Doty, Roxanne (1993) ‘Foreign policy as social construction: A post-positivist analysis of US counterinsurgency policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly 37:3, pp297-320.

• Doty argues that constructivist FPA asks different questions from other approaches. Specifically, that constructivism is about asking how certain outcomes were possible, while other approaches ask why they happened.

Carlsnaes, Walter, ‘The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis’, International Studies Quarterly, 36:3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 245-270.

• Talks about the idea of ‘co-constitution’ – that rather than agents causing structures to work in particular ways all the time, or structures causing agents to work in particular ways all the time, in reality structures and agents constantly shape and re-shape each other. Basically neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

Cantir, Cristian and Juliet Kaarbo (2012) ‘Contested roles and domestic politics: Reflections on role theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR theory’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 8:1, pp5-24.

• An introduction to ‘role theory’, the main constructivist research approach to FPA today. See the rest of the special issue of Foreign Policy Analysis for more examples.

Further readings Campbell, David. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Finnemore, Martha (1996) National Interests in International Society. Gaskarth, Jamie (2006) ‘Discourses and ethics: The social construction of British foreign

18

policy’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 2:4, pp325-341. Hansen, Lene, Wæver, Ole, (eds.), European integration and national identity: the challenge of the

Nordic states. Hansen, Lene (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Hudson, Valerie M., (ed.), Culture and foreign policy. Katzenstein, Peter, ‘Same war, different views: Germany, Japan, and the war on terrorism’,

International Organization, 57, (Fall 2003), pp. 751-760 Sjostedt, Roxanna (2007) ‘The discursive origins of a doctrine: Norms, identity and

securitization under Harry S. Truman and George W. Bush’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 3:3, pp233-254.

Weldes, Jutta (1999) Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger. Weldes, Jutta, ‘Bureaucratic Politics: A Critical Constructivist Assessment’, Mershon

International Studies Review, 42:2 (Spring 1992).

19

Week 9: Bureaucratic Politics Back on more empirical ground this week to consider the importance of the bureaucratic pressures affecting foreign policy decisions. The organs of state filter information, set decision-making agendas and determine the pace and shape of policy implementation. Their cultures can also affect how leaders thing, and their need to justify themselves affects how senior officials interact with each other. Required readings Introductory Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (Eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors, Cases. Chapter by Graham Allison.

• An introduction to the topic from the father of the bureaucratic politics model. More advanced Smith, Steve (1985) ‘Policy preferences and bureaucratic position: The case of the American hostage rescue mission’, International Affairs 61:1, pp9-25.

• Smith shows how bureaucratic position affects both the formulation and the implementation of foreign policy using a notorious disaster as a case study.

Bendor, Jonathan and Thomas Hammond (1992) ‘Rethinking Allison’s models’, American Political Science Review, 86:2, pp301-322.

• A critical analysis highlighting the shortcomings of Allison’s original account. Krasner, Stephen (1972) ‘Are bureaucracies important? (Or Allison wonderland)’, Foreign Policy, 7, pp159-179.

• Argues that Allison downplays the vital role of leaders. Further readings Alden, Chris and Amnon Aron (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches pp31-45. Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile

Crisis. Allison, Graham and Morton Halperin (1972) ‘Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some

policy implications’, World Politics 24:1, pp40-79. Drezner, Daniel (2000) ‘Ideas, bureaucratic politics, and the crafting of foreign policy’,

American Journal of Political Science, 44:4, pp733-749. Freedman, Lawrence (1976) ‘Logic, politics and foreign policy processes: A critique of the

bureaucratic politics model’, International Affairs, 52:3, pp434-449. Halperin, Morton (1974) Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Hermann, Margaret and Charles Hermann (1989) ‘Who makes foreign policy decisions and

how: An empirical inquiry’, International Studies Quarterly, 33:4, pp361-387. Kaarbo, Juliet (1998) ‘Power politics in foreign policy: The influence of bureaucratic

minorities’, European Journal of International Relations, 4:1, pp67-97. Rosati, Jerel (1981) ‘Developing a systematic decision-making framework: Bureaucratic

politics in perspective’, World Politics, 33:2, pp234-252.

20

Steiner, Miriam (1977) ‘The elusive essence of decision’, International Studies Quarterly, 21:2, pp389-422.

Weldes, Jutta (1998) ‘Bureaucratic politics: A critical constructivist assessment’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2, pp216-225.

