Prospect Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Reference Point ◽  
Endowment Effect ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Point Selection

Prospect theory is one of the most influential behavioral theories in the international relations (IR) field, particularly among scholars of security studies, political psychology, and foreign policy analysis. Developed by Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, prospect theory provides key insights into decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty. For example, most individuals are risk averse to secure gains, but risk acceptant to avoid losses (loss aversion). In addition, most people value items they already posses more than they value items they want to acquire (endowment effect), and tend to be risk averse if they perceive themselves to be facing gains relative to their reference point (risk propensity). Prospect theory has generated an enormous volume of scholarship in IR, which can be divided into two “generations”. The first generation (1990–1999) sought to establish prospect theory’s plausibility in the “real world” by testing hypotheses derived from it against subjective expected-utility theory or rational choice models of foreign policy decision making. The second generation (2000–present) began to incorporate concepts associated with prospect theory and related experimental literature on group risk taking into existing mid-level theories of IR and foreign policy behavior. Two substantive areas covered by scholars during this period are coercive diplomacy and great power intervention in the periphery as they relate to loss aversion. Both generations of prospect theory literature suffer from conceptual and methodological difficulties, mainly around the issues of reference point selection, framing, and preference reversal outside laboratory settings.

1. The history and evolution of foreign policy analysis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie M. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Classical Period ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Large Groups

This chapter traces the history and evolution of foreign policy analysis (FPA) as a subfield of international relations (IR) from its beginnings in the 1950s through its classical period until 1993. It begins with a discussion of three paradigmatic works that laid the foundation of FPA: Decision Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics (1954), by Richard C. Snyder, H. W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin; ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’ (1966), by James N. Rosenau; and Man–Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics (1956), by Harold and Margaret Sprout. These three works created three main threads of research in FPA: focusing on the decision making of small/large groups, comparative foreign policy, and psychological/sociological explanations of foreign policy. The chapter also reviews classic FPA scholarship during the period 1954–1993 and concludes with an assessment of contemporary FPA’s research agenda.

Culture and Foreign Policy Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Grove
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Explanation ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Code Analysis ◽  
Operational Code ◽  
Systemic Constraints

There are several conceptions of culture which have become dominant in foreign policy analysis (FPA) in particular: culture as the organization of meaning, culture as value preferences, and culture as templates for human strategy. Prior to the 1990s, the Cold War constraints of bipolarity had left little room for idiosyncratic domestic-level variables such as culture to affect FP. However, once systemic constraints lessened and the decision making milieu became more ambiguous, scholars increasingly turned to questions about culture and identity. Using classic frameworks as a jumping off point, early work on national role conception and operational code analysis incorporated culture as a significant filter for decision making. Operational code analysis is another early approach that had elements of culture as part of the decision making context. In addition, there are a few works that investigate culture and FP with a different focus than FPA. But perhaps one of the most notable elements of FPA studies exploring culture is the idea that it need not be viewed as explaining whatever cannot be explained by anything else. Instead of merely an alternative theoretical explanation of state behavior, use of culture in the post-Cold War revival and today reflects an effort not so much to refute neorealism but to look at different questions.

scholarly journals Processo Decisório e Política Externa nos Pequenos Estados da Periferia: Cabo Verde e Guiné-Bissau | Decision-Making Process and Foreign Policy in Small Peripheral States: Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-185
Author(s):  
Timóteo Saba M'bunde
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
International System ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Cape Verde ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Cabo Verde ◽  
Guinea Bissau

O texto questiona as perspectivas mais conservadoras do campo de Análise de Política Externa (APE), as quais se subsidiam de pressupostos teóricos do realismo para refutar a validade do uso de APE e processo decisório, como ferramentas cabíveis a estudar a política externa dos Estados da periferia do sistema internacional. O texto busca identificar o processo decisório de política externa em Cabo Verde e Guiné-Bissau e apresentar pistas pelas quais é possível lançar mão de APE para estudar a política externa desses dois países luso-africanos. O trabalho também apresenta alguns aspectos dos modelos políticos e constitucionais de Cabo Verde e Guiné-Bissau e a influência que os respectivos contextos políticos exercem sobre a formulação de política externa, caracterizando o tipo de processo decisório que tende a se predominar em cada um dos dois contextos.ABSTRACTThe paper question the most conservatives outlook of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) field, that subsidize from theoretical realism assumptions to refute the validity of the use of FPA and decision-making process as appropriate tools to study the foreign policy of international system peripheral states. The paper seeks to identify the decision-making process of foreign policy in Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau and provides clues by which it’s possible to make use of FPA to study and understand the foreign policy of both luso-africans countries. The work also presents some aspects of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde political and constitutional models and the influence that the respective political contexts have on foreign policy formulation, characterizing the kind of decision-making that tends to predominate in each of the two contexts.Palavras-chave: processo decisório; política externa; Estados da periferia.Keywords: decision-making; foreign policy; peripheral States.Recebido em 14 de Agosto de 2017 | Aceito em 29 de Novembro de 2017.Received on August 14, 2017 | Accepted on November 29, 2017. DOI: 10.12957/rmi.2016.29990

