Role theory and foreign policy analysis

1987 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Frankel
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron Thies
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
System Level ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Audience Effects ◽  
The Individual

Role theory is an approach to the study of foreign policy that developed in the interdisciplinary field of social psychology and can be appropriately applied at the individual, state, and system level analyses. Role theory, which first attracted attention in the foreign policy literature after the publication of K. J. Holsti’s 1970 study of national role conception, does not refer to a single theory, but rather a family of theories, an approach, or perspective that begins with the concept of role as central to social life. The major independent variables in the study of roles include role expectations, role demands, role location, and audience effects (including cues). In addition, role theory contains its own model of social identity based on three crucial dimensions: status, value, and involvement. The 1987 publication of Stephen G. Walker’s edited volume, Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, set the stage for further advances in the use of role theory in both the fields of foreign policy and international relations. According to Walker, role theory has a rich language of descriptive concepts, the organizational potential to bridge levels of analyses, and numerous explanatory advantages. This makes role theory an extremely valuable approach to foreign policy analysis. Role theory also offers a way of bringing greater integration between foreign policy analysis and international relations, especially through constructivist meta-theory.

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 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.

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.

Foreign Policy Analysis and the Making of Plan Colombia

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Catalina Monroy ◽  
Fabio Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Plan Colombia
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document