Unofficial Officials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayna L. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Personal Networks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Accessible Information ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Long Range Planning ◽  
The Government

This chapter looks at the think tanks of policymaking. In the early wartime period, official long-range planning was stunted by a lack of government resources and interest in the subject. The bureaucrats in charge of American foreign policy came to rely on information and expertise from outside the government as they formed their views. Specialist research organizations, later known as “think tanks,” leaped to fill gaps in official expertise. Eventually, think tank staffs became unofficial officials, taking full part in the development of policy. They provided reports, recommendations, and accessible information, informed by their specific institutional viewpoints. They also maintained personal networks between members and policymakers and created space for officials and private experts from the business and scholarly communities to discuss ideas.

Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuti Bhatnagar
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Policy Frames ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
The Media ◽  
Intellectual Elites

The role of think tanks as policy actors has developed over time and created significant global scholarship. Widely understood as non-state policy actors, think tanks established either with or without the support of government have evolved in various political contexts with varied characteristics. They are avenues for the discussion of new policy ideas as well as used for the consolidation of existing understandings of global and national political issues. As ideational actors think tanks interact with policy frameworks at different levels, either in the framing stage or at the stage of consensus building towards certain policies. Intellectual elites at think tanks allow for the introduction of think tank ideas into the policy frames as well as the creation of public opinion towards foreign policy decisions. Think tank deliberations involve an interaction with policymakers, academic experts, business and social actors, as well as the media to disseminate ideas. Institutionally, think tanks in a wide variety of political contexts play a critical role in the making of foreign policy and bring closer attention to processes of state–society interactions in different political environments.

LANGUAGE MEANS OF CREATING POLICIAN’S IMAGE (ON GERMANY MEDIA MATERIALS)

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-130
Author(s):  
О.В. Мифтахова ◽  
К.Г. Мокрова
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The Political ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Mass Consciousness ◽  
Subjective Opinion ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Government ◽  
Political Figure

Данная статья освещает специфику языковых средств, используемых в немецких СМИ для создания образа политического деятеля. Поскольку средства массовой информации обладают мощнейшим манипулятивным действием, они играют ведущую роль в формировании массового сознания и социального мнения. В СМИ специально создаются политические образы не только отдельных представителей власти, но и государств в целом. Политический имидж лидеров стран влияет на развитие международных отношений: от положительной или негативной окраски того или иного государственного деятеля напрямую зависит успешность проведения внешней политики страны. Цель статьи - рассмотреть на примере двух немецких политиков, Сары Вагенкнехт и Аннегрет Крамп-Карренбауэр, языковые средства создания имиджа, формирующие у аудитории данных деятелей субъективное мнение о них. СМИ выступает мощнейшим оружием в данном вопросе, придавая особую значимость тем или иным высказываниям политиков. Выражая собственную оценку, средства массовой информации незаметно влияют на сознание и суждения людей. Предмет исследования - средства выразительности, которые оказывают воздействие на создание положительных или негативных медиаобразов политиков Германии. Актуальность темы проявляется в необходимости правильно трактовать тонкости речи и письма, которые могут формировать оценочные мнения о том или ином политическом деятеле. This article considers the issues of language means of creating the image of a politician used in the German media. Since the media have a powerful manipulative effect, they play a leading role in creating mass consciousness and social opinion. In the media, political images are specially formed not only of individual representatives of the government, but also of the state as a whole. The political image of the leaders of states have the influence the development of international relations: the success of the country's foreign policy directly depends on the positive or negative coloring of a statesman. The purpose of the article is to examine, using the example of two German politicians, Sarah Wagenknecht and Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, as language means for creating an image, forming a subjective opinion of them among the audience. The media act as a powerful weapon in this matter, attaching particular importance to certain statements of politicians. Expressing their own assessment, the media imperceptibly affect the consciousness and judgments of people. The subject of the research is the means of expression that influence the creation of positive or negative media images of German politicians. The relevance of the topic is manifested in the need to understand the intricacies of speech and writing, which can form evaluative opinions about a concrete political figure.

Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Brozus ◽  
Hanns W. Maull
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Think Tank

Foreign policy think tanks originated in the context of the Industrial Revolution and world wars in Western industrialized countries and then spread to all parts of the globe. In the process their national orientations toward governments and their attentive national public audiences have evolved toward a global perspective. As a consequence, they also have been drawn into, and have contributed to, the debate about the future of the Western-dominated international order. What exactly makes a think tank remains contested, but there is broad agreement on the variety of functions they fulfill. They bring knowledge to power, but power also uses them to advance its political agenda. As the idealistic notion of expert knowledge as a solution to political problems has fallen by the wayside and advocacy think tanks have flourished, the interaction of think tanks with governments, the media, and the public has become politicized. In liberal-democratic countries, there is a growing trend toward competitive knowledge production by think tanks, whereas in authoritarian systems, think tanks are increasingly being used as instruments of state-controlled public diplomacy. Ultimately, think tanks have to bridge the tension between the needs of decision-makers, on the one hand, and the standards of scientific inquiry and orientation toward the common good, on the other hand. This tension cannot be resolved, but it can be made productive. For this, a strong emphasis on professional integrity will be essential.

Changing Appreciation of the Soviet Problem

1958 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 499-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marshall D. Shulman
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Future Development ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet System ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
Russian People ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Government

Whether we articulate them or not, the assumptions that we make concerning the future development of the Soviet system are fundamental to our thinking about American foreign policy. The objectives toward which we can reasonably direct our efforts, the philosophy of our situation, are in a very large measure a function of the image we have in our minds of the changes we discern or anticipate in the character of the society and the government of the Russian people.