21

Week 10: Domestic Politics Foreign policy decision-makers are simultaneously domestic politicians. In fact, for most elected leaders, domestic politics matters more than foreign policy. This week we’ll talk about how state type, party politics, public opinion and the media can affect decision-making. Required readings Introductory Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (2012) Foreign Policy Analysis: Theories, Actors and Cases. Chapter by Piers Robinson.

• A good overview by a scholar known for his work on the ‘CNN effect’. More advanced Mansfield, Edward and Jack Snyder (2002) ‘Democratic transitions, institutional strength and war’, International Organization, 56:2, pp297-337.

• Highlights the relationship between democratization and belligerence in foreign policy behavior.

Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1991) ‘Public opinion, domestic structure and foreign policy in liberal democracies’, World Politics, 43:4, pp479-512.

• Discusses the relationship between coalition-building processes, public opinion and foreign policy in democratic settings.

Putnam, Robert (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games’, International Organization, 42:3, pp427-460.

• A game theory take on why domestic politics matters. Further readings (consider picking one area to specialize on) General Gourevitch, Peter (1978) ‘The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic

politics’, International Organization, 32:4, pp881-912. Hagan, Joe (1990) Political Opposition and Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective. Kaarbo, Juliet (2016) Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy and International Relations. Kaarbo, Juliet (2015) ‘A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in

IR theory’, International Studies Review, 17:2, pp189-216. Putnam, Robert (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games’,

International Organization, 42:3, pp427-460. On state type Ayoob, Mohammed (1995) The Third World Security Predicament: State-Making, Regional Conflict and

the International System. Beasley, Ryan and Juliet Kaarbo (2014) ‘Explaining extremity in the foreign policies of

parliamentary democracies’, International Studies Quarterly, 58:4, pp729-740.

22

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce (1995) ‘War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability’, American Political Science Review, 89:4, pp841-855.

Kaarbo, Juliet (2012) Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices.

On the media Baum, Matthew and Tim Groeling (2010) ‘Reality asserts itself: Public opinion on Iraq and

the elasticity of reality’ International Organization, 64:3, pp443-479. Murray, Shoon (2014) ‘Broadening the debate about war: The inclusion of foreign critics in

media coverage and its potential impact on US public opinion’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10:4, pp329-350.

Norris, Pippa (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Robinson, Piers (1999) ‘The CNN effect: Can the news media drive foreign policy?’, Review

of International Studies, 25:2, pp301-309. On public opinion Foyle, Douglas (1997) ‘Public opinion and foreign policy: Elite beliefs as a mediating

variable’, International Studies Quarterly, 41:1, pp141-169. Holsti, Ole (1992) ‘Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann

consensus’, International Studies Quarterly, 36:4, pp439-466. Kreps, Sarah (2010) ‘Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public

opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 6:3, pp191-215.

Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1974) ‘The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion’, Journal of Communication, 24:2, pp43-51.

Powlick, Philip (1995) ‘The sources of public opinion for American foreign policy officials’, International Studies Quarterly, 39:4, pp427-451.

Radcliffe Ross, Liat (2013) ‘Muslim interest groups and foreign policy in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom: Identity, interest and action’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 9:3, pp287-306.

Shapiro, Robert and Benjamin Page (1988) ‘Foreign policy and the rational public’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32:2, pp211-247.

Yishai, Yael (1982) ‘Domestic inputs into foreign policy making: The case of the settlement issue’, Review of International Studies, 8:3, pp171-185.

On institutions Allen, Susan (2008) ‘Political institutions and constrained response to economic sanctions’

Foreign Policy Analysis, 4:3, pp255-274. Kaarbo, Juliet and Daniel Kenealy (2016) ‘No, Prime Minister: Explaining the House of

Commons’ vote on intervention in Syria’, European Security, 25:1, pp28-48. Light, Margot (2000) ‘Democracy, democratization and foreign policy in post-socialist

Russia’ in Smith, Hazel (ed) Democracy and International Relations: Critical Theories/Problematic Practices.

Strong, James (2015) ‘Why parliament now decides on war: Tracing the growth of the parliamentary prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 17:4, pp604-622.

Strong, James (2015) ‘Interpreting the Syria vote: Parliament and British foreign policy’, International Affairs, 91:5, pp1123-1139.

23

Week 11: Transnational Actors and Processes A look at how actors other than states, and forces other than politics, shape foreign policy decision-making. Required readings Introductory Hill, Christopher (2003) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Chapter on ‘transnational reformulations’.

