Advancing foreign policy analysis by studying leaders from the global South

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-421
Author(s):  
Klaus Brummer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
English Language ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Global South ◽  
Context Sensitivity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Individual Decision

Abstract Using the concept of ‘context sensitivity’ as organizing theme, this article explores different avenues of advancing foreign policy analysis (FPA) scholarship based on insights from the global South. Since foreign policy decision-makers in the global South operate in (at times very) different political environments than their western counterparts, the applicability of FPA approaches cannot be taken as a given, which is why their context sensitivity (i.e., the extent to which core concepts and indicators contained in those approaches travel to non-western settings) needs to be explored. This article suggests that our understanding of the motives and behaviours of individual decision-makers can be advanced in three distinct ways based on insights from the global South. First, several of the FPA constructs that focus on individual decision makers have seen hardly any applications to non-western cases, which is why the latter contributes to ascertaining the analytical scope of those constructs. Second, taking more fully into account the differences in decision-making environments within which leaders from the global South operate can advance leader-oriented FPA approaches by helping to specify certain theoretical assumptions proposed by them. Finally, the aspiration to analyse leaders from the global South can advance FPA in terms of method by, for instance, developing non-English language coding schemes for profiling leaders based on speech acts that are cognizant of the specificities of individual languages, while at the same time allowing for measurement equivalence across different languages.

Realism in Foreign Policy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Wivel
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
International System ◽  
Relative Size ◽  
External Action ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Action Space ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Foreign Policies

Realists explain foreign policy in terms of power politics. They disagree on the exact meaning of power and on how and to what extent politics is likely to influence policy. But they all find that power has a strong materialist component and that the influence of domestic politics on foreign policy is likely to vary with security challenges stemming from the external environment. The relative size of a state’s material resources is likely to influence its ability to set agendas and influence specific decisions and outcomes in international affairs. And the nature of the strategic environment, most importantly whether the security and survival of the state is under immediate threat, is likely to influence the relative weight of domestic influences on foreign policy. In sum, great powers enjoy a bigger external action space in their foreign policies than weaker states, and secure states enjoy a bigger external action space in their foreign policies than insecure states. Realism is a top-down approach to explaining foreign policy. Realists begin from the anarchic structure of the international system. They argue that the absence of a legitimate monopoly of power in the international system create a strong incentive for states to focus on survival as their primary goal and self-help as the most important means to achieving this goal. However, “survival” and “self-help” may take many forms. These forms are shaped by mechanisms of socialization and competition in the international system and systemic incentives are filtered through the perceptions of foreign policy decision makers and domestic institutions enabling and restraining the ability of decision makers to respond to external incentives. Neoclassical realists combine these factors in order to explain specific foreign policies. Offensive realists and defensive realists focus on the effects of structure on foreign policy, but with contrasting assumptions about the typical behavior of states: defensive realists expect states to pursue balancing policies, whereas offensive realists argue that only by creating an imbalance of power in its own favor will a state be able to maximize its security. In addition to being an analytical approach for explaining foreign policy, realists often serve as foreign policy advisors or act in the function of public intellectuals problematizing and criticizing foreign policy. This illustrates the potential for realism as an analytical, problem-solving and critical approach to foreign policy analysis. However, it also shows the strains within realism between ambitions of creating general theories, explaining particular foreign policies, and advising on how to make prudent foreign policy decisions.

Pedagogy and Foreign Policy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Breuning
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Active Learning ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Excellent Teaching

Pedagogical objectives and educational outcomes play a significant role in foreign policy analysis. The actor-centered approach of foreign policy analysis gives students the unique opportunity to place themselves in the shoes of decision makers and to understand the different constraints, both domestic and international, that influence the policies adopted by decision makers. In other words, foreign policy analysis can have two functions: to teach students about the processes by which foreign policy is made, or the substance of the foreign policies of various countries, and to enhance students’ ability to imagine the perspectives of others. Whether foreign policy analysis does, in fact, manage to develop this ability is an empirical question that also depends on the course emphasis and pedagogies employed. In this sense, pedagogy does not only mean excellent teaching, but also systematic investigation of teaching methods and techniques, student learning outcomes, educational assessment, and curriculum development. The literature on foreign policy analysis, pedagogy, and curriculum emphasizes active learning strategies and the need for clearly articulated learning objectives for the curriculum as a whole and the place of specific courses within it. Examples of active learning pedagogies are case teaching, simulations, and problem-based learning. Despite some very worthwhile research that has been done, there are still some gaps that need to be addressed. One is the lack of empirical work that helps evaluate the merits of the various teaching strategies in foreign policy analysis, and another is the inconsistent findings produced by the empirical studies that do exist.

Ubiquity of ‘Power’ and the Advantage of Terminological Pluralism: Japan's Foreign Policy Discourse

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
LINUS HAGSTRÖM
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
English Language ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Post Cold War

This article demonstrates that ubiquitous references to ‘power’ in English-language foreign policy discourse can be understood in the light of the inclination in international relations theory to place power on a par with capability. It makes two claims: that such a concept of power is ill-fitted for foreign policy analysis; and that much clarity would be gained by following the Japanese example of terminological pluralism and thus abandoning ‘power’ as a catch-all term. Foreign policy analysis would benefit from adopting a concept that takes power to reside in specific relationships. Its adoption would moreover dissolve a power paradox associated with the analysis of Japan's post-Cold War foreign policy.