The Bifurcation of American and Non-American Perspectives in Foreign Policy

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 553-557
Author(s):  
Ole R. Holsti
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Henry Kissinger ◽  
The Third ◽  
Stanley Hoffmann ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Foreign Scholar ◽  
American Authors ◽  
Shed Light

The bifurcation of American and non-American perspectives in foreign policy analysis is a large topic to which justice cannot be done in limited space. To reduce the subject to somewhat more manageable scope, the focus here is on teaching and. more specifically, on undergraduate courses on American foreign policy. After examining some evidence that might shed light on the question, this essay will suggest some reasons, both within and outside the discipline, for this development, as well as some possible ways of avoiding undue parochialism by ensuring that non-American perspectives get some hearing.This is not the place to undertake extensive content analyses of foreign policy texts, but even a cursory glance at several recent, widely used volumes indicates that many students are exposed almost wholly to American perspectives. Materials cited in footnotes and as suggested readings are overwhelmingly written by American authors. That pattern also extends to three of the best recent collections of readings on American foreign policy. The first includes 32 essays, not one of which is by a non-American, all nine chapters in the second are by Americans, and only one of 12 essays in the third is co-authored by a foreign scholar. In fairness, it should be pointed out that these materials hardly present a homogeneous viewpoint on the sources, conduct, and consequences of American diplomacy; a collection of readings that includes essays by George Kennan, Carl Gershman, Henry Kissinger, and Stanley Hoffmann can hardly be accused of presenting a single outlook. Moreover, the diversity of choices among available texts provides a broad range of perspectives, from moderately hard-line to distinctly revisionist.

scholarly journals Structured-Induced Deference or Equal and Coordinate Actor: Congressional Influence on American Foreign Policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-118
Author(s):  
Eric Paul Svensen
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Ideal Point ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Roll Call ◽  
Point Estimates ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Scholarly Attention

Perhaps no separation of powers issue receives as much scholarly attention as the near monopoly modern presidents exert over foreign policy. Yet, despite an extensive literature on the subject, scholars have drawn different conclusions as to the causes of this change, finding that lawmakers either defer to the president or are equal and coordinate actors on foreign policy. Using the separation of powers as a guide, I attempt to rectify these differences and demonstrate instances in the roll call record where examples of both explanations are most evident. Recovering ideal point estimates between the 87th and 112th Congress on votes highlighting competing governmental objectives, findings show that the chamber median frequently shifts toward the president on foreign policy votes in the final passage stage and during the treaty process. However, evidence also shows Congress is less likely to defer to the president on domestic legislation and appropriations.

American Foreign Policy and European Integration

1953 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hajo Holborn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
European Integration ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent History ◽  
European Federation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
American Policy ◽  
The Moment

The prospect of a European federation has aroused great enthusiasm in the United States, but at the same time the difficulties encountered in its realization have generated a host of frustrations. It is not unusual, after five years of costly effort, to hear that the moment of crisis has arrived; that we must either push ruthlessly toward the goal, or abandon not only integration but possibly assistance to Europe as well. Perhaps these are the only alternatives that confront the United States. But before we fasten on to them irrevocably, it may be well to ask once more: What is the nature of the area that we are attempting to integrate, and how has our thought on the subject developed? Some appreciation of the recent history and problems of Europe, and of the circumstances that inspired postwar American policy, may help to determine whether or not the range of choice is as narrow as it looks at present to the United States.

No War Without Dictatorship, No Peace Without Democracy: Foreign Policy as Domestic Politics

1985 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-191
Author(s):  
Aaron Wildavsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structural Basis ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Government

I wish to consider the possibility that a good part of the opposition to the main lines of American foreign policy is based on deep-seated objections to the political and economic systems of the United States. This is not to say that existing policy is necessarily wise or that there may not be good and sufficient reasons for wishing to change it. Indeed, at any time and place, the United States might well be overestimating the threat from the Soviet Union or using too much force. What I wish to suggest is that across-the-board criticism of American policy as inherently aggressive and repressive, regardless of circumstance – a litany of criticism so constant that it does not alert us to the need for explanation – has a structural basis in the rise of a political culture that is opposed to existing authority.To the extent that this criticism is structural, that is, inherent in domestic politics, the problem of fashioning foreign policies that can obtain widespread support is much more difficult than it is commonly perceived to be. For if the objection is to American ways of life and, therefore, “to the government for which it stands,” only a transformation of power relationships at home, together with a vast redistribution of economic resources, would satisfy these critics. If the objection is not only to what we do but, more fundamentally, to who we are, looking to changes in foreign policy to shore up domestic support is radically to confuse the causal connections and, therefore, the order of priorities.

Think Tank Development in Hong Kong

2012 ◽  
Vol 04 (03) ◽  
pp. 97-106
Author(s):  
Kin-ming KWONG ◽  
Litao ZHAO
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
The Government ◽  
Over Time

Hong Kong's society has become more politicised after 2003. Policy decisions have been driven by public opinion. With a growing "war of ideas", more social actors choose to do policy advocacies by research rather than slogans through setting up think tanks. Think tanks have seen their influence rising over time. The government has started to invite think tank representatives to give suggestions during the drafting of some important policy papers, like Policy Address.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document