Foreign Policy Analysis: Strategic Decision Making in Global Military Affairs

By Fouad Sabry

Discover the Dynamics of Global Decision-Making with "Foreign Policy Analysis"

Unlock the World of Foreign Policy

Dive into the intricate world of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) with this comprehensive guide that bridges theory and practice. Perfect for professionals and students alike, this book provides deep insights into the processes and outcomes of foreign policy decisions, enhancing your understanding of international relations.

Why This Book is Essential for You

Gain unparalleled insights and validated knowledge on critical topics:

- Chapter 1: Introduction to Foreign Policy Analysis

- Chapter 2: Exploring Rational Choice Theory

- Chapter 3: Insights into Public Choice

- Chapter 4: Comprehensive Policy Evaluation

- Chapter 5: The Basics of International Relations

- Chapter 6: Public Policy Fundamentals

- Chapter 7: Advanced International Relations Theory

- Chapter 8: Deep Dive into Foreign Policy

- Chapter 9: Understanding Policy Dynamics

- Chapter 10: Development Communication Strategies

Answering Key Questions

This book addresses the most pressing questions about foreign policy analysis, providing clarity and depth to enhance your expertise.

Who Should Read This Book

This book is tailored for:

- Professionals seeking to deepen their understanding of foreign policy.

- Undergraduate and Graduate Students specializing in political science, international relations, or related fields.

- Enthusiasts and Hobbyists eager to go beyond basic knowledge and explore the complexities of global decision-making.

Elevate Your Knowledge and Career

Whether you're looking to validate your insights, advance your academic pursuits, or simply satisfy your curiosity, "Foreign Policy Analysis" is your definitive resource for mastering the art and science of foreign policy. Get your copy today and transform the way you understand international relations!

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 19, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Foreign policy analysis

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) is a method within the international relations subfield of political science that focuses on theory, development, and empirical investigation of the processes and results of foreign policy.

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) examines how a state formulates its foreign policy. FPA requires the study of both international and domestic politics as it investigates the decision-making process. FPA also draws on the study of diplomacy, war, intergovernmental organizations, and economic sanctions, each of which is a tool for a state to execute foreign policy. FPA is often taught under the subject of public policy within political science or political studies, as well as the study of international relations. FPA may also be regarded a subfield of international relations (IR), which seeks to comprehend the decision-making processes behind foreign policy. Richard Snyder, James Rosenau, Alexander George, Graham Allison, and Irving Janis are some of the most distinguished experts in this discipline. In other terms, FPA is a criticism of the prevalent structuralist methods in IR.

Multiple steps are involved in the formation of foreign policy:

Evaluation of the international and domestic political context - Foreign policy is formulated and conducted within an international and domestic political context, which a state must comprehend in order to decide the optimal foreign policy choice. For instance, a country can be required to react to an international catastrophe.

Setting objectives - A state has numerous foreign policy objectives. At any given moment, a state must identify which objective is influenced by the international and domestic political climate. In addition, foreign policy objectives may contradict, requiring the state to choose priorities.

Determination of policy alternatives - In light of the political climate, a state must next evaluate what policy options are available to achieve the given aim or goals. This will include an evaluation of the state's ability to execute policy alternatives and an evaluation of the outcomes of each policy option.

Formal decision making action - At some level within a government, a formal foreign policy decision will be made. Typically, decisions about foreign policy are decided by the executive branch of government. Foreign policy choices are often made by the head of state (like a president) or head of government (like a prime minister), cabinet, or ministry.

Once a foreign policy option has been selected and a formal decision has been made, the policy must subsequently be executed. Foreign policy is often carried out by specialized branches of the state bureaucracy, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the State Department. Other departments, like those for commerce, defense, and assistance, may also have a role in enacting foreign policy.

(as proposed in 1969 by Graham T. Allison. See his book Essence of Decision (1971/99) for a more exhaustive explanation.

The rational actor model is founded on the principle of rational choice. Inter-state relations (or international relations) serve as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a unified agent capable of making logical choices based on preference ranking and value maximization.

According to the rational actor model, a state uses a rational decision-making process. This method comprises:

Objective setting and ranking.

Consideration of alternatives.

Evaluation of repercussions.

Profit maximization.

In other words, it gives examples for answering the question: given this knowledge, what is the optimal course of action for achieving one's objective? The essential premise of this theory is that governments are cohesive and logical; hence, they would pursue meticulously planned and well-defined foreign policy objectives. In this respect, the rational choice model is largely a realist foreign policy analytical level. The paradigm of the rational actor has been criticized. The approach tends to disregard a variety of political factors, such as those identified by Michael Clarke as political choices, non-political decisions, bureaucratic processes, continuations of earlier policies, and pure chance. Additionally, it disregards feelings, emotional floods, selective attention, and groupthink.

