Foreign Policy Analysis

Foreign policy analysis
C. Alden
IR2137, 2790137
2011
Undergraduate study in
Economics, Management,
Finance and the Social Sciences
This is an extract from a subject guide for an undergraduate course offered as part of the
University of London International Programmes in Economics, Management, Finance and
the Social Sciences. Materials for these programmes are developed by academics at the
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
For more information, see: www.londoninternational.ac.uk
This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by:
Dr Chris Alden, Reader in International Relations, Department for International Relations,
London School of Economics and Political Science.
This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to
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, favourable or unfavourable,
please use the form at the back of this guide.
The University of London International Programmes

Publications Office
Stewart House
32 Russell Square
London WC1B 5DN
United Kingdom
Website: www.londoninternational.ac.uk
Published by: University of London

University of London 2006
Reprinted with minor revisions 2011
The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where
otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form,
or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher.
We make every effort to contact copyright holders. If you think we have inadvertently used
your copyright material, please let us know.
Contents
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
Aims of the course.......................................................................................................... 1
Learning outcomes......................................................................................................... 1
The structure of this guide.............................................................................................. 1
How to use this guide..................................................................................................... 2
Hours of study................................................................................................................ 2
The syllabus.................................................................................................................... 2
Reading......................................................................................................................... 3
Online study resources.................................................................................................... 6
The examination............................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview..................................................... 9
Essential reading............................................................................................................ 9
Recommended reading................................................................................................... 9
Further reading............................................................................................................... 9
Additional resources....................................................................................................... 9
Aims and learning objectives.......................................................................................... 9
Learning outcomes......................................................................................................... 9
Introduction................................................................................................................. 10
Realism: the state, national interest and foreign policy................................................... 11
Behaviourism: the minds of men and foreign policy decision making............................ 11
Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy......................................................................... 12
Pluralism: linkage politics and foreign policy.................................................................. 12
FPA and the study of International Relations................................................................. 13
A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 13
Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 13
Part 1: Decision making......................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments ...................................................... 17
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 17
Recommended reading................................................................................................. 17
Further reading............................................................................................................. 17
Additional resources..................................................................................................... 17
Aims and learning objectives........................................................................................ 17
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 17
Introduction................................................................................................................. 18
Foreign policy and power.............................................................................................. 18
Formulating foreign policy: the national interest and the balance of power.................... 19
Instruments of foreign policy......................................................................................... 20
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3: Rational decision making.................................................................... 23
Further reading............................................................................................................. 23
i
137 Foreign policy analysis

Introduction................................................................................................................. 24
Rationality and foreign policy........................................................................................ 24
A critique of rational decision making........................................................................... 25
Reconciling rational and non-rational approaches: bounded rationality,
cybernetics and polyheuristics....................................................................................... 26
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 4: Perception, cognition and personality ................................................ 29
Further reading............................................................................................................. 29
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 30
The role of perception................................................................................................... 30
The role of cognition..................................................................................................... 31
The role of personality.................................................................................................. 31
The role of the group.................................................................................................... 32
Critique of the psychological approach to foreign policy decision making....................... 33
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 5: Bureaucratic politics............................................................................ 35
Further reading............................................................................................................. 35
Introduction................................................................................................................. 35
Allisons three models of foreign policy decision making................................................ 36
Bureaucratic politics and its critics................................................................................. 37
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 38
Part 2: Actors and structures................................................................................. 39
Chapter 6: Major, middle and small powers.......................................................... 41
Further reading............................................................................................................. 41
Major, middle, small and emerging powers.................................................................... 42
Major powers and the search for primacy...................................................................... 42
Middle powers and multilateralism............................................................................... 43
ii
Contents
Small states and the search for security......................................................................... 44

Emerging powers.......................................................................................................... 45
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter 7: The role of the external environment.................................................. 47
Further reading............................................................................................................. 47
Introduction................................................................................................................. 48
The role of the material environment: geography, natural resources,
economic development................................................................................................. 48
Problems with the material environment and foreign policy........................................... 49
The role of the international political environment: trade, security
and international law................................................................................................... 49
The external environment, determinism and foreign policy............................................. 51
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 8: The role of the domestic environment................................................ 53
Further reading............................................................................................................. 53
Introduction................................................................................................................. 54
The sociological approach: state structures and regimes................................................ 54
The structuralist approach: economic systems and social class..................................... 55
The pluralist approach: sub-state actors and interests.................................................... 56
Foreign policy decision making and the two-level game............................................... 58
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 58
Part 3: Foreign policy in the era of globalisation.................................................. 61
Chapter 9: Transnational actors and foreign policy.............................................. 63
Further reading............................................................................................................. 63
Introduction................................................................................................................. 63
Inter-governmental organisations and foreign policy...................................................... 64
Non-state actors and foreign policy............................................................................... 65
Complex interdependence and foreign policy ............................................................... 66
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 67
iii

Chapter 10: The foreign policy of states in transition........................................... 69
Further reading............................................................................................................. 69
Introduction................................................................................................................. 69
Transitional foreign policy and international recognition................................................ 70
Transitional foreign policy and domestic structure.......................................................... 70
Transitional foreign policy and charismatic leadership.................................................... 71
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 11: Conclusion......................................................................................... 73
Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 73
Foreign policy analysis and International Relations........................................................ 73
Appendix 1: Sample examination paper............................................................... 75
Appendix 2: Advice on answering the Sample examination paper....................... 77
Specific comments on questions.................................................................................... 77
iv
Introduction
Introduction
This subject guide provides an introduction to the field of foreign policy
analysis. Foreign policy is, to use Christopher Hills definition, purposive
action with the view towards promoting the interests of a single political
community or state.1 The study of foreign policy is referred to as foreign
policy analysis, and its focus is the intentions and actions of (primarily)
states aimed at the external world and the response of other actors (again,
primarily states) to these actions. This course is not designed to give
you detailed exposure to the changing foreign policies of any particular
country, though of course you will have many opportunities to learn about
the foreign policies of major, middle and small powers through the reading
material. It is aimed at giving you the tools to analyse, interpret and,
ultimately, understand the dynamics of foreign policy generally so that you
might apply these to your study of the role of states in international affairs.
1
Hill, C. The changing
politics of foreign
policy. (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2003) [ISBN
0333754239] p.285
Aims of the course

The aims of this course are to:
introduce you to the central concepts in foreign policy analysis
develop your comparative skills of analysis of differing foreign policies
in practice
promote critical engagement with the foreign policy analysis literature
and enable you to display this engagement by developing an ability to
present, substantiate and defend complex arguments.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this course, and having completed the Essential readings and
activities, you should be able to:
identify and assess the processes involved in foreign policy decision
making
discuss the contexts, pressures and constraints with which foreign
policy makers have to deal
conduct comparative analysis of foreign policy without losing sense of
historical context.
The structure of this guide

This subject guide consists of 10 chapters and a concluding chapter which
provides a summary perspective on the issues covered in the course.
Chapter 1 is an overview of the field of foreign policy analysis and its
relationship to International Relations, while subsequent chapters are
grouped into three parts:
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 the
foreign policy process.
Following the overview on foreign policy analysis, Part 1 introduces you
to the state and the setting of foreign policy, including the role of power,
1
rationality and psychological approaches to understanding the dynamics

involved in individual and group decision making. It concludes with an
analysis of the part played by bureaucracies in shaping foreign policy.
Part 2 provides you with an introduction to the key actors in foreign
policy, namely states, and assesses their foreign policy orientation in terms
of a hierarchy of power and capability. This is followed by an examination
of the differing impacts of the external or material environment and the
domestic environment on foreign policy.
Part 3 looks at the changing international system and how the overall
rise of transnationalism, which has fostered a growth in linkages
between states, intergovernmental organisations and non-state actors,
has challenged the states pre-eminence in international affairs. This is
followed by an examination of the onset of democratic transitions within
many states in the contemporary era and how this has affected foreign
policy making in these states.
Finally, the conclusion summarises the main themes in the subject guide
and discusses the relationship between foreign policy analysis and
International Relations.
How to use this guide

