POL WEEK4 READING Chapter Summary: Foreign Policy Analysis – Key Concepts, Sources, and Change
Enduring Question and Core Goals
Enduring question: What factors most influence states’ foreign policies, and which factors explain significant changes?
What factors most influence states’ foreign policies, and which factors explain significant changes?
The enduring question aims to dissect foreign policy to understand the factors that most influence states' foreign policies and explain significant changes over time.
The Sources of FP: Levels of Analysis Framework
Foreign policy (FP) is influenced by factors at three main levels of analysis:
Individual Level:
Actors, Beliefs, and Learning: National leaders play a disproportionately large role. Their beliefs shape threat perception and opportunity recognition.
How leaders form beliefs: Shaped by genetics, upbringing, experiences, and formative events. Experiential learning from international events; attitudes shaped by events and generations (e.g., Obama’s global perspective; Saddam Hussein’s risk-taking).
Political psychology: Leaders often act as cognitive misers, relying on heuristics (mental shortcuts) under uncertainty.
State Level:
Domestic Institutions and Society: Factors within the national government (executive, legislature, bureaucracy, agencies, NSC) and within national society (public opinion, media, interest groups).
Democracies vs. Autocracies: Democratic FP processes are more transparent, involve coalitions, and public scrutiny; leaders need domestic support. Autocracies concentrate power, allowing unilateral action but still constrained by elite groups, military, or bureaucracy.
Bureaucratic politics and interagency competition: Decisions influenced by debates, coalition formation, and agency-specific incentives (“Where you stand depends on where you sit”).
Societal actors: Public opinion and elections (often with "rally-around-the-flag" effects), news media (through "framing"), and interest groups (business, ethnic-religious, humanitarian, environmental) all shape policy.
International Level:
Geography, Wealth, and Power:
Geography: Shapes interests and strategies; proximity influences threat perceptions and alliance calculus (e.g., Israel's security concerns, Germany's regional role).
Relative Economic Development and Wealth: Wealthier economies have greater capacity to project power and different policy priorities (e.g., environmental standards).
Relative National Capabilities and Power: Demography, natural resources, literacy, and industrial capacity determine influence and coercive potential.
External system dynamics: Powerful states often feel a responsibility to contribute to international order.
Why States Change Foreign Policy: Mechanisms of Change
Significant changes in foreign policy can occur due to mechanisms interacting across the individual, state, and international levels:
Individual Level Change:
Learning: Leaders adjust interests/strategies based on past experiences (e.g., FDR’s shift toward internationalism after WWII).
Leadership Turnover: New leaders bring different beliefs, experiences, and risk appetites (e.g., Putin, Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping).
State Level Change:
Regime Change: Dramatic domestic political shifts fundamentally reframe FP interests and strategies (e.g., Germany's evolution through different regimes).
NGO Influence: Non-governmental organizations influence FP through networks, normative pressure, and advocacy, sometimes leading to policy shifts (e.g., anti-apartheid movements).
International Level Change:
External Shocks: Major international events (e.g., Pearl Harbor, invasions) can dramatically alter policy preferences and lead to new alignments and commitments.
Power Shifts: Changes in a state's relative power (e.g., economic or military) necessitate re-evaluations of interests and strategies, though "lag effects" can delay immediate policy responses.
Real-world foreign policy decisions and changes are typically a result of **cross-level interactions
Chapter aims to dissect foreign policy by breaking down into manageable parts:
Define foreign policy
Apply the levels-of-analysis framework to foreign policy sources (individual, state, international system)
Identify conditions under which states change their foreign policies
Outcome: develop a comprehensive framework to understand why governments choose certain interests and strategies, and why those choices shift over time
What is Foreign Policy? Key Concepts
Foreign policy = the actions a government takes toward other states or non-state actors to advance its interests
Core attributes of any country’s foreign policy:
Interests: the outcomes in the international environment that leaders want to exist, often requiring costs or trade-offs to achieve
Strategies: the combination of objectives (what governments want to achieve) and instruments (how they attempt to reach those objectives)
Interests and strategies are subject to constraints and trade-offs (gap between aspirations and capacity)
Example: U.S. interest in extending democracy and human rights to China vs. necessity of cooperation with the current Chinese government to address climate change, global economy, Iran, North Korea, etc.