In this approach, the state is not seen as a unified actor. Instead, it is a collection of competing bureaucracies clamoring for more budgets and more personnel. Individual decision makers attempt to negotiate and compete for influence in order to achieve their individual objectives. Frequently, things are regarded as a zero-sum game in which one bureaucracy's victory or increase in funds is perceived as a loss for another bureaucracy. Here, choices are made by bureaucracies fighting against one another and proposing answers to issues involving the use of their resources in order to elevate their status. In line with its pluralistic meaning, the bureaucratic politics model may also refer to internal state procedures including no institutional players whose informal channels might influence policy outcomes.

The Organizational Processes paradigm is derived from clusters of government agencies that look out for their own interests and adhere to standard operating procedures. According to this concept, many bureaucracies have distinct standard operating procedures. These processes are created so that day-to-day activities may be conducted. Frequently, an order or judgment must be made in spite of these normal processes. It is often quite challenging for a bureaucracy to operate out of character or opposed to their usual operating protocols.

Model of inter-branch politics

Self-aggrandizement paradigm - In this model, a leader serves his or her own interests. (often referred to as cognitive processes and psychological approach)

Political process model - In this model, the decision-making body is influenced by several non-governmental players, including NGOs and the media.

Multilevel and Multidimensional approach - In accordance with this model, experts examine certain facets of foreign policy formulation by using several key theories.

Social constructivist approach - In this perspective, academics emphasize the significance of ideas, speech, and identity in forming FPA.

Council on International Relations

Chatham House

American Enterprise Institute

Brookings Institution

Woodrow Wilson International Scholars Center

Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jonathan Paquin, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolkit (Palgrave, 2018).

Robert Jackson, Georg Sorensen's Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Jean A. Garrison, Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20: A Symposium, International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (March 2003), pp. 155-202.

Foreign Policy Analysis, Department of Political Science, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Missouri. http://foreignpolicyanalysis.org/

Graham T. Allison's Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis was published in 1969. American Political Science Review, Volume 63, Number 3 (September 1969), Pages 689-718

Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institution, and Ideas, by Henry Nau. 2009, CQ Press. 2nd edition

M. Clarke, ‘The Foreign Policy System: A Framework for Analysis’, in M. Clarke and B. White (eds) Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 1989), pp. 27-59.

{End Chapter 1}

Chapter 2: Rational choice theory

The term rational choice theory refers to a set of guiding principles that may be used to better comprehend the behavior of societal and economic institutions. as well as philosophy.

The fundamental assumption behind rational choice theory is that the choices that individual actors make will, taken as a whole, give rise to aggregate patterns of social behavior. Additionally, the theory presupposes that people have preferences out of the several accessible options for decision. It is believed that these preferences are both exhaustive and reversible. The ability of a person to express which of the available choices best suits them is necessary for completeness (i.e. individual prefers A over B, B over A or are indifferent to both). Alternately, transitivity refers to the situation in which a person weakly likes choice A over option B and then weakly prefers option B over option C, which ultimately leads to the realization that the individual weakly prefers option A over option C. The rational agent will next carry out their own cost-benefit analysis based on a number of different criteria in order to carry out the action that they have self-determined to be their best option.

The pursuit of one's goals in the most expedient and economical manner possible, without regard to the significance or value of those pursuits, is an example of one kind of rationality known as instrumental rationality. Duncan Snidal emphasizes that the aims are not limited to egotistical, materialistic, or self-centered concerns. They also contain objectives that are other-regarding and altruistic, in addition to goals that are normative or ideational. To illustrate this point using an illustration from Milton Friedman, a theory is considered to have been successful if it can pass the empirical test by predicting that the behavior of leaves on a tree can be explained by the rationality of the leaves.

It may be hard to scientifically evaluate or refute the rationality assumption if the individual's goals or preferences are not first expressly dictated. On the other hand, the predictions that a particular interpretation of the theory makes are testable. The most widely used interpretation of rational choice theory, the anticipated utility theory, has been called into question as a consequence of the experimental findings of behavioral economics in recent years. Economists are enhancing their theories of choice by learning from other studies, such as psychology, in order to acquire a more realistic perspective of how humans make decisions. One of these fields is psychology. For instance, in recognition of his contributions to this area of study, the behavioral economist and experimental psychologist Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002.