For some courses that you study, you are directed to read your essential
textbooks after you have worked through the chapter in the guide. For this
course, the best thing to do is skim-read through the chapter in the guide
to give you an idea of what the chapter is about, then familiarise yourself
with the assigned readings in your textbooks. Then work slowly and
carefully through the chapters, and take note of the learning outcomes.
When you have finished the chapter make sure that you can tick off all of
the points you should have covered. If you cant, go back and read again
carefully. Recommended and Further Readings may be useful to consult as
well, both for pursuing a topic in depth and for additional clarity around a
particular idea or event.
Hours of study
If you are studying for this course over the course of a standard academic
year we would suggest that you study for no less than six hours each week
and preferably more if you are to do all the reading and thinking required
to gain higher marks. If you are taking more time to prepare for the
examination, adjust this figure. The course is equivalent to one LSE course
and full-time students study four courses in a year.
The syllabus
If taken as part of a BSc degree, 11 Introduction to international
relations must be passed before this course may be attempted.
This course examines the key concepts and schools of thought in foreign
policy analysis, concentrating particularly on the process of decision
making, the internal and external factors which influence foreign policy
decisions, the instruments available to foreign policy decision makers and
the effect of changes in the international system on foreign policy. The
course combines a discussion of these theories with their application to
selected countries in the north, the south, international organisations and
transnational actors.
2
Introduction
The principal themes to be addressed by the course are:

the role and relevance of foreign policy in the era of globalisation
how different theoretical approaches to foreign policy analysis shape
our understanding of foreign policy
the role of leadership, the bureaucracy and interest groups in setting
the states foreign policy agenda
what challenges face states in constructing a new foreign policy
the scope for affecting change in the international system by non-state
actors.
Reading
The reading for this course is divided into three categories: Essential,
Recommended and Further.
You are advised to purchase or have regular access to the textbooks listed
as Essential reading. You are not required to read either the Recommended
or Further reading, but they should be considered in that order of
preference.
Essential reading
Clarke, M. and B. White (eds) Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy
systems approach. (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989) [ISBN 9781852781255].
Charles H. Changing course: when governments choose to redirect foreign
policy, International Studies Quarterly 34(1) 1990, pp.322.
Hill, C. The changing politics of foreign policy. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)
[ISBN 9780333754238].
Lobell, S., N. Prisman, J. Taliaferro (eds) Neoclassical realism, the state and
foreign policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)
[ISBN 9780521731928]
Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Heaney (eds) Foreign policy analysis: continuity and
change in its second generation. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1995) [ISBN 9780130605757]. Alternatively, if you are having
difficulty obtaining a copy of this textbook there is a suitable alternative
by the same author:
Neack, L. The New Foreign Policy: US and Comparative Foreign Policy in
the 21st Century. (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2002) [ISBN
9780742501478].
Smith, S., A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds) Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) [ISBN 9780199215294].
Webber, M. and M. Smith Foreign policy in a transformed world. (Harlow:
Prentice Hall, 2002) [ISBN 9780139087578].
Detailed reading references in this subject guide refer to the editions of the
set textbooks listed above. New editions of one or more of these textbooks
may have been published by the time you study this course. You can use
a more recent edition of any of the books; use the detailed chapter and
section headings and the index to identify relevant readings. Also check
the virtual learning environment (VLE) regularly for updated guidance on
readings.
Further and recommended reading

Please note that as long as you read the Essential reading you are then free
to read around the subject area in any text, paper or online resource. You
will need to support your learning by reading as widely as possible and by
thinking about how these principles apply in the real world. To help you
3
read extensively, you have free access to the VLE and University of London
Online Library (see below).
Other useful texts for this course include:
Alden, C. China in Africa (London: Zed 2007).
Alden, C. and M. Vieira The new diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Brazil
and India and trilateralism, Third World Quarterly 26(7) 2005, pp.1077096.
Allison, G. and P. Zelikow The essence of decision. (New York: Longman, 1999)
second edition [ISBN 0321013492].
Bendor, J. and T. Hammond, Rethinking Allisons models, American Political
Science Review 86(2) 1992, pp.30122.
Bennet, L. and D. Paletz (eds) Taken by storm: the media, public opinion and US
foreign policy in the Gulf War. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)
[ISBN 0226042596].
Brown, C. Ethics, interests and foreign policy, in K. Smith and M. Light (eds)
Ethics and foreign policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Byman, D. and K. Pollack, Let us now praise great men: bringing the statesman
back in, International Security 25(4) 2001, pp.10746.
Carlnaes, W. The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis,
International Studies Quarterly 36, 1992, pp.24570.
Chan, S. and W. Safran Public opinion as a constraint against war:
democracies response to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Foreign Policy Analysis
2(2) 2006, pp.13756.
Cooper, A., R. Higgot and K. Nossal Relocating middle powers: Australia and
Canada in a changing world order. (Vancouver, BC: University of British
Columbia, 1993) [ISBN 0774804505].
Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink International norm dynamics and political
change, International Organization 52(4) 1998.
Fearon, J. Rationalist explanations for war, International Organization 49(3)
1995.
Foyle, D, Foreign policy analysis and globalization: public opinion, world
opinion and the individual, International Studies Review 5(2) 2003,
pp.155202.
Foyle, D. Public opinion and foreign policy: elite beliefs as a mediating
variable, International Studies Quarterly 41(1) 1997, pp.14170.
Garrison, J. (ed.), Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20, International Studies
Review June 5, pp.15363.
Gelpi, C. Democratic diversions: governmental structure and the
externalization of domestic conflict, Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2)
1997, pp.25582.
George, A. Bridging the gap: theory and practice in foreign policy (Washington,
DC: US Institute of Peace 1993) Chapter 1.
Gordao, P. Regime change and foreign policy: Portugal, Indonesia and the selfdetermination of East Timor, Democratization 9(4) 2002, pp.14258.
Handel, M. Weak states in the international system. (London: Frank Cass, 1990)
[ISBN 0714633852].
Hermann, C. Changing course: when governments choose to redirect foreign
policy, International Studies Quarterly 34(3) 1990, pp.322.
Hermann, M., T. Preston, B. Korany and T Shaw Who leads matters: the effect
of powerful individuals, International Studies Review 3(2) 2001, pp.83132.
Hermann, M. Explaining foreign policy behaviour using the personal
characteristics of political leaders, International Studies Quarterly 24(7)
1980, pp.746.
[ISBN 0333754239].
Holsti, O Public opinion and foreign policy: the challenge to the AlmondLippman consensus, International Studies Quarterly 36(4) 1992, pp.43966.
4
Introduction
Hook, S. (ed.) Comparative foreign policy: adaptive strategies of the great and
emerging powers. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002) [ISBN 0130887897].
Hudson, V. Culture and foreign policy. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 1995).
Hudson, V. Foreign policy analysis: actor-specific theory and the ground of
international relations, Foreign policy analysis 1(1) 2005, pp.130.
Hudson, V. and E. Singer Political psychology and foreign policy. (Boulder:
Westview 1992).
Ikenberry, J. The rise of China and the future of the west, Foreign Affairs
January/February 2008.
James, P. and E. Zhang Chinese choices: a polyheuristic analysis of foreign
policy crises, 19501996, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1) 2005, pp.3154.
Jervis, R Perception and misperception in international politics, in J. Ikenberry
(ed.), American foreign policy: theoretical essays. (New York: Longman,
2005), pp.46283.
Jervis, R. Perception and misperception in international politics. (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1976) [ISBN 0691056560].
Johnston, A. Is China a status quo power?, International Security 27(4) 2003,
pp.556.
Josselin, D. and W. Wallace (eds) Non-state actors in world politics.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave 2001).
Kahler, M. (ed.) Liberalization and foreign policy. (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1997) [ISBN 0231109431] Introduction.
Keohane, R. and J. Nye, Power and interdependence. (Glenville, Ill: Scott,
Foresman 1989) second edition.
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].
Mansfield, E. and J. Snyder Democratic transitions, institutional strength and
war, International Organization 56(2) 2002, pp.297337.
Martin, L. Interests, power and multilateralism, International Organization
46(4) 1992, pp.75692.
Mercer, J. Rationality and psychology in international politics, International
Organization 59 2005, pp.77106.
Mintz, A. How do leaders make decisions? A poliheuristic perspective, Journal
of Conflict Resolution 48(1) 2004, pp.313.
Mintz, A. (ed.) Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy
making: the polyheuristic theory of decision. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)
[ISBN 0312294093].
Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. (New
York: Alfred Knopf, 1950).
Nincic, M. Democracy and foreign policy. (New York: Columbia University Press,
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.42760.
Rose, G. Neoclassical realism and the theories of foreign policy, World Politics
51(1) pp.14472.
Shain, Y. and J. Linz (eds) Between states: interim governments and democratic
transitions. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)
[ISBN 0521484987].
Smith, S. Allison and the Cuban missile crisis: a review of the bureaucratic
politics model for foreign policy decision making, Millennium 9(1) 1980,
pp.2140.
Snidal, D. The game theory of international politics, World Politics 38(1) 1985,
pp.2557.
5