Box 4.1 (Making Connections): Aspiration vs Reality illustrates this clash between ideals and practical cooperation
Hillary Clinton quotes (Dec 2009 and Feb 2009) emphasize that human rights and democracy goals can be pursued alongside climate, economy, and security interests; progress can be made through dialogue rather than coercion or isolation
Foreign Policy versus International Relations (FP vs IR)
FP analysts focus on why a specific government chooses particular foreign policy interests and strategies toward foreign actors
IR scholars focus on inter-state dynamics, cooperation vs. conflict, and the broader context in which states interact
Kyoto Protocol example to illustrate differences:
IR question: what international dynamics led to the protocol (powerful vs. weak states, scientific community/NGOs advocacy, etc.)?
FP question: why did the United States sign but not ratify the protocol? why did China and India agree to sign and ratify? (domestic decisions, strategic calculations, etc.)
Mutual appreciation: both sides are essential to understanding international affairs; inter-state dynamics have roots in the targeted foreign policies of individual countries
Study Objectives (Overview of Learning Outcomes)
Compare international relations with foreign policy analysis; recognize the need to understand both
Identify two core FP attributes: interests and strategies
Analyze the range of policy instruments in FP
Apply the levels-of-analysis framework to FP sources
Identify conditions under which FP changes occur
Chapter Contents (Snapshot)
FP Analysis: Connections to IR and core concepts
The Sources of FP
How and Why States Change FP
Revisiting the Enduring Question and Looking Ahead
Study Questions
Further Reading
The FP–IR Connection and Core Concepts
IR studies focus on interactions among states and conditions for peace or conflict
FP analyzes why a particular government acts toward other actors, what interests it considers important, and what strategy it crafts
Interplay example: Kyoto Protocol demonstrates the need to consider both international dynamics and a country’s domestic decisions
Foreign Policy Interests and Strategy in Depth
Foreign Policy Interest
An interest is a situation in the world that leaders want to exist and are willing to pay costs to realize
Aspirations vs. capacity gap and potential trade-offs between different interests
Example: U.S. interest in extending democracy and human rights to China versus the need to cooperate with the Chinese government to stabilize the global economy, address climate change, and manage security issues (Iran, North Korea)
Foreign Policy Strategy
Strategy = the specification by leaders of objectives (outcomes that advance an interest) and instruments (the concrete measures to reach those objectives)
Distinguish instruments by purpose: persuasion versus coercion
Instruments of Persuasion
Diplomacy: process of representatives from two or more governments meeting to discuss common concerns; aim to persuade and find mutually agreeable solutions or joint action; actors include ambassadors, ministers, or heads of state
Economic Incentives (Carrots): economic gains promised/delivered to another state in return for desired behavior (examples: post-WWII German reunification aid; EU conditions for Greece, Ireland, Portugal reforms)
Economic Sanctions (Sticks): aims to coerce a target state by imposing tariffs, quotas, boycotts, or freezing assets; can be used to pressure a change in policy (Iran oil embargoes 2011–12; sanctions tied to nuclear negotiations)
Coercive Diplomacy and Coercive Tools: aggressive actions short of full-scale war to convince a state to rethink behavior (e.g., moving a carrier near shores, deterrence signaling)
Covert Operations and Propaganda
Covert operations: activities against the interests of another government or non-state actor conducted to keep the initiator’s involvement hidden
Examples: Osama bin Laden operation (May 2011) with limited Pakistan involvement disclosure; covert actions against Iran to impair its nuclear program; alleged Israeli covert actions against Iranian scientists
Propaganda: selective or misleading information used to shape perceptions and mobilize or demoralize populations; historical examples include Nazi propaganda, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, Cold War use, and North Korea’s ongoing propaganda machine
Coercive Diplomacy and Military Force
Coercive diplomacy can escalate to military action; Clausewitz’s idea that war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means is cited
Military force as a formal instrument of policy (e.g., 1990–1991 Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq campaigns)
The Sources of FP: Levels of Analysis Framework
The three classic models (Allison & Zelikow) for Cuban Missile Crisis illustrate levels of analysis:
Cohesive nation-state model (international level)
Government department model (state level)
