China’s Foreign Policy Making Process

2020 ◽  
pp. 85-110
Author(s):  
Suisheng Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Coordination ◽  
Information Gathering ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
China’S Foreign Policy ◽  
Bureaucratic Agencies

China’s foreign policy must rely on opaque and behind-the-scenes coordination organs to work through a large number of bureaucratic agencies of the state, party, and military, whose primary roles are information gathering and the implementation and recommendation of policy. In addition, some new players, such as think tanks, media, local governments, and transnational corporations, have played a variety of roles to influence China’s foreign policy. This chapter examines the evolving role of the paramount leader, the foreign policy coordination and elaboration organs, the bureaucracies, and the new players in the making and transformation of China’s foreign policy. Providing a historical overview, it also observes how President Xi Jinping has centralized and personalized foreign policy making power in the name of strengthening a unified party leadership.

The Sociology of Diplomats and Foreign Policy Sector: The Role of Cliques on the Policy-Making Process

2020 ◽  
pp. 147892992090195
Author(s):  
Rahime Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Career Path ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Ruling Elites ◽  
Organisational Process ◽  
Governmental Politics

This paper studies the sociology of elites and the role of cliques on the foreign policy-making process through an exploratory case study of Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. It identifies elite sociology as the independent variable triggering a policy-making process in the Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs in line with organisational process or governmental politic approaches. It shows that until the 1980s, the Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs was marked by strong hierarchical tradition triggered by a certain career path and cliqueism leading to the homogeneity in the sociology of elites. This in turn triggered a foreign policy-making process based on organisational process. The role of cliqueism weakened along with the incremental circulation of elites in the post-1980s and particularly in the post-2005 period as the elite structure in the Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs became even more heterogeneous, foreign policy-making process moved towards governmental politics which allowed taking into account diverse schools of thought. Nevertheless, newly emerging programmatic elites employed deliberate efforts for elite circulation by altering the dominant career path and relying on political appointments. The resulting outcome was the emergence of a new clique of ruling elites subordinate to political elites which led to the politicisation of the foreign policy decision-making process in the post-2011 period.

The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 751-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander L. George
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Harmful Effect ◽  
Role Conflicts ◽  
Personal Power ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Effective Advocacy ◽  
Security Affairs ◽  
Do So

The system of multiple advocacy attempts to convert intraorganizational conflicts over policy into a balanced system of policy analysis and debate. This requires the executive to (1) structure and manage the policy-making system to ensure that there are advocates to cover the range of interesting policy options on a given issue; (2) equalize or compensate for disparities among the actors in the resources needed for effective advocacy; (3) identify and correct possible “malfunctions” in the policy-making process before they can have a harmful effect on the executive's choice of policy. Nine types of malfunctions are identified in this paper via critical diagnosis of U.S. foreign policy making in cases in which the executive had to decide questions of commitment, intervention, or escalation. Responsibility for identifying and correcting such malfunctions and for managing multiple advocacy effectively should be clearly fixed with the Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. However, the Special Assistant should not combine the role of “custodian-manager” of the policy-making system with the additional tasks of (a) policy adviser to the President; (b) public spokesman for existing policies; (c) “watch-dog” of the President's personal power stakes; or (d) implementer of policy decisions already taken. The attempt to do so invites serious role conflicts that can undermine the Special Assistant's performance of the all-important task of custodian.

Foreign Policy and Communication

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Roselle
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate

Communication has a significant impact on foreign policy, both in the policy-making process and at a higher level associated with the nexus of foreign policy and international relations. Communication involves the transmission or conveying of information through a system of symbols, signs, or behavior. Communication connects individuals and groups; (re)constructs the context; and defines, describes, and delineates foreign policy options. The current trends are the synthesis in many areas, with a focus on the psychological processes associated with who communicates, how, to whom, and with what effect in the realm of foreign policy; and with the structural characteristics of communication or discourse. The major areas of study on foreign policy and communication include: (a) the making of foreign policy and the role of mass media in this process; (b) how foreign policy is understood as a communicated message by allies and adversaries in international relations; and (c) constructivism, poststructuralism, and discourse analysis. Within the scope of foreign policy and media falls work associated with the CNN effect, framing, and public opinion. Work within international relations has focused on how foreign policy signals international intent, including threat and willingness to cooperate. Constructivism and discourse analysis emphasize the need to look at the (re)construction of ideas, identities, and interests rather than taking them for granted.

scholarly journals Participatory governance and responsiveness: Do motivational interventions increase engagement with citizen input?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annabelle Sophie Wittels
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Design ◽  
Large Field ◽  
Informal Controls ◽  
Motivational Interventions ◽  
Monetary Rewards ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Gate Keeping ◽  
Meaningful Engagement

Participatory mechanisms are now widely used by national and local governments in developed and developing countries. While their purpose and form varies greatly, they all rely on the discretion of a professionalised bureaucracy to manage these processes and prepare their outcomes in a manner that they can feed into policy-making. Bureaucrats thus have a gate-keeping role. They can substantially influence whether and how information from participatory processes feeds into policy-making. Bureaucrats can thereby impact to what extent participatory mechanisms can deliver on their promise of giving citizens greater direct control over the policy-making process. Formal political control over the bureaucracy is limited in this case. Could informal controls make bureaucrats comply more with the demands of participatory mechanisms? This study employs a large field experiment (N=7,532) to test (1) whether citizen input filters through to bureaucrats tasked with policy design and implementation and (2) whether bureaucrats’ engagement with citizen input can be in- creased by using non-monetary rewards and value-based communication. The experiment accounts for heterogeneity by bureaucrat seniority, central versus street-level roles and involvement in the collection of citizen input. It finds no meaningful engagement at the baseline (C=0%) but that motivational interventions can significantly increase engagement (T1= 14%, T2=15%). The findings suggest that currently little input from citizens filters through to bureaucrats, but small tweaks substantially increase the democratic potential of participatory initiatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document