Snyder, G. The security dilemma in alliance politics, World Politics 36(4) 1984.
Snyder, J. One world, rival theories Foreign Policy, November/December 2004,
pp.5263.
Snyder, R., H.W. Bruck, B. Sapin and V. Hudson Foreign policy decision making
(revisited). (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) [ISBN 1403960763].
Sprecher, C. and K. DeRouen The domestic determinants of foreign policy
behaviour in Middle Eastern enduring rivals, 19481998, Foreign Policy
Analysis 1(1) pp.12142.
t Hart, P., E. Stern and B. Sundelius (eds) Beyond groupthink. (Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 1997).
Tetlock, P. and C. McGuire Cognitive perspectives on foreign policy, in J.
Ikenberry (ed.) American foreign policy: theoretical essays. (New York:
Longman, 2005), pp.46283.
Wallace, W. and D. Josselin (eds) Non state actors in world politics.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001) [ISBN 033396814X].
Welch, D. Painful choices: a theory of foreign policy change. (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2005).
Zakaria, F. The Post-American world (Norton, 2008).
Additional resources
Foreign policy analysis website: www.uwm.edu/~ebenc.fpa/
Online study resources

In addition to the subject guide and the Essential reading, it is crucial that
you take advantage of the study resources that are available online for this
course, including the VLE and the Online Library.
You can access the VLE, the Online Library and your University of London
email account via the Student Portal at:
http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk
You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with
your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave
on your application form. You have probably already logged in to the
Student Portal in order to register! As soon as you registered, you will
automatically have been granted access to the VLE, Online Library and
your fully functional University of London email account.
If you forget your login details at any point, please email uolia.support@
london.ac.uk quoting your student number.
The VLE
The VLE, which complements this subject guide, has been designed to
enhance your learning experience, providing additional support and a
sense of community. It forms an important part of your study experience
with the University of London and you should access it regularly.
The VLE provides a range of resources for EMFSS courses:
Self-testing activities: Doing these allows you to test your own
understanding of subject material.
Electronic study materials: The printed materials that you receive from
the University of London are available to download, including updated
reading lists and references.
Past examination papers and Examiners commentaries: These provide
advice on how each examination question might best be answered.
A student discussion forum: This is an open space for you to discuss
interests and experiences, seek support from your peers, work
collaboratively to solve problems and discuss subject material.
6
Introduction
Videos: There are recorded academic introductions to the subject,

interviews and debates and, for some courses, audio-visual tutorials
and conclusions.
Recorded lectures: For some courses, where appropriate, the sessions
from previous years Study Weekends have been recorded and made
available.
Study skills: Expert advice on preparing for examinations and
developing your digital literacy skills.
Feedback forms.
Some of these resources are available for certain courses only, but we
are expanding our provision all the time and you should check the VLE
regularly for updates.
Making use of the Online Library

The Online Library contains a huge array of journal articles and other
resources to help you read widely and extensively.
To access the majority of resources via the Online Library you will either
need to use your University of London Student Portal login details, or you
will be required to register and use an Athens login:
http://tinyurl.com/ollathens
The easiest way to locate relevant content and journal articles in the
Online Library is to use the Summon search engine.
If you are having trouble finding an article listed in a reading list, try
removing any punctuation from the title, such as single quotation marks,
question marks and colons.
For further advice, please see the online help pages:
www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/summon/about.php
The examination
Important: the information and advice given in the following section
is based on the examination structure used at the time this guide
was written. Please note that subject guides may be used for several
years. Because of this we strongly advise you to check both the current
Regulations for relevant information about the examination, and the VLE
where you should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also
carefully check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and
follow those instructions.
This course is assessed by a three-hour unseen written exam. You must
answer four from a total of twelve questions. A sample examination
paper is provided at the end of the subject guide and there is a sample
Examiners commentary that shows the sorts of things Examiners are
looking for in your answers. There are also additional questions at the end
of each chapter.
In preparing for the examination you need to bear a number of things
in mind. You must attempt four questions and try and share your time
equally between them. Even if you write two excellent answers, but fail to
attempt any other questions, it will be very difficult to pass. Most students
who fail a course do so because they fail to complete the examination!
Remember that you are being asked to answer a question. The questions
are often permissive, in that they allow you to answer them from more
than one perspective you might for example endorse or criticise an
7
argument. However, remember that you are being asked to answer a

question and not merely being invited to write all you can remember
about a particular topic. Your answer should have a clear structure a
beginning, a middle and an end. In your introductory paragraph spell out
what you take the question to mean and outline briefly how you propose
to answer the question. The main body of the answer should demonstrate
your understanding. Where relevant, you should include illustrative
examples. Make your points clearly and concisely.
We are often asked how to refer to texts or quotations. Here are some
guidelines:
Do not waste time on irrelevant or contextual material. A question
will rarely ask you to write all you know about the detailed events
surrounding a particular foreign policy crisis or the life and times of
a foreign policy decision maker. You can of course use background
material to illustrate a point, but make sure it is clear why this is
relevant in your answer.
Refer to texts using author surname and short title, such as Hill,
Changing foreign policy. Do not give additional references unless they
are correct!
You are not expected to memorise quotations, but if you have a good
memory and can do so accurately then do so. No one will be penalised
for not quoting passages from the authors discussed.
One of the skills the Examiners will be looking for is the ability to
paraphrase an argument. This ability will illustrate how well you have
understood it and your judgements about relevance and irrelevance. In
introducing an example to highlight a particular point, always make sure
your illustration is clear, well focused and relevant. Always be guided by
relevance if you are not sure, leave it out you have very little time and
space. Finally, your conclusion should sum up your argument and your
answer. However brief, a conclusion indicates that you have finished and
have not merely run out of time.
The Sample examination paper contains four questions. Most questions
are aimed at drawing upon a particular component of the course (e.g.
bureaucratic politics) and, therefore, can be answered without reference
to other components. At the same time, you may find it useful or relevant
to contrast one approach to foreign policy analysis with another one.
Whatever you do, it is not advisable to repeat any portion of a previous
answer in another response. And, most importantly, be sure to read the
question thoroughly.
When you begin to answer the exam paper take time to read it through
carefully. Sketch out your answer in rough notes as this will help you to
structure it. Notes will not be accepted as an answer. Give yourself time to
re-read your answer in the final minutes of the exam.
Finally, although you will not normally be penalised for poor spelling,
grammar and punctuation, you should still aim to maintain a high
standard in each.
Remember, it is important to check the VLE for:
up-to-date information on examination and assessment arrangements
for this course
where available, past examination papers and Examiners commentaries
for the course which give advice on how each question might best be
answered.
8
Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview
Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an

