Foreign Policy Decision-Making

PO 325: International Politics

Foreign Policy Decision-Making

The major theories of IR that we discussed in the first section of the class are largely systemic (or global) and, in some cases, dyadic (interstate) In this section, we begin by focusing on explanations that seek understanding of international processes by focusing on the specific attributes and internal processes of states and leaders (domestic and individual)

Foreign Policy Decision-Making

Foreign Policies: Strategies used by governments to guide their actions in the international arena Individual and group contributions to domestic level outcomes realism and rational choice theory ignore important state-specific interests, actors, and processes Foreign Policy Process: how important actors within states arrive at and implement international policy Largely Descriptive, But Some Important Theoretical Bases and Explanations

How are FP Decisions Made?

Rationality as Applied to FP Decision-Making
Clarify Choices Order Preferences List Alternatives Explore Likely Consequences Choose Best Outcome While Mindful of Costs Cornerstone of Realist IR Theory

How are FP Decisions Made?

However, several decision-making models begin with the notion that rationality is not an accurate portrayal of reality and that, therefore, a realist notion of FP decision-making is flawed

Whats Wrong With Rationality?

1. Inapplicability of Rational Framework to Individual Decision-Making (e.g., leaders cant make rational choices) Different goals Individual Psychological Factors
Misperception/Selective Perception Subconscious Filter Affective Bias Influence of Emotion Cognitive Biases
Cognitive Balance/Dissonance Justification Wishful Thinking Mirror Image Projection

Whats Wrong With Rationality?

2. The Fallacy of the Unitary Actor Assumption (e.g., state decisions are not reflective of unified decision-making) Similar Critique as Liberalism, But more nuanced FP Shaped by internal dynamics of states and societies

Whats Wrong With Rationality?

Several Actors are Crucial to FP Decision-Making; International Outputs are the Results of their Interests, Which May Differ Bureaucracies
Diplomats disagreements with leaders Tensions amongst Bureaucratic Agencies specialization, turf wars, funding Interest Groups lobbying to influence Military-Industrial Complex Public Opinion constraint and approval generation (rally around the flag)

Whats Wrong With Rationality?

Decision Structure Affects Outcomes
Agenda Control Composition of Decision Group

Further, Group Psychological Factors Can Influence this Decentralized Decision Process Group Psychology Conditions Responses Groupthink Crisis management
Stress of Crises Leading to suboptimal decision-making

The Organizational Model

Organizational Process
Leaders rely on Standard Operating Procedure, not cost-benefit analysis Low-level officials establish (or rely on previously established) standardized procedures to set the menu of choice for high-ranking officials

The Organizational Model

Organizational Process (continued)
This means that any given international output is not contingent upon reasoned choices made by leaders when facing new situations, but largely on how new situations set into motion plans that were developed for previously foreseen situations (may not be commensurate with situation at hand) Leadership choice is therefore at the plan implementation level Example: World War I Mobilization

The Bureaucratic/Government Bargaining Model

FP decisions are the result of pushing and tugging amongst various bureaucratic agencies, and not rational decision-making by executive leaders Bureaucrats tend to see FP situations in light of how they effect the continued existence and well-being of their bureaucracies; their responses to such situations are largely colored by these considerations

The Bureaucratic/Government Bargaining Model

As such, bureaucratic outputs may reflect the desires of several bureaucracies to accrue benefits or secure relative ascendancy, not to further national interest
Budget Maximization Turf Wars over Specific Issues

From this perspective, even when a bureaucratic consensus on action emerges, leaders ultimately implement options that reflect bureaucratic biases Example: Clinton, DoD, and NATO in Bosnia

Example of a Psychological FP Explanation - Groupthink

Groupthink: The implementation of a potentially sub-optimal policy because of the individual psychological need to maintain adherence with overarching group worldview Example: The CIA, the War on Terror, and Iraq