International Relations Theorymono.eik.bme.hu/~gyorgy/IR_files/NPE_11_Foreign_Policy... · 2010-11-22 · Foreign Policy Analysis 1 The good old scheme: IR values and theories FOCUS

International Relations Theory

Nemzetközi Politikaelmélet A külpolitikai elemzés folyamata.György László

egyetemi tanársegédBME GTK, Pénzügyek Tanszék, Gazdaságpolitika és Gazdaságtörténet Szakcsoport

The Concept of Foreign Policy

• Goals, strategies, methods... etc. of foreign policy• Influence the goals and activities of others• Sovereign actors (different from domestic politics)

• Key actors: ...• Foreign policy analysis is to support them

• Instrumental activity• Knowing our goals and the goals of others• Using the IR theories

Foreign Policy Analysis 1The good old scheme: IR values and theories

FOCUS

Security (‘security dilemma’, national security)power politics, conflict and warFreedomcooperation, peace and progress

Order and justiceshared interests, rules and institutions

Welfarewealth, poverty and equality, management of domestic and international economy

THEORIES

Realism

Liberalism

International Society

IPE theories (structuralism)

Foreign Policy Analysis 2Various approaches

Approaches to foreign-policy analysis

Traditional approach Focus on decision-maker

Comparative foreign policy Behaviouralism and pre-theory

Bureaucratic structures and processes

Decision-making during crisis

Cognitive processes and psychology

Focusing on cognitive abilities of decision-makers

“Multilevel, multudimensional” The general theories

The constructivist turn Identities before interests

Rosenau’s ‘pre-theory’

• Ordering and ranking variables• Idiosyncratic• Role• Governmental• Societal• Systemic

• Situative• Issue itself• Sate (size, political accountability/level of democracy,

level of development)

Bureaucratic structures and processes• Organizational context of decision-making• Graham Allison: Essence of Decision (1971)

• RAM• Organizational processes: decisions according to

standard operating procedures• Bureaucratic politics model: bargaining and competing

for influence

Cognitive processes and psychology• Focus on decision-makers’ cognitive abilities (perception)• Robert Jervis on misperception

• actors see what they want to see• pre-existing beliefs• wishful thinking

• Margaret Herman• Studying 54 politicians charateristics• experience• style• political socialization• world view

Multilevel, Multidimensional

• Realism lost its dominance• Strategic realism• Liberalism• International Society• Neomarxism

Foreign Policy Analysis 2Various approaches

Approaches to foreign-policy analysis

Traditional approach Focus on decision-maker

Comparative foreign policy Behaviouralism and pre-theory

Bureaucratic structures and processes

Decision-making during crisis

Cognitive processes and psychology

Focusing on cognitive abilities of decision-makers

“Multilevel, multudimensional” The general theories

The constructivist turn Identities before interests (ideas, discourse)

A Level-of-Analysis ApproachKenneth Waltz (1959)

1. Systemic level (distribution of power, interdependence)

2. Nation-state level (type of gov., relations between gov. and society, bureaucratic make-up of the state

3. Level of the individual decision-maker (way of thinking, beliefs, priorities)

Systemic level

REALISM LIBERALISM CONSTRUCTIVISM

Main theoretical proposition

Main instruments policy

Post-Cold War prediction

Anarchy. States compete for power and security

States want progress and prosperityCommitment to liberal values

Collective norms and social identities shape behaviour

Military and economic power

Institutions, liberal values, networks of independence

Ideas and discourse

Resurgence of great-power competition

Increased cooperation as liberal values spread

Agnostic: depends on content of ideas

Systemic level

• Realism is more powerful when IS variables are tightly constraining

• But even if realism works...• ... which?• Defensive or Offensive

• What does matter?• Relative power or the perception of relative power

The Level of the Nation State

• Two important dimensions• State-society relations• Decision making within the state apparatus

The Level of the Nation StateState-society realtions

Realist view Liberal view

Sate dominates foreign policy Society (groups, individuals) is an important factor (socilogical and interdependence liberalism)Zakaria: state power is that portion

of national power the government can extract for its purposes

Democracies are more peaceful (republican liberalism) But why?