overview
Essential reading
Chapters 1 and 2.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) Introduction and Chapter 1.
Recommended reading
Hudson, V. Foreign Policy Analysis: actor-specific theory and the ground of
international relations, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1) March 2005, pp.130.
Webber, M. and M. Smith Foreign policy in a transformed world. (Harlow:
Prentice Hall, 2000) Chapter 1.
Further reading
Carlnaes, W. The agency-structure problem in Foreign Policy Analysis,
International Studies Quarterly 36 1992, pp.24570.
Garrison, J. (ed.), Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20, International Studies
Review 5 June 2003, pp.15363.
Hudson, V., Culture and foreign policy. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 1995)
Chapter 1.
Neack, L. The new foreign policy: US and comparative foreign policy in the 21st
century. (Rowman and Littlefield 2002) Chapter 1 and pp.135.
Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Haney (eds) Foreign policy analysis: continuity and
change in its second generation. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice
Hall, 1995) Chapters 1 and 2.
Snyder, J. One world, rival theories, Foreign Policy November/December 2004,
pp.5263.
Foreign policy analysis website: www.uwm.edu/~ebenc/fpa/
Aims and learning objectives

The aim of this chapter is to introduce you to the basic concepts and key
debates that constitute foreign policy analysis (FPA) as well as provide an
overview of the evolution of the field and its relationship to International
Relations more generally.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter and the Essential readings, you should be able
to:
identify and apply the key concepts of FPA
describe and evaluate the realist assumption of the centrality of the
state and national interest to FPA
discuss the challenges that behaviourism and pluralism introduced to
traditional realist approaches to the study of foreign policy
discuss the relationship between FPA and the discipline of International
Relations.
Introduction
Foreign policy analysis is the study of the conduct and practice of relations
between different actors, primarily states, in the international system.
Diplomacy, intelligence, trade negotiations and cultural exchanges all
form part of the substance of foreign policy analysis. At the heart of the
field is an investigation into decision making, the individual decisionmakers, processes and conditions that affect foreign policy and the
outcomes of these decisions. By virtue of this approach, foreign policy
analysis is necessarily concerned with the boundaries between the external
environment outside of the nation state and the internal or domestic
environment, with its variety of sub-national sources of influence.
FPA developed as a separate area of enquiry within the discipline of
International Relations, both because of its initially exclusive focus on the
actual conduct of interstate relations and due to its normative impulse.
While International Relations scholars understood their role to be to
interpret the broad features of the international system, FPA specialists
took as their mandate a concentration on 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 states could achieve better
outcomes and, in some instances, even enhance the possibility of peaceful
relations between states.
To put this in the context of David Singers well-known schema of
International Relations, he says that in grappling with world politics, one
necessarily focuses on either the study of phenomena at the international
system level, the state (or national) level or the individual level. FPA has
traditionally emphasised the state and individual levels to be the key areas
for understanding the nature of the international system. At the same
time, as globalisation has transformed the international system, making
interconnectivity outside of traditional state-to-state conduct more likely,
FPA has had to expand its own outlook to account for an increasingly
diverse range of non-state actors such as global environmental activists
or multinational corporations. An underlying theme within the study
of FPA is the structureagency debate. Like the other branches of the
social sciences, FPA scholars are divided as to the amount of influence to
accord to structural factors (the constraints imposed by the international
system) or human agency (the role of individual choice in shaping the
international system) in analysing foreign policy decisions and decisionmaking environments. FPAs focus on the process of foreign policy
formulation, the role of decision-makers and the nature of foreign policy
choice, however, has tended to produce a stronger emphasis on agency
in its work than is found in International Relations (at least until the
advent of the constructivism turn in the 1990s). Indeed, in many respects
as we shall see, FPA anticipates key insights and concerns found in the
constructivist tradition.
FPA shares much with other policy-oriented fields that seek to employ
scientific means to understand phenomena. Debate within FPA over
the utility of different methodological approaches, including rational
choice, human psychology and organisational studies, has encouraged
the development of a diversity of material and outlooks on foreign policy.
At the same time, there remains a significant strand of FPA that, like
diplomatic studies, owes a great debt to historical method.
10
Realism: the state, national interest and foreign policy

FPAs starting point is the state and its interactions with other states, be
this through direct bilateral relations or through multilateral institutions
such as the United Nations. In keeping with the realist paradigm, FPA
understood the state to be a unitary actor, that is to say, one in which
it is not necessary to analyse the role of the discrete components of
government (be it the executive or the legislature) in order to assess a
states foreign policy. In this context, a key concept in FPA is that of the
national interest. A much disputed term, the national interest nonetheless
remains a central preoccupation of foreign policy decision-makers and a
reference point for interpreting state action. Hans Morgenthau defines
national interest as synonymous with power and, as such, both the proper
object of a states foreign policy and the best measure of its capacity to
achieve its aims.
What constitutes national interest, how it is determined and ultimately
implemented are crucial to understanding the choices and responses
pursued by states in international affairs. Realists assert that the character
of the international system, that is to say its fundamentally anarchic
nature, is the most important guide to interpreting foreign policy. The
pursuit of security and efforts to enhance material wealth place states
in competition with other states, limiting the scope for cooperation to a
series of selective, self-interested strategies. In this setting, the centrality
of power especially manifested as military power is seen to be the
key determinant of a states ability to sustain a successful foreign policy.
Geographic position, material resources and demography are other
important features in this equation as well.
Realists believe that all states foreign policies conform to these basic
parameters and that, above all, scholars need to investigate the influences
of the structure of the international system and the relative power of
states in order to understand the outcomes of foreign policy decisions.
Calculations of national interest are self-evident and can be rationally
arrived at through a careful analysis of material conditions of states as well
as the particulars of a given foreign policy dilemma confronting states.
Behaviourism: the minds of men and foreign policy

decision making
The original studies of foreign policy in the 1950s and 1960s were
explicitly aimed at challenging the realist assumptions that were the
dominant approach to International Relations at the time. Rather
than examine the outcomes of foreign policy decisions, behaviourists
sought to understand the process of foreign policy decision making
itself. In particular, scholars like Robert Jervis, Harold and Margaret
Sprout investigated the role of the individual decision-maker and the
accompanying influences on foreign policy choice.
This emphasis on the individual decision-maker led to a focus on
psychological and cognitive factors as explanatory sources of foreign policy
choice. For instance, Jervis asserted that the psychological disposition of
a leader, the cognitive limits imposed by the sheer volume of information
available to decision-makers and the inclination to select policy options
that were patently second-best all contributed to imperfect foreign policy
outcomes. In addition, other scholars pointed out that the decision-making
process was itself subject to the vagaries of group dynamics, while the
constraints imposed by crises introduced further distortions to foreign
policy choice. The result was a comprehensive critique of many of the key
findings on foreign policy found in the traditional realist perspective.
11
Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy

The focus on individual decision-makers, despite its insights, was seen by
some scholars to be excessively narrow. Even within states, the conflicting
outlooks and demands of foreign policy bureaucracies such as the Ministry
of Trade and the Ministry of Defence clearly influence foreign policy
decisions in ways that reflect parochial concerns first over considerations
of national interest. While the executive decision-maker was clearly a
key component of the foreign policy decision-making process, it had to
be recognised that any decisions made took place within the context of
institutions specifically charged with interpreting and implementing foreign
and security policy for the state. The role and contribution of specialised
ministries, departments and agencies supplemented by ad hoc working
groups tasked with a particular foreign policy mandate needed to be
accounted for in FPA.
Activity
With a group of friends compare and contrast the soft power and hard power capabilities of
the United States, China and the European Union. Does soft power ultimately depend upon
having hard power?
For Graham Allison and others, an analysis of foreign policy decision making
had to start with these bureaucracies and the various factors that caused
them to play what was, in their view, the determining role in shaping
foreign policy outcomes. This approach to understanding foreign policy
therefore emphasises the interplay between leaders, bureaucratic actors,
organisational culture and, to an extent, political actors outside of the
formal apparatus of the state. Broader than the behaviourists singular focus
on the individual decision-maker, advocates of the bureaucratic politics
approach to FPA began a process of investigation into sources of influence
on foreign policy beyond the state that was to culminate in a radical
rethinking of the importance of the state itself in International Relations.
Pluralism: linkage politics and foreign policy

While the previous approaches sought to understand FPA through,
respectively, recourse to the structure of the international system and
the decision-making process within states, a third approach introduced
a new means of interpreting foreign policy. Pluralists disputed the belief
that states formed the only significant actors in international politics and
asserted that, at least since the 1970s (if not earlier), increased linkages
between a variety of state, sub-state and non-state actors were eroding the
traditional primacy of the state in foreign policy. Indeed, the possibility of
multinational companies exercising de facto foreign policy through their
financial resources or non-governmental organisations through their ability
to mobilise votes was recognised as a central feature of the globalising
world. Thus for pluralists, an analysis of the influences upon foreign policy
which are derived from domestic and transnational sources and which
were not necessarily tied to the state is crucial to understanding foreign
policy outcomes. This environment of complex interdependency effectively
diminishes the scope of state action in foreign policy making to that of
a manager of a diversity of forces inside the domestic sphere, including
government, and outside the boundaries of the state.
Robert Putnams two-level game attempts to capture the challenges
imposed by complex interdependency on foreign policy decision-makers. He
12
suggests that the decision-making process involves both a domestic arena,

where one set of rules and interests govern, as well as an international
arena, where a different set of rules and interests prevail. Balancing the
logic and demands of the two arenas, which are often in conflict, forms the
central dilemma of foreign policy making as seen by pluralists.
FPA and the study of International Relations

As can be seen from this brief overview of the field, FPA provides many
different ways of understanding the conduct and significance of state,
sub-state and non-state actors in foreign policy making. Though there is no
consensus among these approaches, each is seen to contribute to a fuller
picture of the workings of states and ultimately the international system.
Indeed, FPA illuminates much that is otherwise left obscure in the study of
International Relations. While International Relations emphasises the role
and influence of structural constraints on the international system, FPA
focuses on the inherent possibilities of human agency to affect and even
change the international system. In short, as Valerie Hudson says:
The single most important contribution of FPA to IR theory is to
identify the point of theoretical intersection between the primary
determinants of state behaviour: material and conceptual factors.
The point of intersection is not the state, it is human decisionmakers. If our IR theories contain no human beings, they will
erroneously paint for us a world of no change, no creativity, no
persuasion, no accountability. (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 of
FPA.
Activity
Make a list of all the different approaches (realism, behaviourism, bureaucratic politics
and pluralism) to understanding the importance of the state, the individual and
international organisations to foreign policy making.
A reminder of your learning outcomes

Having completed this chapter and the Essential readings you should be
able to:
identify and apply the key concepts of FPA
describe and evaluate the realist assumption of the centrality of the
state and national interest to FPA
discuss the challenges that behaviourism and pluralism introduced to
traditional realist approaches to the study of foreign policy
discuss the relationship between FPA and the discipline of International
Relations.
Sample examination questions

1. What is foreign policy analysis?
2. How do different approaches in FPA contribute to our understanding of
International Relations?
13
Notes
14
Part 1: Decision making
Part 1: Decision making
15
Notes
16
Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments
Chapter 2: Power, capability and

instruments
Essential reading
Chapter 6.
Smith, S., A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds) Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) Chapters 2 and 7.
Recommended reading
Clarke, M. and B. White Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systems
approach. (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989) Chapter 7.
Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Haney, (eds) Foreign policy analysis: continuity and
change in its second generation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1995) Chapter 11.
Smith, S., A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds) Foreign Policy: theories, actors, cases.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) Chapters 9 and 10
Further reading
Brown, C. Ethics, interests and foreign policy, in K. Smith and M. Light (eds)
Ethics and foreign policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Hermann, M. T. Preston, B. Korany and T. Shaw, Who leads matters: the effect
of powerful individuals, International Studies Review 3(2) 2001, pp.83132.
Lobell, S., N. Prisman, J. Taliaferro (eds) Neoclassical realism, the state and
foreign policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace
(New York: Alfred Knopf, 1950).
Rose, G. Neoclassical realism and the theories of foreign policy, World Politics
51(1) pp.14472.

The aim of this chapter is to introduce the student to the relationship
between foreign policy and power, the formulation of national interest
and the different means available to states to achieve their foreign policy
objectives.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter and the Essential readings, you should be able
to:
discuss and evaluate the key concepts of power and national interest
assess the impact of the international system in defining the tasks of
foreign policy for states
evaluate the utility of different foreign policy instruments in achieving
foreign policy goals.
17
Introduction
A successful foreign policy is measured in terms of a states ability to assert
itself and promote its interests with consistency within the international
system. Crucial to this success is an understanding of power, its sources and
an assessment of the means needed to achieve state aims. Equally important
is an ability to forge these dimensions into a coherent foreign policy
appropriate to the state in question, its particular material conditions as
well as its position within the international system. In this chapter we will
examine the relationship between foreign policy and power, the formulation
of national interest and the different means available to states to achieve
their foreign policy objectives.
Foreign policy and power

