A Abordagem Relacional-Estratégica (Sra) E A Análise De Política Externa (Brasileira) Nos Governos Lula (2003-2010)

O presente trabalho busca explorar a possibilidade de utilização da abordagem relacional-estratégica, Stratetegic-Relational Approach (SRA), desenvolvida pelo neomarxista inglês Bob Jessop, para análise das continuidades e descontinuidades nos projetos de inserção internacional do Brasil no governo Lula (2003-2010). Muitos analistas da política externa brasileira utilizam-se de perspectivas teóricas pertencentes à Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) para abrir a caixa preta do Estado e debruçar-se, em particular, sobre o processo decisório no interior da burocracia estatal. Entretanto, pouco se discute sobre as origens espaço-temporais da relação entre elementos estruturais e estratégias seletivas inscritas nas decisões de política externa. Nesse sentido, entende-se que a compreensão da política externa brasileira, em toda a sua complexidade, deve ser feita por meio da análise do entrelaçamento entre as forças sociais e os contextos estratégicos, que modificam identidades e interesses.Palavras-chave: FPA, Política Externa Brasileira, SRA. ABSTRACTThis work seeks to explore the possibility of using the Stratetegic-Relational Approach (SRA), developed by the English neo-Marxist Bob Jessop, to analyze the continuities and discontinuities in Brazil's international insertion projects under the Lula government (2003-2010). Many Brazilian foreign policy analysts use theoretical perspectives belonging to Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) to open the black box of the State and address, in particular, the decision-making process within its bureaucracy. However, little is discussed about the ‘spatio-temporal’ horizon of the relationship between the strategic structure and the strategic selectivities inscribed in foreign policy decisions. Therefore, Brazilian foreign policy, in all its complexity, must be understood through the analysis of the intertwining between social forces and strategic contexts, which changes identities and interests. Keywords: FPA, Brazilian Foreign Policy, SRA.

Download Full-text

Two-Level Games in Foreign Policy Analysis

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.496 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Eugénia da Conceição-Heldt ◽

Patrick A. Mello

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

International Relations ◽

Policy Analysis ◽

Comparative Politics ◽

Political Institutions ◽

International Negotiations ◽

Foreign Policy Analysis ◽

Approval Ratings ◽

Voting Requirements ◽

The Relationship

Whether in multilateral negotiations or bilateral meetings, government leaders regularly engage in “two-level games” played simultaneously at the domestic and the international level. From the two-level-games perspective, executives are “chief negotiators” involved in some form of international negotiations for which they ultimately need to gain domestic approval at the ratification stage. This ratification requirement provides the critical link between the international and domestic level, but it can be based on formal voting requirements or more informal ways of ratification, such as public approval ratings. With its focus on government leaders as “gatekeepers” and central actors in international negotiations, the two-level games perspective constitutes a distinct approach in foreign policy analysis and serves to reintegrate the subfields of comparative politics and international relations. While there are similarities to a liberal perspective, two-level games emphasize that executives hold a certain degree of autonomy in their decision making that cannot be purely derived from their constituencies. Unlike realism, however, the approach recognizes the importance of domestic veto players and institutional constraints. Since its inception in the late 1980s, a vast body of literature on two-level games has evolved, including refinements of its theoretical foundation and applications in various policy areas. Against this background, key controversies in two-level games and foreign policy analysis since the late 1980s are examined. The discussion is organized along six debates concerning the levels of analysis, domestic political institutions, the interaction between the domestic and international levels, relevant actors, their interests and preferences, and the relationship between comparative politics and international relations.

Download Full-text

Reagan and the Pax Afrikaana

The Journal of Modern African Studies ◽

10.1017/s0022278x00054975 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 551-573 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lee Cokorinos ◽

James H. Mittelman

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

Policy Analysis ◽

Public Discourse ◽

Social Forces ◽

Foreign Policy Analysis ◽

Short Term ◽

Policy Makers ◽

The Social ◽

Practical Politics ◽

Control State

A Frequent error in foreign policy analysis is to allow government to set the agenda of inquiry. Officials invariably define the terrain too narrowly. Their concerns are short term, not only because of the immediacy of problems stalking policy-makers, but also because averting fundamental questions about the social forces that shape the day-to-day agenda of government redounds to the advantage of those who control state power. Consequently, the task of the analyst is to overcome the inhibiting parameters of public discourse. Without trivialising matters of practical politics, the analyst must transpose prefabricated questions into more productive lines of inquiry.

Download Full-text

International System And Foreign Policy Approaches: Implications for Conflict Modelling and Management

World Politics ◽

10.2307/2010558 ◽

1972 ◽

Vol 24 (S1) ◽

pp. 7-39 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Raymond Tanter

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

Problem Solving ◽

International Relations ◽

Policy Analysis ◽

System Analysis ◽

International System ◽

The Other ◽

Foreign Policy Analysis ◽

Standard Operating ◽

Policy Analysts

The quotations from Charles A. McClelland and Graham T. Allison represent two distinct approaches to the study of international relations: (i) international system analysis; and (2) foreign policy analysis. Essentially, international system analysts seek to explain interactions between nations by phenomena such as their prior interactions and the structure of the system. Foreign policy analysts, on the other hand, seek to explain foreign policy behavior as the output of subnational organizations following standard operating procedures or engaging in a problem-solving search. Given the international system and foreign policy approaches as contrasting points of departure, the goals of the present study are:

Download Full-text