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.

Foreign Policy Decision Making

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Goldgeier
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Short Circuit ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Patterns Of Behavior ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
The Cold War

Decision makers, acting singly or in groups, influence the field of international relations by shaping the interactions among nations. It is therefore important to understand how those decision makers are likely to behave. Some scholars have developed elegant formal theories of decision making to demonstrate the utility of rational choice approaches in the study of international relations, while others have chosen to explain the patterns of bias that exist when leaders face the difficult task of making decisions and formulating policy. Among them are Herbert Simon, who introduced “bounded rationality” to allow leaders to short-circuit the decision process, and Elizabeth Kier, who has shown how organizational cultures shaped the development of military doctrine during the interwar period. The literature on foreign policy decision making during the Cold War looked inside the black box to generate analyses of bureaucratic politics and individual mindsets. Because decision making involves consensus seeking among groups, leaders will often avoid making choices so that they will not antagonize key members of the bureaucracy. Scholars have also investigated the role of “policy entrepreneurs” in the decision-making process, bringing individual agents into organizational, diplomatic and political processes. Over time, the field of policy decision making has evolved to help us understand not only why leaders often calculate so poorly but even more importantly, why systematic patterns of behavior are more or less likely under certain conditions.

Role Theory in Politics and International Relations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Breuning
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Wide Range

Role theory scholarship in politics and international relations (IR) seeks to understand decision-making from the perspective of the decision maker. That said, role theory scholarship has evolved over time. It has moved from an initial emphasis on the structural and institutional constraints that affect human behavior to a greater emphasis on the agency of human beings. In the past decade, role theory has re-emerged as an approach to the study of politics and IR. This new generation of scholarship places its emphasis on decision makers (or agents) while acknowledging that they are embedded in institutions (or structures). As such, role theory accepts the foundational characteristics of behavioral IR—which demands attention for the cognitive limitations of human decision makers, as well as their limited capacity to process information, and the various biases and heuristics that affect their reasoning. Role theory posits that theoretical models must simultaneously take into account the state’s material capabilities and the perceptions of decision makers, who bring their own biases and ideas (or maybe ideals) to the task of shaping foreign policy. Role theory enables scholars to model ideational factors alongside material ones and, in doing so, to improve understanding of the foreign policy decision-making of a wide range of states, including small(er) states, new states, and emerging powers.

scholarly journals Brexit identities and British public opinion on China

2019 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 1369-1387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfred M. Chow ◽  
Enze Han ◽  
Xiaojun Li
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
International System ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
British Foreign Policy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Positive Outlook ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Many studies have explored the importance of public opinion in British foreign policy decision-making, especially when it comes to the UK's relations with the United States and the European Union. Despite its importance, there is a dearth of research on public opinion about British foreign policy towards other major players in the international system, such as emerging powers like China. We have addressed this knowledge gap by conducting a public opinion survey in the UK after the Brexit referendum. Our research findings indicate that the British public at large finds China's rise disconcerting, but is also pragmatic in its understanding of how the ensuing bilateral relations should be managed. More importantly, our results show that views on China are clearly split between the two opposing Brexit identities. Those who subscribe strongly to the Leave identity, measured by their aversion to the EU and antipathy towards immigration, are also more likely to hold negative perceptions of Chinese global leadership and be more suspicious of China as a military threat. In contrast, those who espouse a Remain identity—that is, believe that Britain would be better served within the EU and with more immigrants—are more likely to prefer closer engagement with China and to have a more positive outlook overall on China's place within the global community.

Foreign Policy in the Fourth Dimension (FP4D): Locating Time in Decision-Making

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan K Beasley ◽  
Andrew R Hom
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Fourth Dimension ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Policy Decision Making

Abstract While international relations scholarship has taken a “temporal turn,” foreign policy decision-making (FPDM) research reveals little explicit theoretical attention to time. Time is an important aspect of several prominent frameworks, yet these either fail to make explicit their conception of time or fail to reflect upon the implications of their temporal assumptions and understandings. We address this lacuna by developing a timing perspective on FPDM. We present the central features of this perspective, including the nature of timing agency, temporal motivations, the timing of decision-making processes, and timing as a foreign policy tool. Illustrated with empirical examples, we show how timing plays out in FPDM and helps to shed new light on our understanding of crises and ways decision-makers may grapple with them. We conclude by considering the theoretical and empirical benefits and challenges of bridging FPDM with theoretical approaches to time.