Role Theory in Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Breuning
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Ability To Act ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Global North ◽  
Global Arena ◽  
Agent Structure

Role theory first emerged as an approach to the study of foreign policy with the seminal work of Holsti, who argued that decision makers’ conceptions of their state’s role on the world stage influenced that state’s foreign policy behavior. Holsti’s approach was ahead of its time. The potential of role theory to contribute to the agent-structure debate has not always been appreciated. In fact, early research employing role theory often maintained a close connection to structural theories of international relations, especially among U.S.-based scholars. In the last decade or so, there has been a renewed interest in role theory that differs from earlier work in that it more clearly connects with psychological approaches to foreign policy analysis. It also takes more seriously the domestic sources of role theory through inquiry into horizontal and vertical role contestation. Much of this new work intersects with constructivism, although it remains grounded in empiricism. As foreign policy analysis increasingly seeks to understand the foreign policies of a broader array of states—including smaller states that face significant constraints on their ability to act in the international arena—role theory provides an attractive framework. Its focus on decision makers’ conceptions of their state’s role in international politics enhances the ability to make sense of the foreign policies of a wider array of states in the global arena. In essence, role theory allows foreign policy analysis to move beyond a U.S.-centric or global-north-centric field to become more broadly comparative.

scholarly journals Forum: Coding in Tongues: Developing Non-English Coding Schemes for Leadership Profiling

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 1039-1067
Author(s):  
Klaus Brummer ◽  
Michael D Young ◽  
Özgur Özdamar ◽  
Sercan Canbolat ◽  
Consuelo Thiers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
English Language ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Code Analysis ◽  
Operational Code ◽  
Coding Schemes ◽  
Leadership Trait Analysis ◽  
Automated Coding ◽  
Profiling Techniques

Abstract Over the last twenty years since the introduction of automated coding schemes, research in foreign policy analysis (FPA) has made great advances. However, this automatization process is based on the analysis of verbal statements of leaders to create leadership profiles and has remained largely confined in terms of language. That is, the coding schemes can only parse English-language texts. This reduces both the quality and quantity of available data and limits the application of these leadership profiling techniques beyond the Anglosphere. Against this background, this forum offers five reports on the development of freely available coding schemes for either operational code analysis or leadership trait analysis for languages other than English (i.e., Turkish, Arabic, Spanish, German, and Persian).

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.

scholarly journals ‘No more Hoares to Paris’: British foreign policymaking and the Abyssinian Crisis, 1935

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 1383-1401 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW HOLT
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Bureaucratic Politics ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Rational Analysis ◽  
European Crisis ◽  
British Policy

AbstractItaly's invasion of Abyssinia in October 1935 prompted a major European crisis. This article applies the main theories of foreign policy analysis to the British Government's handling of this crisis. It argues that bureaucratic politics existed, but had little impact on outcomes. Domestic politics had more influence, but did not provide detailed instructions on how to act. The perceptions of key actors, informed by reasoned judgement, determined this. Fears of the threat posed by rival states coalesced with concerns about Britain's own military weakness, leading decision-makers to emphasise the need to act in tandem with France. British policy was therefore motivated by the tension between the public's desire to see action against Italy and the Government's wish to minimise any breach with her allies. These findings highlight the weaknesses of the bureaucratic politics model and show how domestic politics can affect foreign policy outcomes. They also demonstrate the interaction between rational analysis defined in terms of reasoned judgement, and actors' perceptions. It is thus argued that benefits are to be gleaned from combining these theories.

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.

Poliheuristic Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven B. Redd ◽  
David Brulé ◽  
Alex Mintz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Cognitive Decision

Milton Friedman and Herbert Simon introduced two opposing “schools” of thought in decision-making: the “rational actor” approach and the “cognitive approach,” respectively. Friedman argued that theories should be judged based on the validity of their predictions (“outcome validity”), whereas Simon countered that more emphasis must be placed on “process validity.” Seeking to bridge the gap between the cognitive and rational approaches, in the early 1990s Alex Mintz and colleagues developed poliheuristic theory. The theory is based on five main processing characteristics of decision-making: nonholistic search, dimension-based processing, noncompensatory decision rules, satisficing behavior, and order-sensitive search. A key premise of poliheuristic theory is its reference to the political aspects of decision making in a foreign policy context. Poliheuristic theory is related to Applied Decision Analysis (ADA), an analytic procedure which can be applied to all levels of analysis in foreign policy decision-making: the leader, the group and the coalition. As a bridge between rational and cognitive decision models, poliheuristic theory is uniquely positioned to contribute to progress in the study of world politics. Indeed, despite being relatively new to the discipline of foreign policy analysis, it has enriched our understanding of both the process of decision-making and the outcome of decisions, for example, or the diversionary use of force, international bargaining and negotiation, coalition formation, and terrorists’ decisions. A number of avenues deserve attention in future research on poliheuristic theory, in particularl the use of a more decision-theoretic dataset for investigating its basic proposition as well as more large-N methodological studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document