According to the rational choice theory, there are two possible outcomes that might result from two different decisions about human activity.

Firstly, Within the scope of all the potential and associated actions, the practicable area will be selected.

Second, after the selection of the most desired alternative, The selection of the most practical location was made taking into consideration the available financial resources, legal, social, limits, either physical or mental, that the agent is now contending with.

After that, a choice will be made based on the preference order.: 501 Individuals choose the best action according to their personal preferences and the constraints facing them.

E.g, There is nothing unreasonable or abnormal about having a preference for fish over beef for the very first time, However, there is something illogical about choosing fish over meat at one moment, and then preferring meat over fish in the next one, without their having been any further adjustments made.

The fundamental assumption behind rational choice theory is that the choices that individual actors make will, taken as a whole, give rise to aggregate patterns of social behavior. Therefore, every person makes a decision based on the limitations (or option set) they are presented with in addition to their own personal preferences.

The notion of rational choice may be interpreted in a variety of settings. At the level of the person, the theory proposes that the agent would choose the action (or consequence) that they would like experiencing the most. If the actions (or outcomes) are assessed in terms of costs and benefits, the rational person will choose the option that results in the greatest overall benefit after accounting for those costs. The pursuit of financial gain is not the only factor that may motivate rational behavior; emotions can be just as powerful a motivator.

The idea is adaptable to a wide variety of contexts apart from those that have been characterized by costs and benefits. Making decisions in a reasonable manner often means selecting, from among all of the options that are accessible, the one that the person values the most. The alternatives might either be a list of activities (what should I do?) or a list of things (what should I pick/buy). When it comes to activities, the person is most concerned with the outcomes that are brought about by the many acts that are available to them. In this context, actions are nothing more than a means to an end: the achievement of a certain goal.

The options that are accessible are often described in the form of a collection of things, such as a set of j acts that are comprehensive and exclusive:

A=\{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{i},\ldots ,a_{j}\}

For instance, a person's set of viable alternatives is comprised of the options to vote for either Roger or Sara, or to withhold their vote altogether:

A=\{{\text{Vote for Roger, Vote for Sara, Abstain}}\}

The theory is predicated on two specific assumptions on the preferences of people with regard to available options:

Completeness – for any two alternatives ai and aj in the set, either ai is preferred to aj, or aj is preferred to ai, or the individual is indifferent between ai and aj.

To put it another way, Every possible combination of options may be contrasted and compared with one another.

Transitivity – if alternative a1 is preferred to a2, and alternative a2 is preferred to a3, then a1 is preferred to a3.

Given a set of exhaustive and exclusive actions from which to choose, these two assumptions together imply that an individual is able to rank the elements of this set in terms of his preferences in an internally consistent manner (the ranking constitutes a total ordering, minus some assumptions), and that the set contains at least one maximal element.

The preference that one person has between two options may be:

Strict preference occurs when an individual prefers a1 to a2 and does not view them as equally preferred.

Weak preference implies that individual either strictly prefers a1 over a2 or is indifferent between them.

Indifference occurs when an individual neither prefers a1 to a2, nor a2 to a1.

Since the person does not decline to be compared (on the basis of completeness),, Therefore, it is necessary for them to have no opinion about this matter.

The 1980s were a fruitful decade for research that aimed to construct models that abandon these assumptions and show that such behavior may still be sensible. Anand (1993). The findings of this research, which is often carried out by economic theorists and analytical philosophers, imply, eventually, that the assumptions or axioms presented earlier are not entirely universal, and at most, they should be considered to be approximations.

The simple rational choice model implies that the person has complete or perfect knowledge about the alternatives, which means that the ranking between two options includes no uncertainty. This is because the model believes that the individual is making a reasonable decision.

Choice under Uncertainty: In a richer model that involves uncertainty about the way choices (actions) lead to eventual outcomes, the individual effectively chooses between lotteries, where each lottery induces a different probability distribution over outcomes. This allows the model to account for the fact that the individual does not know how their choices (actions) will lead to eventual outcomes. Following this, the anticipated utility theory may be derived as a result of making the extra assumption of the independence of irrelevant options.

Inter-temporal choice refers to situations in which judgments have an impact on choices (such as consumption) made at various points in time. The traditional strategy for assessing options that span several time periods includes discounting future payoffs.

Inadequate cognitive power: locating and evaluating each potential solution in relation to the others may require a significant investment of time, energy, and mental capability. Theories of constrained rationality are developed as a result of the recognition of the costs