Basic principles of Russian foreign policy under Vladimir Putin

Upravlenie ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 116-122
Author(s):  
Sadeghi Elham Mir Mohammad ◽  
Ahmad Vakhshitekh
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
The Moment

The article considers and analyses the basic principles and directions of Russian foreign policy activities during the presidency of V.V. Putin from the moment of his assumption of the post of head of state to the current presidential term. The authors determine the basic principles of Russia's foreign policy in the specified period and make the assessment to them. The study uses materials from publications of both Russian and foreign authors, experts in the field of political science, history and international relations, as well as documents regulating the foreign policy activities of the highest state authorities. The paper considers the process of forming the priorities of Russia's foreign policy both from the point of view of accumulated historical experience and continuity of the internal order, and in parallel with the processes of transformation of the entire system of international relations and the world order. The article notes the multi-vector nature of Russia's foreign policy strategy aimed at developing multilateral interstate relations, achieving peace and security in the interstate arena, actively countering modern challenges and threats to interstate security, as well as the formation of a multipolar world. The authors conclude that at present, Russia's foreign policy activity is aimed at strengthening Russia's prestige, supporting economic growth and competitiveness, ensuring security and implementing national interests. Internal political reforms contribute to strengthening the political power of the President of the Russian Federation and increasing the efficiency of foreign policy decision-making.

scholarly journals The hierarchical society: the politics of self-determination and the constitution of new states after 1919

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 372-396
Author(s):  
Maja Spanu
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World War ◽  
New States ◽  
History Of

International Relations scholarship disconnects the history of the so-called expansion of international society from the presence of hierarchies within it. In contrast, this article argues that these developments may in fact be premised on hierarchical arrangements whereby new states are subject to international tutelage as the price of acceptance to international society. It shows that hierarchies within international society are deeply entrenched with the politics of self-determination as international society expands. I substantiate this argument with primary and secondary material on the Minority Treaty provisions imposed on the new states in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe admitted to the League of Nations after World War I. The implications of this claim for International Relations scholarship are twofold. First, my argument contributes to debates on the making of the international system of states by showing that the process of expansion of international society is premised on hierarchy, among and within states. Second, it speaks to the growing body of scholarship on hierarchy in world politics by historicising where hierarchies come from, examining how diverse hierarchies are nested and intersect, and revealing how different actors navigate these hierarchies.

scholarly journals Interdependance, linkage et système international : de l'analyse conceptuelle aux problèmes de politique étrangère

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-352
Author(s):  
Irnerio Seminatore
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Political Context ◽  
International Policy ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The North ◽  
Interdependence Theory ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Impact

The emergence and evolution of the literature dealing with interdependence in the international System is looked into. An attempt is made to show its significance and main points as well as its implications. The debates on interdependence within the North-American political context are regarded as solutions to the preceding issues on dependence. Interesting passages are dedicated to the impact of the interdependence theory on the interpretation of the international system, as illustrated by two schools of thought in foreign policy (Kissinger-Brzezinski). Linkage of the tactical and strategic aspects to the economic and political interrelation of international relations, as put forward by policy makers, has brought to the fore the difficulties and limits of negotiation in the face of competition and in the aftermath of confrontation. This paper offers subtle, yet positive, conclusions on the use of the interdependance theory in international policy.

Intervention and Intransitivity: Public Opinion, Social Choice, and the Use of Military Force Abroad

1995 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Taylor Gaubatz
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Social Choice ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
The Impact

This article argues that the problems identified in the literature on public choice should critically affect our research on public opinion and our understanding of the impact of public opinion on foreign policy. While a robust literature has emerged around social choice issues in political science, there has been remarkably little appreciation for these problems in the literature on public opinion in general and on public opinion and foreign policy in particular. The potential importance of social choice problems for understanding the nature and role of public opinion in foreign policy making is demonstrated through an examination of American public attitudes about military intervention abroad. In particular, drawing on several common descriptions of the underlying dimensionality of public attitudes on major foreign policy issues, it is shown that there may be important intransitivities in the ordering of public preferences at the aggregate level on policy choices such as those considered by American decision makers in the period leading up to the Gulf War. Without new approaches to public-opinion polling that take these problems into consideration, it will be difficult to make credible claims about the role of public opinion in theforeignpolicy process.

scholarly journals The Foreign Policy of Islamist Political Parties

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
International System ◽  
Political Islam ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Collective Work ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Muslim Brotherhood ◽  
The Way

Does political Islam have a specific vision of global politics? How has the foreign policy of Islamist forces developed in order to impose their ideas onto the diplomatic agenda of other countries? How do these actors perceive the world, international affairs, and the way Islamic countries should engage with the international system? Eager to break with the dominant grammar of international relations, and instead to fuse Muslim states in a unique religious and political entity, Muslim actors have had to face up to the realities that they had promised to transform. Drawing on a series of case studies, this collective work sheds light on six national trajectories of Islamism: in Morocco (the Party of Justice and Development), Tunisia (Ennhada), Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood), Palestine (Hamas), Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Turkey (AKP). It looks at what has been produced by the representatives of political Islam in each case, and the way these representatives have put their words and their ideological aspirations into action within their foreign policies.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document