International Relations 101: Foreign Policy Analysis - Foreign Policy Decision Making Rational Actor Model Bureaucratic Politics Organizational Process

What This Is

Foreign Policy Decision Making (FPDM) is the process by which states and other actors make choices about their interactions with the external environment. Understanding FPDM is crucial for grasping global affairs, as it shapes the behavior of states, international organizations, and non-state actors. For instance, the creation of the European Union's Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) can be explained by the bureaucratic politics model, where the European Commission and the European Council engage in a process of negotiation and compromise to shape the EU's foreign and security policy.

Key Theories, Concepts & Thinkers

• Rational Actor Model (RAN): States are unitary actors that make rational decisions based on their interests and preferences. Contemporary relevance: explains the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003, where the Bush administration's desire to remove Saddam Hussein was seen as a rational choice to prevent future threats.
• Bureaucratic Politics (Allison): Foreign policy decisions are shaped by the interactions and power struggles within the bureaucracy of a state. Contemporary relevance: explains the slow response of the US government to the COVID-19 pandemic, where bureaucratic politics led to delays in implementing effective policies.
• Organizational Process Model (Allison): Foreign policy decisions are shaped by the organizational structure and processes of a state. Contemporary relevance: explains the US decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, where the organizational process of the Trump administration's bureaucratic politics led to a decision that was not in line with the interests of the US.
• Neoclassical Realism (Rose): States are driven by a combination of material and ideational factors, and their foreign policy decisions are shaped by their relative power position. Contemporary relevance: explains the foreign policy decisions of China, where its growing economic and military power has led to a more assertive foreign policy.
• Liberal Institutionalism (Keohane): International institutions shape the behavior of states and promote cooperation. Contemporary relevance: explains the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), where the liberal institutionalist approach led to the establishment of a rules-based trading system.
• Constructivism (Wendt): States' identities and interests are shaped by social and cultural norms and institutions. Contemporary relevance: explains the foreign policy decisions of Japan, where its identity as a pacifist state has shaped its foreign policy behavior.
• Game Theory (Schelling): States engage in strategic interactions, and their foreign policy decisions are shaped by the potential payoffs and costs of different actions. Contemporary relevance: explains the US decision to engage in a "war of attrition" with North Korea, where the potential costs and benefits of different actions led to a stalemate.
• Foucauldian Analysis (Foucault): Power is exercised through networks of relationships and institutions, and foreign policy decisions are shaped by the exercise of power. Contemporary relevance: explains the foreign policy decisions of the European Union, where the exercise of power by the EU's institutions has shaped its foreign policy behavior.

Step-by-Step Analysis

1. Identify the key actors and their interests: Who are the main actors involved in the decision-making process, and what are their interests and preferences?
2. Analyze the institutional context: What are the relevant international institutions and norms that shape the behavior of the actors?
3. Evaluate the available options: What are the potential options available to the actors, and what are the potential costs and benefits of each option?
4. Consider the level of analysis: Is the decision-making process occurring at the individual, state, or system level, and how does this shape the behavior of the actors?
5. Assess the role of power and influence: How do the actors exercise power and influence each other, and how does this shape the decision-making process?
6. Evaluate the outcome: What is the outcome of the decision-making process, and how does it reflect the interests and preferences of the actors?

Common Misconceptions

• Misconception: The United Nations is a world government.
• Correction: The UN is an international organization that provides a forum for states to discuss and address global issues, but it does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of states.
• Example: The UN's role in the Korean War, where the organization provided a framework for collective action, but the actual decisions were made by the member states.
• Misconception: Sovereignty means absolute freedom to do anything.
• Correction: Sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself and make decisions on its own behalf, but it is not absolute and is subject to international law and norms.
• Example: The US decision to invade Iraq in 2003, where the US government argued that its sovereignty gave it the right to take military action, but this was challenged by other states and international organizations.
• Misconception: All conflicts are about religion or culture.
• Correction: Conflicts are often complex and multifaceted, and may involve a range of factors, including economic, political, and social interests.
• Example: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the conflict is often portrayed as a religious or cultural issue, but it is also shaped by economic and political interests.

Exam / Essay Tips

• Typical question patterns: IR exams often ask students to apply theoretical concepts to real-world cases, or to evaluate the effectiveness of different foreign policy approaches.
• Deploying theories: Students should be able to deploy theoretical concepts in a clear and concise manner, and explain how they apply to the case at hand.
• Tricky distinctions: Students should be able to distinguish between different theoretical approaches, such as realism and liberalism, and explain how they differ.
• Integrating historical and current examples: Students should be able to integrate historical and current examples to illustrate their points and demonstrate their understanding of the theoretical concepts.

Quick Practice Scenario

Scenario: Two rising powers in the Asia-Pacific engage in a naval buildup. Using realism, explain the likely outcome. Which other IR theory would predict a different outcome and why?

Answer: Realism would predict that the two rising powers would engage in a security dilemma, where each state's military buildup would be seen as a threat by the other state, leading to an arms race. Constructivism would predict a different outcome, as it would emphasize the importance of social and cultural norms in shaping the behavior of states. Constructivism would argue that the two rising powers would engage in a process of socialization, where they would learn to cooperate and manage their differences through international institutions and norms.

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

• Key theorists: Morgenthau, Waltz, Keohane, Wendt, Foucault
• Treaties: Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of Rome, Paris Climate Accord
• Dates: 1648 (Westphalia), 1914 (World War I), 1945 (UN Charter)
• Acronyms: NATO, EU, WTO, IMF
• Trap distinctions: "NATO" is a collective defense organization, not a collective security organization – Article 5 is triggered only when a member is attacked, not every threat.
• Key concepts: Anarchy, sovereignty, power, influence, interests, preferences, institutions, norms, socialization.