Foreign Policy Analysis

An Introduction
Foreign policy analysis
Foreign policy concerns behavior toward some other actor for some reason.
FPA is the subfield of IR that seeks to explain FP, or alternatively FP behavior, with reference to the theoretical ground of
human decision makers, acting singly or in groups.
Much of FPA is directed at links between the intentions of behavior and its consequences.
What is Foreign Policy Analysis?
“the study of the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, primarily states, in the international system.”
Studies the input (individuals and state actors), conditions (existing relations and policies) and outputs (decisions and lack
of decisions)
Distinct from internal and domestic policies.

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) is the study of how states, or the individuals that lead them
make foreign policy,
execute foreign policy, and
react to the foreign policies of other states.
It is a subfield of IR that encompasses a variety of questions and levels of analysis, and a correspondingly diverse set of
methodological approaches.
Studying IR and FPA
The academic discipline studying IR is often subdivided into 2 field:
Systemic IR, provide for a bird’s eye perspective on the international system as a whole, and
Subsystemic FPA, which looks at the placement and actions of states considered to be the most fundamental unit/primary
actor of this system.
Introduction
Foreign policy is impacted by a number of actors and structures, both domestic and international
These actors and structures act in combination all of which makes foreign policy analysis challenging
Underlying debate of FPA:
‘Structural agency debate’: Constraints of the international system vs human agency
Main problem
Scholars have tried to create some kind of analytical framework or approach to make things clearer, but fundamental
disagreements remain.
In other words…Analyzing foreign policy is complicated…
Agency-structure problem
Tendency to see either actors or structures as key to explaining particular policy choice
Thus, treat them as distinct from one another
Problem is that in real world actors and structure interact and influence one another, so can’t really look at them separately
Challenge is to find an approach that integrates impact of both actors and structure across all levels of analysis
States as Principal Actors
Social, economic, political, geographic characteristics of the system influence the actions of the actors.
States are the principal actors on the world stage.
They continue to dominate the actions and act with independence.
The FP Process
The influences and activities within a country that cause its government to decide to adopt one or another FP.
A FP of a state is usually a reaction to the pressure from the system.
Foreign Policy
A guide to actions taken beyond the boundaries of the state to further the goals of the state.
The intention is to affect the behavior of other actors.
Every state requires resources, economic goods, military capabilities, political and strategic support, and cooperation and
coordination with other actors.
Goals and Objectives of FP
FP decision making “involves the discovery of goals as much as it involves using decisions to achieve particular
outcomes.”
Some goals remain the same, while others change, especially as countries find themselves occupying new positions in the
global power structure.
FP objectives
FP objectives may be seen as a vision of a future state of affairs that policy makers aspire to bring about by influencing the
behavior of other state and non-state actors.
Objectives may
Be concrete or abstract.
Remain constant (geopolitical ones) or transitory/change
Have consequences that affect the whole state or the interests of only a small portion of society.

In sum, leaders of states seek a wide range of public, and sometimes private, objectives, some concrete, some quite
abstract, and very often in conflict.
The theoretical understanding of statesmen distinguish the types of objectives that each believes is central in the FPs of
states.
Two key questions
What are we trying to explain with our analysis?
i.e. What is the object of our analysis (the explanadum or independent variable)?
What factors do we see as responsible for explaining the thing we are trying to explain?
i.e. What are approaches and instruments that do the explaining (the explanans or dependent variable)

FPA includes scholarship that has foreign policy processes or behaviors as the explicit explanandum and domestic and
decision-making factors as the starting place for explanations.
FPA research does not, by definition, ignore external factors—much of the research in this area takes seriously the
difference between domestic policy and foreign policy.
Approaches to FP
Essentially approaches to foreign policy analysis either focus
on the decision-making process, or
on the policy itself when looking for explanatory factors
The role of actors and structures is considered in both approaches, with different perspectives placing more emphasis on
one or the other
The role of actors and structures in ‘process’ approaches to FPA
Here the focus is on decision-making; identifying what foreign policy-makers are doing.
Process-orientated analysts of foreign policy consider how certain goals arise and why certain behaviours result.
The role of the decision-making process
Focus is on the factors and processes through which foreign policy decisions, statements and behaviours are made.
The aim is to explore the process of foreign policy decision-making rather than policies themselves.

states not unitary actors

Instead states are the institutional structures within which individual decision-makers act.
So actors not seen as generic, because individuals will act differently, so the focus is on specific individuals
Levels of Analysis
In IR, we generally consider three levels of analysis at which we can analyze events and trends.
These levels help orient our questions and suggest the appropriate type of evidence to explore.
They also help us make logical deductions and enable us to explore all categories of explanation.
Levels of analysis - contd
Process focused approaches tend to favour a level of analysis framework
At its most basic there are three levels:
Individual
State
International
Impact of actors and structures are examined one level at a time
Level of Analysis - contd
In the Individual level, the personality, perceptions, choices and activities of individual decision makers and individual
participants provide explanation.
At the State level, or domestic level, the explanation is derived from characteristics of the state: the type of government,
the type of economic system, interest groups within the country, or even the national interest.
Level of Analysis - contd
In the International system level, the explanation rests with the anarchic characteristics of that system or with international
and regional organizations and their strengths and weaknesses.
The role of actors and structures in ‘policy’ approaches to FPA
The main focus is the action that is the product of the decision (i.e. the policy); distinguishing a foreign policy action from
the process that preceded it.
The focus is on policy agreements, not the behaviour of any particular entity.
These approaches vary in the degree to which they see either actors or structures as more important
Structural perspectives and foreign policy
Realism (aggressive and defensive neorealists, neoclassical realists)
Neoliberal institutionalism (regime theory)
Constructivism