Traditionally, foreign policy makers have assumed that it is the very nature
of the international system itself being anarchic, that is without any
recognised central authority which compels states to pursue a relentless
quest for security and wealth. With states in direct competition with one
another to achieve security and wealth needs, cooperation between them
is ultimately tactical and limited to a series of selective, self-interested
alliances. A security dilemma prevails, whereby efforts by one state to
increase its sense of security through arms acquisition or other defensive
measures merely inspire other states to adopt similar strategies, and
ironically perpetuates a general sense of insecurity among all states.
In this contentious setting, the centrality of power especially manifested
as military power is seen to be the most important factor in determining a
states ability to sustain a successful foreign policy. Power is defined as the
ability of a state to cause another state to take actions which are to the first
states advantage and which the latter state might not otherwise pursue.
Christopher Hill suggests that there are three ways of interpreting the role
of power in foreign policy: as an end in itself, as a means to an end and
as a context within which states operate. There are two basic ways that
this can be achieved: through direct action (force or coercion) or through
indirect action (influence or persuasion). The coercion involves compelling
the target state through overt threat or outright intervention into its vital
affairs. This could include military demonstration, such as the mobilising of
troops, or actual military strikes and even invasion. It may also involve vital
economic targets, such as cutting off oil supplies or a trade embargo, which
have the effect of strangling the target states economy. Persuasion is more
nuanced in that it involves compelling the target state through diplomatic
means, appeals to rationality or universal principles and other sources
of influence. These could include appeals to cultural affinity or historical
partnerships, with the Anglo-American special relationship being one of
the most enduring. Joseph Nye characterises this ability of a state to induce
others to adopt its own foreign policy preferences as soft power, while
coercive means hard power.1
The sources of a states power can be found primarily in its military and
economic capabilities which give it the means to exercise coercive and noncoercive influence. Other factors that influence a states ability to pursue a
successful foreign policy are its geographic position, the material resources
available to it and the size of its population. The societys level of economic
development and the pervasiveness of new technologies, especially as
generated through local research and development programmes, are
additional 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 isnt
the way: soft power,
International Herald
Tribune, 10 January
2003.
For neo-classical realists like Fareed Zakaria, it is the differing abilities of

leaders to mobilise these resources be they material or human which
explains some of the differences in the foreign policies of individual
countries. For instance, the patent inability of the Japanese government
to translate the enormous power resources of that country into equivalent
foreign policy gains on the international stage can be ascribed to the
perennial weaknesses of the leadership.
Formulating foreign policy: the national interest and the

balance of power
Classic approaches to foreign policy focus on the formulation of aims
and objectives based upon national interest. An elusive concept,
national interest is defined by the influential International Relations
scholar Hans Morgenthau as synonymous with power and, as such, both
the proper object of a states foreign policy and the best measure of its
capacity to achieve its aims. What constitutes national interest, how it is
determined and ultimately implemented are crucial to understanding the
foreign policy choices and responses pursued by states. For realists like
Morgenthau, the fundamentally anarchic condition of the international
system is the most important guide to decision making in foreign policy.
Classic assumptions of rationality, which are founded on the belief that
foreign policy aims (preferences) of decision makers are self-evident,
further reinforce the realist view (see Chapter 3). However, other scholars
dispute the self-evident nature of national interest and see it as founded
on a narrower societal basis, such as representing the influence of strong
lobby groups or social 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 struggle between segments of the power elite that
dominate society. The ability of conflicting interests within the domestic
environment to mobilise resources, be it through financial incentives or
populist claims, determines their success in construing their parochial
concerns as worthy of state action (see Chapter 8).
In this context, the balance of power can be seen as the primary
mechanism for ordering the international system and keeping it in
equilibrium. Simply put, states act to offset an accumulation of power by
one or more states by joining up with like-minded states. This coalition
strategy is both descriptive it reflects the historical conduct of states in
Europe and normative it can be taken as a foreign policy imperative
for maintaining international peace. The idea of a balance of power has
exercised considerable influence over foreign policy making though, due to
its underlying assumptions of systemic anarchy, some have suggested that
it fosters 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
maintaining territorial integrity and economic prosperity as central
preoccupations of the government of the day in their international
dealings. Moreover, historically states have frequently used the balance of
power approach to maintaining order and stability within the international
system. What is open to dispute is whether these aims are best achieved
through the pursuit of short-term strategies based on limited provisions
for cooperation or whether states gain more through adopting longterm strategies that emphasise cooperative institution building. Britains
Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, articulated the former posture in the
mid-nineteenth century when he said that England had no permanent
19
friends or permanent enemies; only permanent interests. Canadas

Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, presented the latter position in the late
twentieth century when he declared that it was in Canadas interests to
use its resources to promote a permanent ban on landmines through the
auspices of the United Nations.
Instruments of foreign policy

Of course, the best formulated foreign policy in the world is rendered
irrelevant without a clear sense of the tools available to politicians and
their respective utility. Traditionally, states have had recourse to diplomacy,
economic, subversion and military instruments to achieve their respective
aims. More recently, these hard power instruments have been supplemented
by a recognition of the importance of incorporating soft power into a
states repertoire. The promotion of values through governmental and nongovernmental actors is one of the soft power tools which can help states
shape a target countrys foreign policy aims. Each of these has strengths and
weaknesses in relation to a given foreign policy problem and it is a states
ability to capitalise on these diverse sets of instruments that determines
whether it has a successful foreign policy or not.
Diplomacy is the prime currency of the international system and occupies
the bulk of activity between states. It consists of formal and informal
discussions aimed at resolving matters of mutual concern. These talks,
negotiations or mediation can take place at a bilateral level (between
two states) or multilateral level (involving a number of states). Usually,
officially recognised diplomats trained in the intricacies of international
protocol conduct such discussions. Alliances with like-minded states, or at
least states that share a common perception of threat, and trade relations
with preferred states are common topics in the diplomatic arena. More
often than not, however, the work of diplomats is preoccupied with the
mundane day-to-day tasks of maintaining positive relations between
states, attending to the concerns of its citizens abroad and protocol-related
issues. In those instances when one states behaviour causes persistent
concern or alarm, diplomatic actions ranging from formal notes of
protest to the application of diplomatic sanctions such as the withdrawal
of official recognition of an offending government can be utilised to
express a states rancour.
Contemporary diplomacy owes its formal practices and codes to the
conventions developed in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Secretive agreements tying states to the defence of one another
formed the backbone of European diplomacy up to the First World
War. In the twentieth century, the rise of democracies, the media and
international institutions such as the League of Nations and its successor,
the United Nations, has brought about a shift towards a more public form
of diplomacy. International summitry, when states leaders come together
to discuss high-profile foreign policy issues, has played an increasing role
from the mid-twentieth century onwards as well.
Economic instruments are used by states when standard diplomatic
practices are seen to be insufficient in achieving their aims. They include:
economic sanctions, such as imposing trade restrictions against a target
state; and military sanctions, such as imposing restrictions on trade or
manufacture of arms to a target state.
With few exceptions, sanctions are only really effective if implemented
by a collectivity 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
20
symbolic value as a sign of displeasure with a particular state than its

