Foreign Policy Analysis 2

FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS DECISION MAKING
M. Saeri
SOURCE: PAUL R. VIOTTI & MARK V. KAUPPI, INTERNATIONAL THEORY, REALISM, PLURALISM, GLOBALISM
Decision making theory

One of the first major attempts to develop a systematic decision making approach to the study of international politics was made in the early 1950s by Richard C. Snyder and his colleagues. Snyder: The focus of international relations research should be on the actions, reactions, and interactions of states. For him, the state is specially its decision makers, and state action is the action taken by those acting in the name of the state.
Snyder emphasizes that his analytical objective was to recreate the world as actual decision makers view in order to explain behavior. This led him to discuss: 1. Subjective factors from the standpoint of decision makers: how they define the situation 2. Potential sources of state action found in the decision makers setting. Snyder divide factors which influence foreign policy process into two general categories, that are internal setting and external setting. Snyder there fore develop a decision making framework consisting a numerous factors.
James N. Rosenau (1966): the dynamic of the processes which culminate in the external behavior of societies remain obscure. To identify factors is not to trace their influence. To uncover processes that affect external behavior is not to explain how and why they are operative under certain circumstances and not under others. To recognize that foreign policy is shaped by internal as well as external factors is not to comprehend how the two intermix or to indicate the conditions under which one predominate the other
Role of the Individual and Small group

Scholars engaged in studying decision making processes from a pluralist perspective emphasize, that entities known as states ( such as US, Canada, and others) do not make decisions; decisions are made by individuals. Similarly, a particular bureaucratic entity termed State Department or Foreign Office is composed of individuals. The study of individuals and their role in international relations or foreign policy has drawn heavily on the disciplines of psychology and social psychology. Some of the work can be termed psychohistory, has focused on how life experiences influence an individuals foreign policy behavior and orientation. Robert Jervis focuses his study on individuals and individual perceptions. He is concerned less with how emotions affect foreign policy decision making and more with how cognitive factors and a confusing international environment can result in poor decision even if individual is relatively unemotional and as intelligent as he or she can be evaluating alternatives.
Continue
Jervis take into account how the anarchic nature of international politics contributes to the confusing of environment by encouraging cognitive process that make decision making process more difficult. The tendency for individuals to strive (try) for cognitive consistency and for group to enforce (memaksa) consensus among their members is particularly evident in crisis situation characterized by high stress, surprise, exhausting (kepayahan) around the clock work schedules, and complex and ambiguous environment. As a result, there is a general erosion of cognitive capabilities. Tolerance for ambiguity is reduced, policy options are restricted, opposing actors and their motive are stereotyped (prejudice). Compared to noncrisis situation, decision are based even more on policymakers predispositions, expectations, biases, and emotional states.
Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics

Graham T. Allison: Foreign policymaking process is not conducted by state in a rational and unitary manner, but the meaning of rational and unitary ( state) are assumption as organizational process and bureaucratic politics. Allison sees that the organizational routines and procedures as determining at leas some, and influencing other, foreign policy decisions and outcome. Allison: Where a given bureaucratic actor stand (position) on a given issue is often determined by where he or she sits; ones (some one) view of alternative courses of action is highly colored by the perspective of the organization to which one belongs. Allisons bureaucratic politics model of foreign policy decision involves forming coalitions and counter coalitions among diverse bureaucratic actors in a competitive environment. The specific individuals in positions at the top of organizations and on pulling and hauling among them.
Continue
Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye (took the pluralist image) argued: That the state may not be able to confine (membatasi) these bureaucratic actors. Organizations, whether private or governmental, may well transcend the boundaries of states, forming coalitions with their foreign counterparts. Such transnational actors may even be working at cross purposes with governmental leaders in their home state who possess the formal authority to make binding decisions. Example: British Foreign Office may see a given issue similarly to its American State Department counterpart. On the other hand, the British Defense Ministry and the U.S. Defense Department may share a common view contrary to that of both diplomatic organizations. Moreover, nongovernmental interest group in both countries may also form coalitions supportive of one or another transgovernmental coalition.

Foreign Policy Analysis 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Policy Analysis 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Policy Analysis 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS DECISION MAKING

Decision making theory

Role of the Individual and Small group

Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics

You might also like