• An overview on the impact transnational forces can have on how states approach the international arena.

More advanced Josselin, Daphne and William Wallace (2001) Non-state Actors in World Politics. Chapters by Daphne Josselin and William Wallace (pp1-20), and Fred Halliday (pp21-40).

• Two different takes on non-state actors. Reimann, Kim (2006) ‘A view from the top: International politics, norms and the worldwide growth of NGOs’, International Studies Quarterly, 50:1, pp45-67.

• Highlights the interaction between international normative trends, NGOs and foreign policy.

Power, Samantha (2007) A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Chapter on Kosovo pp443-473.

• Discusses the challenges raised by humanitarian intervention with a useful case study on Kosovo.

Further readings General Alden, Chris and Amnon Aran (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Chapter on

‘Foreign policy, globalization and the study of FPA’. Keohane, Robert and Joseph Nye (1987) ‘Power and interdependence revisted’, International

Organization, 41:4, pp725-753. Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1995) ‘Ideas do not float freely: Transnational coalitions, domestic

structures and the end of the Cold War’ in Lebow, Richard Ned and Thomas Risse-Kappen (eds.) International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.

Actors Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in

International Politics. Salehyan, Idean (2007) ‘Transnational rebels: Neighboring states as sanctuary for rebel

groups’, World Politics, 59:2, pp217-242.

24

Ethics Boyd-Judson, Lyn (2005) ‘Strategic moral diplomacy: Mandela, Qaddafi and the Lockerbie

negotiations’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1:1, pp73-97. Brown, Chris (2002) ‘On morality, self-interest and foreign policy’, Government and

Opposition, 37:2, pp173-189. Caprioli, Mary and Douglass, Kimberley Lynn (2008) ‘Nation building and women: The

effect of intervention on women’s agency’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 4:1, pp45-65. Joachim, Jutta (2003) ‘Framing issues and seizing opportunities: The UN, NGOs and

Women’s rights’, International Studies Quarterly, 47:2, pp247-274. Smith, Karen and Margot Light (2001) Ethics and Foreign Policy. Economics Gutterman, Ellen (2015) ‘Easier done than said: Transnational bribery, norm resonance

nad the origins of the US foreign corrupt practices act’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 11:1, pp109-128.

Lee, Donna (2004) ‘The growing influence of business in UK diplomacy’, International Studies Perspectives, 5:1, pp50-54.

Miller, Jade (2009) ‘Soft power and state-firm diplomacy: Congress and IT corporate activity in China’, International Studies Perspectives, 10:3, pp285-302.

Strange, Susan (1988) States and Markets.

25

LENT TERM

Week 1: Foreign policy and change Required readings Introductory Alden, Chris and Amnon Aron (2011) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches pp92-109. More advanced Breuning, Marijke (2013) ‘Roles and realities: When and why gatekeepers fail to change foreign policy’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 9:3, pp307-325. Hermann, Charles (1990) ‘Changing course: When governments choose to redirect foreign policy’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:1, pp3-21. Ipek, Pinar (2015) ‘Ideas and change in foreign policy instruments: Soft power and the case of the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 11:2, pp173-193. Further readings Barnett, Michael (1999) ‘Culture, strategy and foreign policy change: Israel’s road to Oslo’,

European Journal of International Relations, 5:1, pp5-36. Carlsnaes, Walter (1993) ‘On analyzing the dynamics of foreign policy change: A critique

and reconceptualization’, Cooperation and Conflict, 28:1, pp5-30. Moon, Bruce (1985) ‘Consensus or compliance? Foreign policy change and external

dependence’, International Organization, 39:2, pp297-329. Hey, Jeanne, Patrick Haney and Laura Neack (1995) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and

Change in its Second Generation. Levy, Jack (1994) ‘Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield’,

International Organization, 48:2, pp279-312. Rosati, Jerel, Joe Hagan and Martin Sampson (1994) Foreign Policy Restructuring: How

Governments Respond to Global Change. Stanger, Alison (1997) ‘Democratization and the international system’ in Kahler, Miles (ed.)

Liberalization and Foreign Policy. Welch, David (2005) Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change.