Political bargaining model (individual level)
Limitations: these models don’t fully account for domestic societal dynamics (interest groups, public opinion) or personal histories of decision-makers
The framework used here extends to three levels with emphasis on cross-level interactions
Individual Level of Analysis: Actors, Beliefs, and Learning
National leaders play a disproportionately large role in defining FP; beliefs shape threat perception and opportunity recognition
How leaders form beliefs:
Personalities shaped by genetics, upbringing, experiences, and formative events
Experiential learning from international events; attitudes shaped by events and generations (e.g., Obama’s global perspective; Saddam Hussein’s risk-taking)
Political psychology: leaders as cognitive misers who rely on heuristics under uncertainty; may use mental shortcuts to simplify complex decisions
Examples and implications:
President George H.W. Bush’s decisions in 1990–91 may have been influenced by past experiences (Munich, Vietnam) and a desire to avoid long, costly wars
India-Pakistan rivalries and distrust can be linked to repeated conflicts and worst-motive assumptions (Leng) that influence foreign policy decisions
State Level of Analysis: Domestic Institutions and Society
Two broad categories:
Within the national government (executive, legislature, bureaucracy, agencies, NSC, etc.)
Within national society (public opinion, media, interest groups)
Democracies vs. Autocracies:
Democratic FP processes tend to be more transparent and involve coalitions and public scrutiny; leaders must mobilize domestic support and often seek international coalitions
Autocracies concentrate power; leaders can act unilaterally but may still be constrained by elite groups or military and bureaucracy dynamics
Bureaucratic politics and interagency competition
Leaders and subordinates debate, form coalitions, and influence each other; the phrase “Where you stand depends on where you sit” captures agency-specific incentives
Key national institutions (examples):
United States: executive branch (State, Defense, CIA, JCS, Commerce, Treasury), with the National Security Council and National Security Advisor coordinating policy; Congress can ratify treaties and authorize actions (e.g., Senate’s two-thirds requirement for treaties, past cases like Versailles and CTBT)
China: centralized power in the Politburo Standing Committee; factions (reformers vs. conservatives; generalists vs. technocrats; princelings vs. taunpai); leadership transitions (e.g., 2012 Xi Jinping consolidation of power; Xi’s princeling background suggests favored relations with the West and economic liberalization with controlled political openness)
Societal actors:
Public opinion and elections shape foreign policy (evidence of rally-around-the-flag effects, electoral incentives to address foreign-policy issues)
The news media and framing influence public opinions and leaders’ policy latitude; framing can alter perceived costs/benefits of actions
Interest groups (business, ethnic-religious, humanitarian, environmental) lobby and influence policy; effects can be direct (lobbying) or indirect (public opinion shifts)
Examples and implications:
Democratic constraint examples: Britain’s Parliament voting against Syria intervention; U.S. Congress’ veto power and its impact on policy temporality
Public opinion effects: rally-around-the-flag boosts in leadership popularity after strikes or crises; public opinion can shift with casualties and perceived progress in hostilities
Media framing example: Kosovo-Serbia NATO intervention framed with humanitarian risk vs. military risk framing influenced public support
International Level of Analysis: Geography, Wealth, and Power
Geography shapes interests and strategies; neighborhood and proximity influence threat perceptions and alliance calculus
Israel’s policy shaped by regional proximity and constant security concerns
India’s policy oriented around threats from China and Pakistan; Germany’s central location influences its diplomacy and regional security roles
Relative Economic Development and Wealth
Wealthier economies have more capacity to project power; level of development shapes priorities (e.g., environmental standards in Europe vs. policymakers in developing economies like China and India prioritizing growth and competitiveness)
Relative National Capabilities and Power
Capabilities determine influence, coercive potential, and ability to resist external pressures
Demography, natural resources, literacy, and industrial capacity all contribute to power position
External system dynamics and responsibility to international order
Powerful states often feel a responsibility to contribute to international order (e.g., postwar U.S. leadership) when there is no overarching world government
Lag effects and the shift in power positions
Power changes do not always produce immediate policy shifts; leadership and policy inertia can create lags