But why?

Realists: democratic change can threaten international stability

Republican liberals: because citizens are peace loving

Authoritarian regimes are more powerful in extracting nation power

Moravcsik: foreign policy reflects the preferences of different groups and individuals in the society

• RAM (rational actor model) or if rationality is not working then

• Bureaucratic approach or ‘Groupthink’ approach

The Level of the Nation StateDecision-making process within the apparatus

The Level of the Nation StateDecision-making process within the apparatusBureaucratic approach (Allison and Zelikow) Groupthink (Janis)

Survival, agency interest Illusion of invulnerability

Competition for positions (struggle for expansion and growth,“imperialism”)

Belief in inherent morality of the group

Intra-agency bureaucratic culture Collective rationalization

Asymmetrical power distribution between professional bureaucrats and elected officials

Out-group stereotypes

Bargaining, accommodation, compromise Self-censorship

Proposals for change are driven by political considerations

Illusion of unanimity

Questions concerning control, accountability and responsibility...

Direct pressure on dissenters

Self-appointed “mindguards”

• Examples for groupthink failures• Pearl Harbor• Bay of Pigs invasion• Vietnam War

• And success• Marshall Plan• Cuban missile crisis

The Level of the Nation StateDecision-making process within the apparatus

• (Holsti, 2004): ‘Cognitive constraints on rationality include limits on the individual’s capacity to • receive, process, and assimilate information about the

situation’ • identify the entire set of policy alternatives

• fragmentary knowledge on the consequences• inability to order preferences on a single utility scale

The Level of the Individual Decision-Maker

• (Alexander George, 1980)• Cognitive abilities...• Pro: Help us to organize and make sense of what

would otherwise be confusing and overwhelming• Contra: beliefs and constructs simplify and structure

the external world

The Level of the Individual Decision-Maker

• (Jerel Rosati, 2000): the effects of human cognition and policymaker beliefs on foreign policy1. Trough the content of policymaker beliefs

(John Foster Dulles, Averell Harriman, Robert McNamara)2. Trough the organization and structure of policymaker beliefs

Coherent and comprehensive belief systems (Brzezinski) vs.

Fragmented and sketchy belief systems leading to ‘uncommitted thinking (Carter)

3. Through common patterns of perception (or misperception)John Foster Dulles on the Soviets, American decision-makers on the Vietnam War

4. Through cognitive rigidity (and flexibility) for change and learningRigid belief system: Henry KissingerHistoric turning points in the belief system of American policy makers: Pearl Harbor, Vietnam War

The Level of the Individual Decision-Maker

• Steve A. Yetiv (2004): Why did America choose to go to war in the Persian Gulf?• Facts:

• 02.08.1990: Iraq invades Kuvait, 4 days later makes Kuvait its 19 province

• UN resolutions condemn the invasion and demand Iraq’s withdrawal• 5 months of negotiations• 16.01.1991: US led war against Iraq, 5 weeks later cease fire

Going to War in the Persian GulfCase Study

• Steve A. Yetiv (2004): Why did America choose to go to war in the Persian Gulf?• Approaches:

Going to War in the Persian GulfCase Study

Systemic level: RAM and realist assumptions

Nation state level: groupthink model

Decision maker level: cognitive approach

Going to War in the Persian GulfCase Study

Nation state level: groupthink model

Group of four Group of eight

George H. W. Bush Dan Quayle

Brent Scowcroft John H. Sununu

James Baker Dick Cheney

Robert Gates Colin Powell

Experts and ‘Think Tanks’

• Think tanks: disseminate useful information and provide xpert advice on international issues and problems

• Experts: in the US linked rather to private organizations like think tanks and not to university departments or government bureaus. Some of them are public intellectuals.

Fareed Zakaria Thomas Friedman Samantha Power

‘Think Tanks’

• 1910: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• 1919: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace

• 1921: Council on Foreign Relations1920: Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)

• More than 2000 institutions in the US alone

The Rand Corporation

E.g. Rand: to destroy Al Qaeda, the US must end the war on terror.

Most Important International Institutions?