Veto Player Approaches in Foreign Policy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Oppermann ◽  
Klaus Brummer
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Veto Players ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Conceptual Tool ◽  
Veto Player ◽  
Veto Points

The main contribution of veto player approaches in Comparative Politics has been to the study of policy stability and change. Specifically, the argument is that the possibility and conditions for policy change in a given polity and issue area depend on the configuration of veto players and veto points. Most notably, veto player approaches have introduced a general conceptual tool kit that has facilitated the comparative analysis of the dynamics and obstacles of policy change across (democratic and non-democratic) regime types and public policy areas. However, in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), references to veto players and veto points tend to be hardly systematic and are mainly used to highlight domestic constraints on preference formation, decision-making, or responses to international crises. Hence, the theoretical and empirical potential of veto player approaches for FPA has not yet been systematically explored. Against this background, the article makes the case that “taking veto players seriously” has a lot to offer to the study of foreign policy. While there are differences between applying veto player approaches in public policy and in FPA (e.g., with respect to the more informal process of foreign policy decision-making or the larger policy discretion of the agenda setter in foreign policy), those differences must not be overdone. Indeed, they point to certain shifts in emphasis and specific methodological challenges for veto player studies in foreign policy, but do not call into question the basic explanatory logic of veto player approaches or their transferability from one field to the other. What is more, the article shows that multiple links between veto player approaches and FPA theories can be established. Generally speaking, veto player approaches have immense potential in reinvigorating comparative foreign policy analysis. More specifically, they can be linked up to FPA works on the role of parliaments, coalitions, or leadership styles as well as on those discussing change, effectiveness, or fiascos in foreign policy.

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.

Institutional Actors in Foreign Policy Analysis

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph G. Carter ◽  
James M. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
The Government ◽  
Institutional Actors

Institutions have long been an important focus of foreign policy analysis. This is due to the fact that foreign policy is made and implemented by individuals acting within structured institutions of the state, and their foreign policy behavior is affected by the nature of those institutional structures and the roles they generate. At the heart of any institutional approach is the intersection of agency and structure. Institutions tend to influence actors more than actors influence them, and their impact is independent of the regime type or the decision making actors. Decision makers both react to and impact the external setting of decision making and the setting internal to the state in which decision making occurs. That internal setting includes social structures and the roles they generate for decision making actors to play. There are three types of decision units: structures featuring a predominant leader, a small group, or a coalition of multiple autonomous groups. The leader most commonly associated with foreign policy making is the head of the government. Other institutional roles include the head of state and military leaders. However, even when a predominant leader exists, most foreign policy decisions are shaped by small groups. There are five types of small groups: leader–staff groups, leader–autonomous groups, leader–delegate groups, autonomous groups, and delegate groups. Decision units marked by multiple autonomous units include other executive and non-executive branch actors as well. These actors include ministries, legislatures, and courts and councils.

Constructing time in foreign policy-making: Brexit's timing entrepreneurs, malcontemps and apparatchiks

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-285
Author(s):  
Andrew Hom ◽  
Ryan Beasley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Foreign Policy Crises ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Background Feature

Abstract Temporal considerations play a role in many models of foreign policy analysis, particularly those focused on decision-making processes. While time features prominently as a background feature against which sequence, cadence and psychological consequence are measured, little attention has been given to how foreign policy agents actively construct their temporal environments. We propose that different foreign policy-making actors develop distinct relationships with time, and that variations in these relationships can help account for the ways in which ‘events’ are transformed into routine practices, change opportunities or full-blown foreign policy crises. We advance a novel conception of time in foreign policy-making through our development of timing theory and the linguistic constructions of ‘time’ by foreign policy actors. We propose a typology of timing agency, which highlights the impact of these orientations on decision-making processes as well as the characteristics of foreign policy behaviours. Using the case of Brexit, we elaborate differences in actors' temporal orientations and show how such differences impact the making of foreign policy.

scholarly journals Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Lantis ◽  
Ryan Beasley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Nongovernmental Organizations ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Decision Making

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day foreign interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). Scholars explore the causes of these behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision making in comparative perspective. In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons to government leaders. This article surveys the evolution of CFP as a subfield over time, with special attention to its contributions to academic understanding and policymaking. It begins with a review of the characteristics and contributions of CFP, followed by acknowledgment of early works that helped establish this area of study. The next section of the article reviews major thematic focuses of CFP, including theories of international pressures and factors that may drive state foreign policy as well as strong foundations in studies of domestic politics. Key internal actors and conditions that can influence state foreign policies include individual leaders, institutions and legislatures, bureaucratic organizations and government agencies, and public opinion and nongovernmental organizations. Following this survey of actors and contemporary theories of their role in foreign policy decision-making, the article develops two illustrations of new directions in CFP studies focused on political party factions and role theory in comparative perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document