Why States Change Foreign Policy: Mechanisms of Change
Overview: Change can occur at the individual, state, or international level; multiple mechanisms interact across levels
Individual Level Change: Learning and Leadership Turnover
Learning: leaders learn from past experiences and adjust interests/strategies accordingly; e.g., shifts from neutrality to internationalism after WWII due to lessons from Great Depression and WWII
Leadership turnover: new leaders bring different beliefs, experiences, and risk appetites; Putin, Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping illustrate leadership-driven shifts
Examples:
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s learning from Wilson’s failures to engage in international institutions; move toward collective security and engagement
Gorbachev’s “new thinking” moving away from Cold War rigidity toward cooperation with the West
Deng Xiaoping’s shift from ideological purity to pragmatic economic engagement with capitalist states
Conditions for successful learning are mixed; not all lessons yield desired policy outcomes; history shows that learning is a necessary but not sufficient condition for policy success
State Level Change: Regime Change and NGO Influence
Dramatic domestic political regime changes can reframe FP interests and strategies (e.g., Germany’s postwar evolution from Kaiser era to Weimar to Nazi regime to postwar Federal Republic; contrasts highlight how domestic organization shapes foreign policy)
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can influence FP via networks, normative pressure, and issue-specific advocacy (e.g., human rights groups, environmental NGOs)
South Africa case: sanctions and divestment movements eventually contributed to a shift away from apartheid; three analytical traditions offer different explanations: Realism, Constructivism, and Marxism
Realism emphasizes national interests and strategic calculations (sanctions tied to geopolitical concerns)
Constructivism emphasizes norms and moral arguments (anti-apartheid international norm activism)
Marxism emphasizes the role of private economic actors and divestment pressures on policy shifts
NGO influence mechanisms include advocacy networks, framing, and mobilization of international opinion; NGOs can push states to adopt humanitarian or environmental policies even when these run counter to short-term economic or security interests
International Level Change: External Shocks and Power Shifts
External shocks (e.g., Pearl Harbor, major invasions) can jolt policy preferences and move states toward new alignments and commitments
Changes in relative power can cause re-evaluations of interests and strategies; lag effects can delay FP shifts even after power positions have shifted (e.g., U.S. prominence post-WWII; later power transitions in the global system)
External shocks and power dynamics can lead states to reconsider international responsibilities and order maintenance roles
Revisiting the Enduring Question and Looking Ahead
FP change is driven by an interaction of levels of analysis: individuals, domestic state dynamics, and international system conditions
Theories converge and diverge across realism, liberalism, constructivism, and other frameworks in explaining why FP changes occur; the chapter encourages students to learn multiple perspectives and apply them to contemporary cases
Boxed Concepts and Terms to Know
Rally ’round the flag effect: surge in leader popularity during external conflicts or wars
Framing: media’s selective presentation of issues to shape public opinions and leaders’ policy latitude
Bureaucratic politics: FP decision-making influenced by interagency competition and professional incentives
Diplomatic instruments: persuasion (diplomacy) vs. coercion (sanctions, coercive diplomacy, force)
Covert operations and propaganda: non-public actions and information campaigns used to influence foreign outcomes
Isolationism vs. Internationalism: shift between retreat from international engagement and active involvement in international institutions and orders
Putting It All Together: How to Use the Levels of Analysis
Individual level: leader beliefs, personality, past experiences, cognitive biases
State level: domestic political institutions, political culture, public opinion, interest groups, bureaucratic politics
International level: geography, development level, power position, regional dynamics, global systemic pressures
Change can be traced to: learning, leadership turnover, regime change, NGO influence, external shocks, and shifts in relative power
Real-world interpretation requires considering cross-level interactions rather than a single-factor explanation
Application and Practice Notes
When analyzing a current FP decision, ask:
What are the top interests driving the government’s position?
What instruments are being deployed or contemplated, and why?