26

Week 2-3: US Foreign Policy (Toby Dodge) Lecture 1: The ideological drivers of US foreign policy Coming to terms with ideology, in Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and US Foreign Policy,

(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) ������ The Empire of Liberty, in David Ryan, US Foreign Policy in World History, (London:

Routledge, 2000) ������ The American foreign policy tradition, in Walter Russell mead, Special Providence;

American foreign policy and how it changed the world, (New York: Routledge, 2002) US foreign policy - Michael Cox, Doug Stokes 2012 – Chapter on American Exceptionalism ���� ������

The power of American values: ideology and identity in American foreign policy, in Bryan Mabee, Understanding American Power; the changing world of US foreign policy, (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013)

Lecture 2: The imperial president? Historical Institutionalism and Foreign Policy Analysis; the origins of the National

Security Council Revisited’, Foreign Policy Analysis, (2011), 7:1, pp. 27-44 - Bryan Mabee � ������

The War over Iraq; Selling the war to the American Public’, Security Studies, 14:1, (January-March 2005) – Jon Western �

Samantha Power, ‘Bystanders to Genocide; why the United States let the Rwandan Tragedy happen’, The Atlantic Monthly, September 2001. � ���

The foreign policy process: executive, Congress, intelligence’, in in Michael Cox and Doug Stokes (eds.), US Foreign Policy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) - Michael Foley � ������

The power of the State and the foreign policy process’ in Bryan Mabee, Understanding American Power; the changing world of US foreign policy, (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013), pp. 83-120.

Lecture 3: The ideological drivers of failure in the US-led invasion of Iraq Enemy images, coercive socio-engineering and civil war in Iraq, International

Peacekeeping, 19: 4, (August, 2012), pp. 461-477. - Toby Dodge � The ideological roots of failure; the application of kinetic Neo-Liberalism to Iraq’,

International Affairs, Vol. 86, No. 6 (November, 2010), pp. 1269-1286. - Toby Dodge � Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-Making Process and the Iraq War, Foreign Policy

Analysis, (2009) 5:3, pp. 265–286. - David Mitchell, Tansa Massoud � Fiasco: the American military adventure in Iraq - Thomas E. Ricks 2006 ������ Plan of attack - Bob Woodward 2004 ��� ������ State of denial - Bob Woodward 2007

27

Week 4-5: Chinese Foreign Policy (Bill Callahan) Lecture 1: Chinese Foreign Policy 1: China, Japan and the politics of history China goes global: the partial power - Shambaugh, David L. c2013 � The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japanese and German-Polish relations since World

War II - Yinan He 2009 � ������ Forgiveness in Southeast Asia: Political Necessity and Sacred Justifications - Chaiwat

Satha-Anand 10/2002 � ������ The Lessons of 1914 for East Asia Today: Missing the Trees for the Forest ������ President Xi Jinping, this is how you can win the Nobel peace prize | William A. Callahan

� Forgiveness in Southeast Asia: Political Necessity and Sacred Justifications - Chaiwat

Satha-Anand 10/2002 � Popular narratives versus Chinese history: Implications for understanding an emergent

China - J. I. Chong 01/12/2014 � Lecture 2: Who makes foreign policy in China? New Foreign Policy Actors in China (SIPRI Policy Paper no. 26) - Linda Jakobson, Dean

Knox � China goes global: the partial power - Shambaugh, David L. c2013 pp. 45-120 �� Chinese Views and Commentary on Periphery Diplomacy | Hoover Institution � Xi Jinpings Address to the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs:

Assessing and Advancing Major Power Diplomacy with Chinese Characteristics | Hoover Institution �

Xi Jinping and the National Security Commission: policy coordination and political power - David M. Lampton 03/09/2015 �

China Dreams: the Debate, Bill Callahan, dir. 02/12/2013 Lecture 3: China: Status quo or revisionist power? Bill Callahan, Mearsheimer vs. Nye on the Rise of China | The Diplomat � The Rise of China and the Future of the West | John Ikenberry � The tragedy of great power politics - John J. Mearsheimer 2014 – Chapter by Mearsheimer:

Can China Rise Peacefully �������� An “Assertive” China? Insights from Interviews - Andrew Scobell, Scott W. Harold 05/2013 How New and Assertive is China's New Assertiveness? A I Johnston

28

Week 7-8: Russian Foreign Policy (Margot Light) Lecture 1: Ideas, institutions and decision-making: Soviet Union to post-communist Russia The foreign policy of Russia: changing systems, enduring interests - Donaldson, Robert H.,

Nogee, Joseph L. c2009 – chapter 5 �� ��� ������ Domestic power relations and Russia's foreign policy - Kaczmarski, Marcin � Russia's foreign policy: change and continuity in national identity - Andrei P. Tsygankov