These perspectives don’t exclude actors in their analysis, but instead see the structure as the key factor in explaining how
states behave
constructivism, liberalism, and realism largely divorced international politics from domestic politics and decision making.
Actor-based perspectives and FP
Cognitive and psychological approaches
Bureaucratic politics approach (Allison)
New liberalism
Interpretative actor perspective
Realism: the state, national interest and foreign policy
Effort to provide universal law-like explanations for the external behaviour of all states which it did this by linking the
concept of power to national interest.
Idea that with these “laws” in place you explain and understand the behaviour of states
Realism was the dominate approach to IR in the US during the Cold War
Realism: the state
early realists such as Morgenthau and Herz advanced political realism (and realist concepts of interests and the security
dilemma) as a theory to explain all politics.
State seen as a rational and unitary actor.
The role of separate components of government in assessing FP becomes unnecessary.
Realism: National interest
Seek to interpret state action in terms of national interest.
National interest synonymous with power.
Realism assumes:
International anarchy -> material wealth secures survival.
National interest = power.
Foreign policy = power seeking.

Scope of cooperation limited and states in competition with each other

Power – manifested as military power – central and a key determinant of a state’s ability to sustain a successful FP.
Hence, scholars need to investigate the influences of the structures of the international system and the relative power of
the states.
Classical Realism
Classical realism acknowledged that statesmen need to cultivate domestic support for legitimacy, but it also cautioned
leaders to ignore fickle publics that led them away from national interests.
More generally, early realists argued that because external threats are the primary danger to states, politics stopped at the
water's edge for the sake of state survival
The intention to find an improved methodological approach to assessing interactions between states.
Snyder, Rosenau etc accepted the key tenets of realism, such as, the centrality of the state in IR
Yet, inspired researchers to look below the nation-state level of analysis to the players involved
Behaviourism
Gained dominance in US social sciences in post WWII era at same time realism was dominating IR in US
Effort to apply scientific approach to social sciences
Idea that could use testable hypotheses to develop a empirical generalisations of political behaviour
Behaviourism & Rationalism
Study of process of FP making process rather than outcome
More focus on the decision makers and their “minds”
The method came to be known as ‘rational choice theory,’ which adhered to realism
the state a unified decision making body
The pursuit of self-interest guided all decision makers

Imperfect foreign policy outcomes caused by:

Jervis: Psychological and cognitive causes
Overwhelming information and cognitive limit of men
Inclination to select second-best policy option
Kenneth Boulding: The ‘image’ – beliefs, biases, stereotypes - held by decision makers important in shaping FP
Others: Group dynamics + constraints posed by crises
Cognitive & psychological approaches
Contrasts with realist and liberal approaches that see actors as rational
i.e. actors are open-minded and adapt to changing circumstances
Instead cognitive and psychological approaches suggest that a variety factors can get in the way, including:
Individual beliefs, personality, the way they process information & cognitive traits
Psychology constrains rationality:
Notion of the state as a unitary actor challenged by disagreements
Bureaucratic politics approach
Idea that internal negotiating and infighting results in a final decision that no person or group in the decision-making
process intended
Thus, focus of this approach is on interactions of individuals or groups inside the organisation
Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy
The role and influence of actors within the state on FP:
“conflicting outlooks and demands of foreign policy bureaucracies” (pg 6) such as the ministries, departments and
agencies
“parochial concerns over considerations of national interests” (pg 6)
Methodology:
“Organisational theory and sociology… institutional motivations and procedures”
“interplay between leaders, bureaucratic actors, orgnisational culture and, to an extent, political factors outside the
formal apparatus of the state.”
New liberalism
In contrast to neoliberalism, focus on the importance of actors rather than institutions
In particular looks at importance of societal actors rather than politically appointed actors or groups
Domestic structures and Foreign policy
The domestic and social factors of FP – 2 categories developed:
effects of natural attributes: resources, size, location, industries
effects of nature of political institutions in the state, distinguishable features of society, and channels of interaction
between state and society
Democratic Peace Theory
An illustration of how FPA used the domestic structure approach to explain foreign policy.
Society produced more peaceful FP towards other democracies
Domestic support for violence against non-democracies
Pluralism: linkage politics and foreign policy
A plurality of actors within the state, and between states, eroded primacy of state power over FP:
State, Sub-state, Non-state actors
Scope of state action: management of a diversity of forces within the domestic sphere including government, and outside
the boundaries of the state.
Putnam: ‘two-level game’ captures the challenges of complex interdependency
Studies an interplay of interests within a domestic context
Three critiques of ‘Classical’ FPA: bringing in the state, globalisation and change
FPA and the state
lack a “conception of a state… nothing more than the various actors” (pg 9)
Without a firm reference point (the state), analysis can start looking inwards from anywhere, and so FP is formulated at
random
State becomes an arena, and not an actor by itself
Putnam’s two-level game: simultaneously subjected to pressures of domestic and external realms more accurately captures
the conception of a state; but insufficient as a conception of a state
FPA and globalisation
Substantive gaps: FPA fails to theorise how globalisation changes the way people conceive of space and time differences
between people from other places; need a different social theory to capture the effect of space and time difference
FPA and change
FPA do not provide adequate explanation to why FP positions can be significantly altered – sources and conditions
Need to reflect:
Loss aversion by individuals and organisations, loss of status quo, and resistance to change
New wave of Democratisation and foreign policy changes - relationship between regime type and socio-political
changes in conjunction with broader systemic factors may be studied.