Which level(s) of analysis best explain the policymakers’ choices?
What potential changes could alter interests or strategies in the near term (leadership changes, elections, economic shocks, technological changes, regional dynamics)?
Recognize strategic trade-offs: pursuing one interest may constrain others; coalitions, domestic politics, and international pressures all shape feasible options
Study Questions (Key Reflections)
Is it possible to formulate a coherent strategy in a complex government, or are policies primarily the result of bureaucratic/institutional bargaining?
How has geography shaped the United States, Japan, or France’s FP, and has this influence persisted?
Do domestic political institutions influence perceived national interests and FP instruments?
Are leaders generally good learners in FP? What conditions improve or impede learning?
How influential are NGOs in shaping FP across different countries and issues? Is their influence excessive, adequate, or insufficient?
Further Reading (Selected References)
Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd ed.)
Kang, David (2009) China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia
Kapstein & Mastanduno (eds) (1999) Unipolar Politics: Realism and State Strategies after the Cold War
Legro, Jeffrey W. (2007) Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order
Narizny, Kevin (2007) The Political Economy of Grand Strategy
Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activist Networks and FP influence
Mearsheimer (various works) and Waltz (1979) on those who emphasize power and structure in FP
Frieden (2006) on domestic economic beliefs and policy shifts
Johnson and Johnston (various) on leadership and policy change
Notes and Reminders
FP analysis requires careful attention to both the international context and domestic drivers
The interactive nature of interests and strategies means FP is dynamic and path-dependent
The study of FP is essential for understanding contemporary international relations and for anticipating future policy shifts
SUMMARY
Foreign policy (FP) is defined as the actions a government takes toward other states or non-state actors to advance its interests, which involve desired international outcomes and the strategies (objectives and instruments) used to achieve them. FP analysis differs from International Relations (IR) by focusing on specific government choices rather than broader inter-state dynamics, though both are interconnected.
The primary factors influencing FP are categorized by three levels of analysis:
Individual Level: Leaders' beliefs, personal experiences, and cognitive processes (e.g., heuristics) significantly shape threat perception and opportunity recognition.
State Level: Domestic institutions (like government branches, bureaucracy, and the distinction between democracies and autocracies) and societal actors (public opinion, media framing, and interest groups) play a crucial role.
International Level: Factors such as a state's geography, relative economic development and wealth, national capabilities, and its position within external system dynamics all influence its interests and strategies. e.g 9/11
The events of September 11, 2001, marked a significant turning point in U.S. foreign policy, highlighting the impact of terrorism on national security strategies and leading to shifts in military engagements globally.
Changes in foreign policy are driven by mechanisms interacting across these levels:
Individual Level Change: Occurs through leaders' learning from past experiences or significant leadership turnover bringing new perspectives.
State Level Change: Results from dramatic regime changes or the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through advocacy and normative pressure.
International Level Change: Triggered by external shocks (major international events) or shifts in a state's relative power (economic or military), although policy responses may have lag effects.
Ultimately, real-world foreign policy decisions and changes are complex and typically arise from cross-level interactions among these various factors.
public and foreign policy
Foreign Policy (FP) refers to the actions a government takes toward other states or non-state actors to advance its interests in the international environment. This involves setting objectives (what governments want to achieve) and selecting instruments (how they attempt to reach those objectives), often involving trade-offs and constraints.
Public Policy, in contrast, refers to the actions and decisions a government makes within its own country to address domestic issues and improve the welfare of its citizens. This includes areas such as healthcare, education, taxation, infrastructure, and environmental regulations.