2013 – Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5 �������� Russian Foreign Policy Themes in Official Documents and Speeches - Margot Light, in

Cadier, David and Margot Light (eds), Russia’s Foreign Policy: Ideas, Domestic Politics and External Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. �

Lecture 2: Russia’s foreign policy towards the ‘near abroad’ The foreign policy of Russia: changing systems, enduring interests - Donaldson, Robert H.,

Nogee, Joseph L. c2009 – chapter 6 �� Insulating Russia from a Colour Revolution: How the Kremlin Resists Regional

Democratic Trends - Thomas Ambrosio 04/2007 � Russian Policy Toward the Commonwealth of Independent States Recent Trends and

Future Prospects - Mark Kramer December 2008 � Russia's foreign policy: change and continuity in national identity - Tsygankov, Andrei P.

2006 – Chapters 1,3,4,5������ What Putin Gets About Soft Power - Tomila Lankina, Kinga Niemczyk � Lecture 3: Russia’s relations with the West Russia, the West, and military intervention - Roy Allison 2013 – Chapter 8 � The foreign policy of Russia: changing systems, enduring interests - Donaldson, Robert H.,

Nogee, Joseph L. c2005 – Chapters 7 and 9 ������� Mismatched Partners: US-Russian Relations after the Cold War - Andrew Kuchins International security in practice: the politics of NATO-Russia diplomacy - Vincent Pouliot

2010 – Chapters 2 and 6 �� A Broken Promise? - Sarotte, Mary Elise

29

Week 9-10: UK Foreign Policy (James Strong) Lecture 1: Losing an Empire, finding a role? Daddow, Oliver. "Tony's War? Blair, Kosovo, and the Interventionist Impulse in British

Foreign Policy." International Affairs 85, no. 3 (2009): 547-560. � Dunne, Tim (2004) ‘'When the Shooting Starts': Atlanticism in British security strategy’,

International Affairs, 80:5, pp. 893-909. Gaskarth, Jamie (2014) ‘Strategizing Britain’s role in the world’, International Affairs, 90:3,

pp. 559-581. � Wallace, William, ‘The Collapse of British Foreign Policy’, International Affairs, 81:1 2005

� Lecture 2: Presidential Prime Ministers and parliamentary prerogative Clarke, Michael, (1988) "The policy-making process’" from Smith, Michael [et al] (eds.),

British Foreign Policy: Tradition, Change & Transformation pp.71-95, London: Unwin Hyman ������

Kaarbo, Juliet and Daniel Kenealy (2015) ‘No, prime minister: Explaining the House of Commons’ vote on intervention in Syria’, European Security, advance online publication. �

Lai, B, and D. Reiter. "Rally 'Round the Union Jack? Public Opinion and the Use of Force in the United Kingdom, 1948-2001." International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 2 (2005): 255-272. �

Strong, James (2015), ‘Interpreting the Syria vote: Three ways parliamentary war powers shape British foreign policy’, International Affairs, 91:5, September 2015, pp. 1123 – 1139. �

Lecture 3: The UK and the Arab Spring Daddow, O. (2013) ‘The use of force in British foreign policy: from New Labour to the

coalition’, The Political Quarterly, 84:1, 110-118. � Danchev, A. "Tony Blair's Vietnam: The Iraq War and the 'Special Relationship' in

Historical Perspective." Review of International Studies 33 (2007): 189-203. Dunne, Tim. "Britain and the Gathering Storm Over Iraq." In Foreign Policy: Theories,

Actors, Cases, by S. Smith, A. Hadfield and T. Dunne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. � ������

Dyson, Stephen. "Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair's Iraq Decisions." Foreign Policy Analysis 2, no. 3 (2006): 289-306. ������

Freedman, Lawrence. "War in Iraq: Selling the Threat." Survival 46, no. 2 (2004): 7-50. Hill, Christopher. "Bringing War Home: Foreign Policy Making in Multicultural

Societies." International Relations 21, no. 3 (2007): 259-283. � Hollis, Rosemary. Britain and the Middle East in the 9/11 Era (London: Chatham

House).������ Kennedy-Pipe, C., and R. Vickers. "Blowback for Britain?: Blair, Bush, and the War in

Iraq." Review of International Studies 33, no. 2 (2007): 205-221. ������ Strong, James (2015) ‘Why parliament now decides on war: Tracing the growth of the

parliamentary prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 17:4, pp. 604-622.