Nationalism and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harris Mylonas ◽  
Kendrick Kuo
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Violence ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International System ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Causal Pathways ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
The Government

Nationalism continues to be an important ideology that informs the way state elites formulate and implement foreign policy. The relationship between nationalism and foreign policy is complex: there are many relevant levels of analysis and multiple causal pathways linking nationalism and foreign policy. Scholars have identified national masses, elite policymakers, and the nation-state itself as units of analysis. The causal mechanisms that relate nationalism and foreign policy have also been wide ranging: nationalism has been treated as an independent variable that drives foreign policy decision making but also as endogenous to international factors and a country’s foreign policy. Moreover, the causal relationship between nationalism and foreign policy has also been conceptualized as an interactive one. This eclecticism is noticeable in the study of nationalism and war. The war proneness of nationalism may be a function of the type of nationalist ideology being used. The nation-state as a product of the ideology of nationalism may be inseparable from war making. And the international system, ordered upon nationalist principles of self-determination and popular rule, may endogenously produce political violence. More recently, the role of nationalist protests in interstate crisis diplomacy has become more salient, especially in post-Soviet and China studies. Are nationalist protests manufactured by the government, or are governments forced to adopt certain foreign policies because of public pressure? The conundrum about nationalism being endogenous or exogenous again rears its head. Nationalism studies is an interdisciplinary field, but within political science interest in nationalism has largely been confined to comparative politics. International relations theory does incorporate nationalism as an important independent variable, but too often this is done in an ad hoc fashion. All in all, there has not been enough systematic theorizing about nationalism in foreign policy analysis.

Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Case of Canada and Nuclear Weapons

1976 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard H. Lentner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
Political Values ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
The Government

Foreign policy decision making is the result of a complex political process in which the political values and style of the chief executive play a large part. The case of Canada's decision, in 1963, to acquire nuclear weapons illustrates that external events and pressures generated by Canada's international obligations were processed through complex political interactions. The Government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker was unable to take the nuclear weapons decision because of two splits in the Cabinet, only one of which was pertinent to nuclear weapons policy. The decision was taken by Leader of the Opposition Pearson alone and in conformity with his personal values, because of his political style which commanded deference. The approach used combines historical detail with political analysis.

The Availability Heuristic, Political Leaders, and Decision Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Availability Heuristic ◽  
Systematic Biases ◽  
Data Point ◽  
Biasing Effects

The cognitive and emotional mechanics of the human brain have profound effects on when and what people and political leaders learn, and this can have significant effects on their causal beliefs, preferences, and policies. The existence of the availability heuristic and its biasing effects on political judgment is one of the most robust findings from decades of research in cognitive psychology. The core mechanism involves people being more likely to learn from the phenomena that are most easily recalled by memory, which tend to be dramatic and vivid events, rather than other, often more normatively probative sources. Most applications of this insight to foreign policy decision-making also tend to assume that an actor’s personal experiences will impact what tends to be more or less easily recalled and thus better predict who learns which lesson from which event. This heuristic enables leaders to deal with the vast amount of extant information but also can cause systematic biases in causal inference. Documenting the availability heuristic and its effects on political decision-making requires (usually archival) data on leaders beliefs’ over long periods of time, from their formative political lessons through decisions and nondecisions when in power, in order to reliably clarify which lessons were in fact learned, when and why a leader learned which lesson from what data point, why that data point happened to be cognitively available, and whether these lessons influenced policy. Ideally, studies should also assess these leaders’ associates where possible to determine whether they learned similar lessons from the same events. Studies can also apply statistical analysis to larger populations of leaders who are likely to have found different events cognitively available. This article focusses on decisions in the realm of foreign policy and international security, although availability certainly plays a role in other domains as well. Decades of scholarship have now shown the relevance of the availability heuristic in U.S., Soviet, Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani grand strategy and foreign policy, approaches to nuclear weapons, and extant alliances and threat perceptions. But much work remains to be done in these cases and elsewhere, as well as in other fields like international political economy and comparative politics.