advantages and disadvantages of the power differences between the president and the other members parliament and
examples in south Africa
In the context of public policy, the power differences between the president and other members of parliament, particularly in a parliamentary or hybrid system like South Africa's, can present both advantages and disadvantages. South Africa operates under a parliamentary republic system, where the President is both head of state and head of government and is elected by the National Assembly (parliament), not directly by the populace. This intertwines their power.### Advantages of Presidential Power:1. **Strong Leadership and Decisive Action**: A president with significant power can provide clear direction and make swift decisions, especially crucial during crises. This can lead to more coherent public policy implementation as there is a singular vision.2. **Accountability**: In a well-structured system, the president is seen as the primary face of the government and is directly accountable for policy successes or failures, which can streamline voter judgment.3. **Stability**: A powerful president, especially when backed by a strong party majority in parliament, can ensure policy stability and prevent legislative gridlock, allowing for long-term public policy initiatives to take root. For example, President Cyril Ramaphosa, with the ANC's majority, can drive national development plans like the National Health Insurance (NHI) without constant opposition from within his own party in parliament, though parliamentary debates still occur.4. **National Vision**: The president, as the national leader, can articulate and pursue a unified national vision for public policy, theoretically rising above narrow regional or factional interests that might dominate parliamentary debates.### Disadvantages of Presidential Power:1. **Risk of Autocracy/Abuse of Power**: Concentrated power in the presidency can lead to authoritarian tendencies, especially if checks and balances are weak. This can result in policies that serve the president's agenda rather than broader public interest. In South Africa, concerns have been raised historically about the 'imperial presidency' and the executive's influence over state-owned enterprises, impacting public policy and service delivery.2. **Limited Parliamentary Oversight**: If the president's party commands a large majority, parliamentary oversight can be weakened, reducing its ability to scrutinize and amend public policies effectively. This can lead to the rubber-stamping of executive decisions and a lack of robust debate on critical public policy issues.3. **Policy Inflexibility**: A powerful president, especially one with a strong mandate, might be resistant to amending public policies even when faced with new evidence or public disapproval, leading to less responsive governance.4. **Factionalism and Internal Party Struggles**: In systems where the president is chosen by parliament (as in South Africa), intense internal party struggles for the presidency can sometimes overshadow the focus on effective public policy making and governance, as seen in the lead-up to and aftermath of Jacob Zuma's presidency. The recall of former President Thabo Mbeki by his party (ANC) also illustrates the power dynamics within the ruling party that can impact a president's tenure and policy direction.5. **Lack of Diverse Representation**: A strong presidency might centralize decision-making, potentially sidelining the diverse voices and regional concerns that members of parliament often represent, leading to public policies that may not adequately address local needs.Overall, the optimal balance of power between the president and parliament is crucial for effective public policy, ensuring both decisive leadership and robust democratic oversight.
Differences and Links to Politics
Differences:
Scope: Foreign policy is outward-looking, focusing on international actors and global issues, while public policy is inward-looking, addressing domestic matters within a state's borders.
Actors: Foreign policy primarily involves interactions with other states, international organizations, and non-state actors abroad. Public policy primarily involves governing bodies, citizens, and domestic interest groups within the country.
Instruments: Foreign policy utilizes instruments like diplomacy, economic incentives (carrots), economic sanctions (sticks), coercive diplomacy, covert operations, propaganda, and military force. Public policy employs legislative actions, regulations, public programs, and resource allocation to achieve its goals.
Links to Politics:
Both foreign policy and public policy are deeply intertwined with politics:
Decision-Making: Both types of policy are outcomes of political processes, involving debates, negotiations, and coalition formation among leaders, political parties, and bureaucracies. Leaders' beliefs, experiences, and political psychology (e.g., relying on heuristics) play a significant role.
Domestic Influence: Political systems (democracies vs. autocracies) profoundly shape both. In democracies, public opinion, elections, media framing, and interest groups heavily influence both public and foreign policy. Leaders require domestic support for their policy initiatives, and societal actors can lobby and advocate for specific policy directions. For instance, public opinion effects like the "rally-around-the-flag" can boost support for foreign policy actions.
Bureaucratic Politics: Within government, bureaucratic politics and interagency competition mean that decisions are influenced by the specific incentives and perspectives of various departments and agencies ("Where you stand depends on where you sit"). This internal political dynamic affects how both domestic programs are designed and how foreign objectives are pursued.
Regime Type: The nature of the political regime dictates the concentration of power and the degree of transparency. Democratic FP and public policy processes are generally more transparent and require broader consensus, while autocracies concentrate power, allowing for more unilateral action, though still constrained by elite groups or the military.