actual effect upon that state.
Subversion is an instrument favoured by leaders for its purported ability
to offer a state a tactical advantage over other states. The gathering of
intelligence and its analysis by specialists trained in assessing designs and
capabilities of other states can provide insight into alternative courses of
action to be pursued by an opponent and a willingness to pursue these
actions. Less frequently though certainly popularly associated with
espionage is the promulgation of covert operations aimed at destabilising
an opponent in one way or another. Grey and black propaganda (the
former partially based on truth, the latter an outright fabrication) against
the target state or its leader, providing covert financial or military support
to opposition movements, and even political assassinations, all form
part of the arsenal utilised in this form of espionage. Debate within
democratic states rages as to the morality of pursuing covert operations
in times of (relative) peace, though historically these states have shown
no compunction against their use when state security was believed to be
threatened.
Values promotion is an explicitly soft power approach to foreign
policy that is operationalised through a variety of means. Government
agencies that promote the societys cultural values through, for example,
educational exchanges and scholarships to lites or prospective lites, are
ways of shaping the aims and choices pursued by foreign policy actors
in another country. States can also fund non-governmental actors with
an explicit values promotion agenda, such as human rights groups, trade
union support or electoral assistance. The strength of this approach is that
domestic actors within a particular target country embrace the underlying
values of another country and then this becomes the basis for foreign
policy choice that, perhaps unconsciously, conforms to the interests of the
promoter state.
Military instruments remain the ultimate expression of a states willingness
to pursue its foreign policy. For the renowned strategist Karl von
Clausewitz, the use of the military was politics pursued by other means.
States employ their military principally in times of crisis to defend their
interests, be they territorial, resources or citizens, or in support of foreign
policy aims such as acquiring new territory, gaining access to strategic
resources or upholding international principle. The military, in the hands
of an expert, can be a much more diversified foreign policy instrument
than is immediately apparent. For instance, it can mark the strength
of a states commitment to a security alliance through the presence of
permanent military bases or the sending of a naval fleet to a region in
dispute. Equally, public displays of technological prowess such as the
launching of ballistic missiles or the testing of nuclear weapons can be
important signals to potential adversaries and friends alike. With modern
military technology outside of the reach of most states, global force
projection is increasingly limited to merely a handful of states, with the
United States as the foremost military power today.
Until the end of the Cold War, the military was seen to be the most obvious
measure of a states power, but subsequently many International Relations
scholars have argued that economic strengths or even cultural reach are
equally significant indicators. This gave impetus to proponents of soft
power instruments, who argued that their approach was more suited to
the changing international environment. More generally, the advent of
total warfare in the twentieth century introduced to the world conflict on
such a destructive scale that both the efficacy and the morality of the use
21
of force as an instrument of foreign policy has been called into question.

Peacekeeping forces, usually under the auspices of an international
organisation like the United Nations, are a more recent innovation of the
classic military tool and some states include a specially trained battalion
on hand for such missions.
Conclusion
As Winston Churchill famously said, it is better to jawjaw than it is to
warwar. Thus, despite the assumptions of anarchy and the accompanying
security dilemma facing states, the impulse towards diplomatic solutions
in foreign policy remain paramount. Calibrated use of foreign policy
instruments in the service of national interest is the most effective
means of ensuring that a states vital security and economic concerns are
preserved. In this context, accurately assessing the capacity and will of
other states becomes a crucial preoccupation of foreign policy makers as
they seek to formulate and implement a successful foreign policy. The
next chapter will examine in greater detail the actual process of devising a
rational foreign policy.
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 North Koreas
determination to pursue its programme of nuclear proliferation. This activity can be done
on ones own or with a group. For country information, see the BBCs website under
regions in the news section of: http://news.bbc.co.uk. For information on North Koreas
proliferation, see the International Crisis Groups website: www.crisisgroup.org

Having completed this chapter and the Essential readings and activities,
you should now be able to:
discuss and evaluate the key concepts of power and national interest
assess the impact of the international system in defining the tasks of
foreign policy for states
evaluate the utility of different foreign policy instruments in achieving
foreign policy goals.

1. 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

Essential reading
Chapter 6.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) Chapter 3.
Recommended reading
Mintz, A. (ed.) Intergrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy
making: the polyheuristic theory of decision (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)
Snidal, D. The game theory of international politics, World Politics 38(1) 1985,
pp.2557.
Further reading
Byman, D. and K Pollack, Let us now praise great men: bringing the statesman
back in, International Security 25(4) 2001, pp.10746.
George, A. Bridging the gap: theory and practice in foreign policy. (Washington,
DC: US Institute of Peace 1993) Chapter 1.
James, P. and E. Zhang, Chinese choices: a polyheuristic analysis of foreign
policy crises, 1950-1996, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1) 2005, pp.3154.
Mercer, J. Rationality and psychology in international politics, International
Organization 59 2005, pp.77106.
Mintz, A. How do leaders make decisions? A poliheuristic perspective, Journal
of Conflict Resolution 48(1) 2004, pp.313.

The aim of this chapter is to introduce you to rational decision making in
foreign policy and the accompanying critiques of this approach as well as
the efforts to reconcile rationalism with non-rational approaches.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter and the relevant readings, you should be able
to:
discuss and critique the key concepts of rationality in foreign policy
decision making
discuss the difference between the operational and psychological
environment for foreign policy decision making
discuss and evaluate attempts to reconcile rationalism with the nonrational approaches to foreign policy decision making.
23
Introduction
Rationality and its application to foreign policy decision making is one
of the most influential approaches to understanding contemporary
international politics. Derived from public choice theory (which itself
emerged out of the fields of economics and policy sciences), rational
choice scholars have actively sought to utilise a well-established
methodology of decision making to enhance and assess foreign policy
decision making. At the same time, the use of rationalist approaches to
foreign policy has inspired considerable commentary and criticism. Indeed,
much of the work of FPA has been devoted to assessing the weaknesses of
this school of thought and its links to the assumptions underlying realism.
Rationality and foreign policy

Realists believe that all states foreign policies conform to basic parameters
set by the anarchic international system and that, above all, scholars need
to investigate the influences of the structure of the international system
and the relative power of states in order to understand the outcomes of
foreign policy decisions. Calculations of national interest are self-evident
and can be rationally arrived at through a careful analysis of material
conditions of states as well as the particulars of a given foreign policy
dilemma confronting states.
The classical realism formulation of balance of power provides a crude but
effective tool for analysing state action in international affairs (see Chapter
2). Rational choice theory (sometimes called public choice theory), as
applied to international affairs, sought to introduce a more rigorous,
methodologically sound approach that could use the basic laws of choice
to assess the process and outcome of foreign policy decision making. From
this perspective, the maximisation of utility by actors (in this case, states)
is the ultimate aim of foreign policy decision-makers. By maximisation
of utility, we mean a state first identifies and prioritises foreign policy
goals; it then identifies and selects from the means available to it which
fulfil its aims with the least cost. In this regard, the focus of this approach
is traditionally on policy outcomes and therefore assumes a relatively
undifferentiated decision-making body for foreign policy (a unitary
actor), rather than one composed of different decision-makers. However,
some scholars have recognised that an assessment of national interest
defined as enhancing security and wealth maximisation (or, to use the
public choice jargon, preference formation) is crucial to determining
policy choice. In any case, as all states reside within the same international
setting in which the conditions of anarchy tend to structure the rules of
the game in a similar fashion for all states, coming to an interpretation of
action and reaction should not be out of reach for foreign policy analysts.
Rational decision makings core assumptions, especially that of motivation
(self-interest) and a single decision-maker (unitary actor), can produce
some compelling explanations of the process and choices pursued in
foreign policy. This general depiction of rationality is perhaps best
captured through the application of game theory to foreign policy
decision-making. Here scholars have isolated particular dilemmas of
foreign policy and sought to frame them within a matrix of choice that
illuminates the dilemmas facing decision-makers. For game theorists, the
respective rules of different types of games frame the possibilities of choice
undertaken by the participants and the accompanying strategies employed
to achieve best possible outcomes. For instance, cooperative and non24
cooperative forms of the game produce strategies that range from zerosum wins by one participant over the other to trade-offs that secure winsets, that is outcomes in which both parties are able to claim satisfactory
if often sub-optimal outcomes.
Thomas Schellings work on game theory and its application to nuclear
strategy elaborates upon the classic prisoners dilemma schema. Schelling
uses the format of strategic bargaining with imperfect information in
a non-cooperative game to adduce the conduct of participants facing
decisions in a nuclear arms race. His insight is to analyse how deterrence,
that is the promulgation of an arms build up and a concomitant agreement
not to mobilise (first strike in nuclear parlance), operates as an imperfect
restraint upon a states move towards conflict. The incremental use of
strategies of escalation to produce behaviour change in an aggressive
opponent, or brinkmanship, is advocated by Schelling as a way of
establishing and maintaining the credibility of the deterrent. A balance
of terror is the predicted foreign policy outcome in this approach and,
indeed, served as the core nuclear doctrine for the United States for a
number of years.
Activity
List the costs and benefits of pursuing a weapons modernisation programme versus an
investment in improving infrastructure and social services. Then answer these questions
on what basis would you choose one approach over the other? Which is better at
addressing the states security concerns and which addresses welfare concerns? Are these
long-term or short-term security and welfare concerns?
From this perspective, developing foreign policy goals and implementing
them therefore involves a relatively straightforward assessment of the
situation and other actors potential actions based on their status and
material endowment within the international system. Optimal outcomes,
albeit within the framework of available choices, are both the goal and
the guide for foreign policy choice. Good foreign policy is achievable
and, presumably, a realistic source for ordering the international system
through some form of balancing or trade-off mechanism.
A critique of rational decision making