Democratization of Foreign Policy: India’s Experience with Paradiplomacy

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 797-818
Author(s):  
Aishwarya Natarajan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
State Level ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
Indian States ◽  
Strong State ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
Union Government

Abstract Since the economic reforms of the 1990s, Indian states have largely contributed to India’s foreign policy decision-making in two critical areas, namely, economic diplomacy and influencing India’s foreign policy with its neighbours. Given India’s growing importance in the world arena, one would assume that Indian states will continue to have an increased role in its foreign policy decisions. However, the Indian Constitution was framed with the idea of a strong union government and the power to drive foreign policy initiatives continues to remain under the exclusive purview of the union government. There is no institutional framework that facilitates the involvement of the Indian states’ in foreign policy decision-making. States’ involvement is usually on an ad hoc basis and often pushed through by strong state level leaders or by the coalition compulsions. The article examines the Indian paradiplomacy experience to note that paradiplomacy has the potential to democratize foreign policy decision-making only if it is supported by a strong institutional framework. A fragmented practice of paradiplomacy to suit immediate political needs neither promotes democratization of foreign policy nor does it allows for a meaningful engagement of Indian states in the global governance debate.

Regime Change and Foreign Policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Dossi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Regime Change ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Political Transition ◽  
Theoretical Issue ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Adjustments

Regime change and foreign policy adjustments have been closely intertwined in Myanmar’s recent experience. Since 2011, domestic political transition has been paralleled by changes in the country’s foreign policy posture, with Naypyitaw reconsidering its dependence on Beijing while seeking rapprochement with Washington. Taking Myanmar as a case study, this essay aims to address the theoretical issue of how regime change influences the foreign policy of a country. The first two sections draw on Foreign Policy Analysis and Comparative Politics to develop an analytical framework for the study of foreign policy choices during regime change. The focus is on how transitional politics interacts with external influence, against the background of loosened distinctions between the domestic and international levels. The last two sections test the analytical framework against the ups and downs of Myanmar’s economic cooperation with China. Two decisions of the Myanmar government are analysed: the 2011 decision to suspend cooperation on the Myitsone dam, and the 2012 decision to continue cooperation on the Letpadaung mine. While apparently contradictory, Naypyitaw’s behaviour on these two occasions helps to unravel the dilemmas that foreign policy decision-makers face at times of political transition.

The alleged consensus: Italian elites and publics on foreign policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-182
Author(s):  
Francesco Olmastroni
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International System ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Situational Factors ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Willingness To Use

The article compares the way Italian (governmental and political) elites and (organized and general) publics perceive the international system and conceive of the role of Italy in it by using anad hocsurvey conducted specifically for this study. In order to establish whether a horizontal (left-right) and vertical (top-down) consensus exists on foreign policy, special attention has been paid to divergence and convergence patterns in terms of threat perception, feelings towards the (American and European) allies, support for the main institutional mechanisms of coordination and cooperation, and willingness to use military power to defend the constituted order and the national interest, while controlling for the position and level of action of each actor within the foreign policy-making process as well as her or his ideological orientation. While tracing elites’ and publics’ attitudes towards a wide range of foreign policy and security issues, the article reveals the effect of ideological and situational factors on the strategic preferences of national policy-makers and public opinion. In doing this, it contributes to define both the substance and boundaries of the alleged consensus, based on shared norms and historical legacies, supposedly overcoming socio-economic and political cleavages in matters of foreign policy.

Processes of Dyadic Choice for war and Peace

1995 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Russett
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
International System ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Military Force ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Realist Analysis ◽  
Policy Decision Making

This essay reviews three recent books on foreign policy decision making. Collectively, they sharply modify conventional realist analysis by emphasizing the possibility of choice, the necessity of analyzing relationships at the level of a dyad of states rather than at the level of either individual states or the entire international system, and the cognitive processes by which choices are made. But their substantial challenge to realism falls short of the next step necessary, namely, more fully developing a theory of how domestic political processes affect the choice of whether to use military force.