Harold and Margaret Sprout introduced one of the most defining critiques
of the rational approach to foreign policy. They examined the environment
within which foreign policy decisions are taken, distinguishing between
the operational environment which they posited as objective reality
and the psychological environment which they held to be subjective
and under the influence of a myriad of perceptual biases and cognitive
stimuli. Foreign policy decision-makers take decisions on the basis of
their psychological environment, relying upon perceptions as a guide,
rather than any cold weighing of objective facts. The Sprouts believed that
the accompanying gap between the operational environment and the
psychological environment within which decision-makers act introduced
significant distortions to foreign policy making with important implications
for foreign policy as a whole. Richard Snyder and his colleagues took this
further and pointed out that it is a misnomer to ascribe decision making to
the autonomous unitary entity known as the state. In their view, the black
box of foreign policy decision making needed to be opened up so that one
could both recognise the actual complexity underlying decisions (which
included individual biases and bureaucratic processes) and to develop a
better analysis of foreign policy itself.
25
For these critics of rationality, foreign policy decision-makers do not act in

a purely rational manner that conforms to the core assumptions of realism
and public choice theory. At best, foreign policy decision-makers could
be said to operate within the framework of the information available to
them and make decisions on that limited basis. Moreover, decision-makers
are also subject to other influences such as their perceptions, pre-existing
beliefs or prejudices and cognitive limitations on handling information
which introduce further distortions to the process. Much of the substance
of this latter critique against rationality as a source for foreign policy
decision making was made by the behaviourists in their work on individual
decision-makers and is covered in Chapter 4. Critics of rationality believe
that attempts at rational foreign policy decision making are misguided and
even potentially dangerous for states.
Reconciling rational and non-rational approaches:

bounded rationality, cybernetics and polyheuristics
Efforts to rehabilitate rationality as a source for foreign policy decision
making resulted in a number of innovative approaches that attempted to
incorporate the insights and criticisms levelled against it. Herbert Simons
work (though he himself is not an International Relations scholar but
rather an economist) suggests that while decision-makers cannot achieve
pure rationality, 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 what
Simon calls bounded rationality; that is, they act rationally within the
context of partial information and other limitations placed on decisions.
John Steinbruner, responding to the general critique on rationality, the
problem of group decision making (see Chapter 4) and the issues raised by
the bureaucratic politics model (see Chapter 5), introduced what he called
a cybernetic processing approach to foreign policy. He posits that there are
three paradigms of decision making analytical (or rational), cybernetic
and cognitive and that the integration of the latter two paradigms more
accurately captures the actual process of decision making and the foibles
of individual and group actors.
More recently, Alex Mintz has proposed another way of reconciling
the critique against rationality in foreign policy decision making while
maintaining much of the substance of rational choice approaches. Called
the polyheuristic method, Mintz declares that foreign policy decisions are
best understood as a two-stage process. The first step is one in which the
non-rational elements govern decision making, in particular considerations
of what is politically possible by the leader of the state. Once courses
of action which are not politically palatable or attainable, such as the
surrendering of sovereign territory in response to a foreign ultimatum,
are discarded, the second step of decision making occurs. In this latter
stage, policy options are introduced and selected in a rational manner that
conforms to the rules of public choice theory, namely that foreign policy
decisions are driven primarily by a search for the maximisation of utility
within a particular framework. The strength of Mintzs approach is that it
attempts to account for the variants in outcome through the integration of
the impact of cognition and other non-rational factors.
26
Conclusion
What is clear from the previous analysis is that a purely rational account
of foreign policy decision making cannot hold up against the various
criticisms, be they psychological or empirical in content. At the same
time, the durability of rationality as a means of analysing foreign policy
continues and, in part, reflects the willingness of FPA scholars to accept the
basic tenets of criticism but their reluctance to abandon the methodology
of public choice.
It should be pointed out that the influence of rationality is more
widespread than in the realm of FPA theory debates alone. Rational
analyses of foreign policy underlie much of our ordinary interpretation of
international events, and we are making assumptions about the unitary
nature of decision-makers when we talk about, for example, French
foreign policy without accounting for different influences on decision
making within governments. Thus, while the criticisms of rationality
remain both powerful and valid, its assumptions still play an important
part in much of our day-to-day understanding of foreign policy. In the
next chapter we will delve more deeply into one of the main critiques of
rationality, which is the impact of the psychological assessment of foreign
policy on our understanding of FPA.
Activity
With a group of friends, debate the question of whether foreign policy decisions are the
product of rationality or are fundamentally irrational.

Having completed this chapter, the Essential readings and activities, you
should now be able to:
discuss and critique the key concepts of rationality in foreign policy
decision making
discuss the difference between the operational and psychological
environment for foreign policy decision making
discuss and evaluate attempts to reconcile rationalism with the nonrational approaches to foreign policy decision making.

1. 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?
27
Notes
28

Foreign Policy Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Policy Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Policy Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign policy analysis

The University of London International Programmes

Published by: University of London

137 Foreign policy analysis

Aims and learning objectives........................................................................................ 23

Small states and the search for security......................................................................... 44

137 Foreign policy analysis

A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 67

Aims of the course

The structure of this guide

137 Foreign policy analysis

rationality and psychological approaches to understanding the dynamics

How to use this guide

The principal themes to be addressed by the course are:

Further and recommended reading

137 Foreign policy analysis

137 Foreign policy analysis

Online study resources

Videos: There are recorded academic introductions to the subject,

Making use of the Online Library

137 Foreign policy analysis

argument. However, remember that you are being asked to answer a

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an

Aims and learning objectives

137 Foreign policy analysis

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview

Realism: the state, national interest and foreign policy

Behaviourism: the minds of men and foreign policy

137 Foreign policy analysis

Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy

Pluralism: linkage politics and foreign policy

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis: an overview

suggests that the decision-making process involves both a domestic arena,

FPA and the study of International Relations

A reminder of your learning outcomes

Sample examination questions

137 Foreign policy analysis

Part 1: Decision making

Part 1: Decision making

137 Foreign policy analysis

Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments

Chapter 2: Power, capability and

Aims and learning objectives

137 Foreign policy analysis

Foreign policy and power

Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments

For neo-classical realists like Fareed Zakaria, it is the differing abilities of

Formulating foreign policy: the national interest and the

137 Foreign policy analysis

friends or permanent enemies; only permanent interests. Canadas

Instruments of foreign policy

Chapter 2: Power, capability and instruments

symbolic value as a sign of displeasure with a particular state than its

137 Foreign policy analysis

of force as an instrument of foreign policy has been called into question.

A reminder of your learning outcomes

Sample examination questions

Chapter 3: Rational decision making

Chapter 3: Rational decision making