Particularities of Tony Blair’ governments’foreign policy decision-making process

2017 ◽  
pp. 321-327
Author(s):  
Maksym Prykhnenko
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Tree Level ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Leadership Model ◽  
Tony Blair ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
The Government

The present article is devoted to the problem of particularities of Tony Blair’ governments’ foreign policy decision-making process. The aim of the paper is to analyze the decision-making model formed by Tony Blair as well as to identify key factors which impacted the process of creation and implementation of foreign policy decisions in the framework of Tony Blair’ leadership model. It was concluded that Tony Blair had formed tree level decision-making system. Rolls of the Parliament and the Government in the deliberation process were frustrated. On the other hand, special advisers and so called selective committees impacts were strengthened. This institutes played the role of consulting bodies on specific issues of the agenda. Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs were the driving force of all process. But usually the second one was like the executor of Prime Minister’ decision. Keywords: Leadership model, decision-making process, blairism

Role Contestation in Making Foreign Policy Decisions: Digraph and Game Theory Models

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Causal Mechanism ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
The Government

The concept of role contestation has emerged within the recent renaissance of role theory in foreign policy analysis, which has taken hold among international relations scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. Role contestation is a novel theoretical perspective on the process of role location that complements the more established concepts of role strain, role competition, and role conflict identified earlier by the role theory literature in the subfield of Foreign Policy Analysis. It refers to the process that occurs within states as their decision units debate and decide what role to select in relations with another state in the regional or global international system. The process of horizontal role contestation occurs among elites inside the government while the process of vertical role contestation occurs between elites and interest groups outside the government. These role contestation processes can also extend to interactions before and after a foreign policy decision. Role contestation processes are part of a larger process of role location that refers to various stages of evolution and transition in the enactment of role and counter-role between Ego and Alter as states construct role conceptions, exchange cues, and adapt to structural role demands in their respective decision making environments. The focus will be limited to the analysis of horizontal role contestation as a causal mechanism that describes and explains how the foreign policy decision making process among elites leads to foreign policy decisions. Digraph models represent the process of debate among elites as they deliberate over the selection of ends and means prior to making a foreign policy decision. Game theory models represent how the decision is likely to be carried out as a strategy of role enactment. Illustrative applications of this two-stage modeling strategy from recent research into Britain’s appeasement decisions in the late 1930s reveal two patterns: bilateral role contestation between Prime Minister Chamberlain and Foreign Secretary Eden in March 1938 over the appropriate enactment of a Partner role toward Italy and multilateral role contestation among members of the British Cabinet over the enactment of a Partner vs. Rival role toward Germany during the Sudeten crisis in September 1938. The outcome in the first case was a victory for Chamberlain in the wake of Eden’s resignation; however, in the second case the Cabinet majority altered the prime minister’s initial appeasement tactics in favor of deterrence tactics later in the crisis. This shift foreshadowed a subsequent British role reversal from Partner to Rival toward Germany in 1939.

Ideology, Values, and Foreign Policy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Normative Dimension ◽  
The Way

Ideology is a prototypical “contested concept,” though competing definitions can generally be sorted into pejorative and nonpejorative categories. Pejorative definitions consider ideology to be a set of false beliefs about the world and how it operates, typically facilitating exploitation or injustice. Nonpejorative definitions consider ideology to be something neutral (or its normative dimension to be undetermined a priori), a kind of systematized thinking about politics or political economy; a worldview. It is the latter definition that is most common in international relations scholarship outside of the Marxian tradition, and it will be used here. Values are commonly defined as rank-ordered ideas about what is desirable, transcending specific situations, that guide behavioral choices and influence evaluations. Given these two definitions, values are subsumed under ideology; they form the normative dimension of ideology. For example, A may value both self-determination and democracy (and A may see elections as a means of ensuring self-determination); but if A’s ideology pictures the international system as dominated by a superpower that regularly interferes in elections, she may support the decision of a less powerful state to avoid elections to evade the superpower’s interference. Ideology, as a systematized way of thinking about politics, can help adjudicate conflicts between values—as in this example, between self-determination and democracy. International relations scholarship has traditionally overlooked the influence of ideology and values on foreign policy and public opinion about foreign policy. Considerations of power maximization and balancing were commonly hypothesized to overwhelm any influence of ideational factors, such that the latter could be safely ignored as mere epiphenomena of the former. More recently, the variously named ideational, interpretivist, or constructivist turn in international relations has opened the way for IR scholars to investigate the effects of ideas within the international system. Foreign policy analysis, operating at a less abstract level, has been more open to ideational factors as influences on policymakers. Yet a great deal remains to be explored about the way ideology and values constrain and influence foreign policy decision-makers, and public opinion (which, in turn, may constrain and influence decision-makers). Ideology and values can be conceptualized at the micro level as beliefs held by individuals and at the macro level as widely shared beliefs (akin to “social representations”) enforced, inculcated, and/or reproduced by institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document