WEEK ONE:
FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS:
APPROACHES IN FPA:
- 1. Levels of analysis
- 2. Theoretical frameworks
FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS AS A SUBFIELD IN I.R.:
Foreign policy analysis is a sub-field in I.R. and therefore, reflects intellectual traditions and
trends of IR.
- See this: the same frameworks that dominate IR, dominate FPA as well.
- Also, similar debates and issues concerning epistemology, methodology, and the roles
of values.
- One can also class these approaches in terms of IR’s major perspectives:
o Realism
o Liberal-pluralism
o Critical perspective.
ONE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO:
- Prevailing levels of analysis
- IR is state-centric and focuses on state-level of systemic explanations
- FDA encompasses analysis at these levels:
o Micro (individual)
o Meso (domestic context) Over the term, we look at
each of these levels in depth.
o Macro (systemic)
However, in the meantime, here is a brief summary of these levels of analysis…
,MICRO:
- Looks at the role of the individual leadership in foreign policy
- Analyses the psychology, cognition, and personality of the leader
o These are the variables in the analysis.
- Known as the study of foreign policy decision-making (FPDM)
o Explains the process of decision-making according to the attributes of the
leader
o can also help predict what the leader will decide for a certain policy.
MESO:
- looks at the domestic context and determinants of foreign policy.
o “What happens within the state at a domestic level?”
- E.g.:
o The role of domestic policies or public opinion
o Role of domestic interest groups
▪ Do these groups play a role in FPA (such as COSATU)
o Role of bureaucracies in foreign decision making
o Also, look at democracies and the government ministers (and their decisions)
MESO:
- Looks at how foreign policies are shaped by systemic factors
- Explains foreign policy as an outcome of:
o Power state distribution in international systems
o State attributes
o State (national) interests
The question of agency and structure is different depending on the level of analysis.
,In chronological terms, FPA was first dominated by insights of realism and neo-realism
(i.e., macro-perspectives).
- IR has some classical perspectives which were an invention of the 20th century.
- Especially shaped by:
o Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations)
o Waltz (Man, the State and War)
o Kissinger (American Foreign Policy)
▪ Through them we see the emergence of IR and FPA and thus, we can
see why realism is the dominant viewpoint and perspective.
REALISM: - power politics
- Foreign politics is determined by 2 factors:
o 1. Maintaining the balance of power (especially seen in the Cold War and
MAD)
▪ “don’t hurt what you can’t kill”
▪ Seek alliances to maintain power.
o 2. Always serve the national interest first
▪ Ideology is important, but so is pragmatism.
NEO-LIBERALISM:
- Power rivalries is a function of the national and international system
o = anarchy (no dominant power)
- Therefore, foreign politics should accommodate relative distributions of power in the
world.
o States maximize their power vis-à-vis other states
▪ Foreign politics should reflect this.
“BILLARD BALL” VIEW OF POLITICS:
FP can result in state actors deliberating how
State A they can maximize gains and minimize cost =
Contex utility maximization.
State C
Contex Realism: real-sum game
State B Liberalism: positive-sum game
Contex
, ARGUMENTS AGAINST REALISM:
Later on, schools began to criticise assumptions and claims of realism
From the view of FP, these were the arguments that were made:
1. The behaviourist application does not give satisfactory explanations
- Behaviourism focuses on measurable and observable things
o = Foreign policy is the output (acts or decisions).
▪ However, this does give a full explanation of what is happening
in the world.
- Hence the question, what about the things that are not accounted for?
o Intangibles in foreign policy decision-making
▪ E.g., the role of the leader’s personality or psych.
- Also important to study the process, and not merely the output of foreign
policy decisions.
2. Critique of rationality/rational actor model
- Who’s to say that states are rational actors driven by utilitarian (cost-benefit)
considerations?
3. It’s important to unpack the black box of foreign policy decision-making:
- Bureaucracies and ministries of foreign politics
- Executive vs. legislative vs. judicial authority
- Interest groups, public opinion, media
- Psychological and cognition
FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS:
APPROACHES IN FPA:
- 1. Levels of analysis
- 2. Theoretical frameworks
FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS AS A SUBFIELD IN I.R.:
Foreign policy analysis is a sub-field in I.R. and therefore, reflects intellectual traditions and
trends of IR.
- See this: the same frameworks that dominate IR, dominate FPA as well.
- Also, similar debates and issues concerning epistemology, methodology, and the roles
of values.
- One can also class these approaches in terms of IR’s major perspectives:
o Realism
o Liberal-pluralism
o Critical perspective.
ONE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO:
- Prevailing levels of analysis
- IR is state-centric and focuses on state-level of systemic explanations
- FDA encompasses analysis at these levels:
o Micro (individual)
o Meso (domestic context) Over the term, we look at
each of these levels in depth.
o Macro (systemic)
However, in the meantime, here is a brief summary of these levels of analysis…
,MICRO:
- Looks at the role of the individual leadership in foreign policy
- Analyses the psychology, cognition, and personality of the leader
o These are the variables in the analysis.
- Known as the study of foreign policy decision-making (FPDM)
o Explains the process of decision-making according to the attributes of the
leader
o can also help predict what the leader will decide for a certain policy.
MESO:
- looks at the domestic context and determinants of foreign policy.
o “What happens within the state at a domestic level?”
- E.g.:
o The role of domestic policies or public opinion
o Role of domestic interest groups
▪ Do these groups play a role in FPA (such as COSATU)
o Role of bureaucracies in foreign decision making
o Also, look at democracies and the government ministers (and their decisions)
MESO:
- Looks at how foreign policies are shaped by systemic factors
- Explains foreign policy as an outcome of:
o Power state distribution in international systems
o State attributes
o State (national) interests
The question of agency and structure is different depending on the level of analysis.
,In chronological terms, FPA was first dominated by insights of realism and neo-realism
(i.e., macro-perspectives).
- IR has some classical perspectives which were an invention of the 20th century.
- Especially shaped by:
o Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations)
o Waltz (Man, the State and War)
o Kissinger (American Foreign Policy)
▪ Through them we see the emergence of IR and FPA and thus, we can
see why realism is the dominant viewpoint and perspective.
REALISM: - power politics
- Foreign politics is determined by 2 factors:
o 1. Maintaining the balance of power (especially seen in the Cold War and
MAD)
▪ “don’t hurt what you can’t kill”
▪ Seek alliances to maintain power.
o 2. Always serve the national interest first
▪ Ideology is important, but so is pragmatism.
NEO-LIBERALISM:
- Power rivalries is a function of the national and international system
o = anarchy (no dominant power)
- Therefore, foreign politics should accommodate relative distributions of power in the
world.
o States maximize their power vis-à-vis other states
▪ Foreign politics should reflect this.
“BILLARD BALL” VIEW OF POLITICS:
FP can result in state actors deliberating how
State A they can maximize gains and minimize cost =
Contex utility maximization.
State C
Contex Realism: real-sum game
State B Liberalism: positive-sum game
Contex
, ARGUMENTS AGAINST REALISM:
Later on, schools began to criticise assumptions and claims of realism
From the view of FP, these were the arguments that were made:
1. The behaviourist application does not give satisfactory explanations
- Behaviourism focuses on measurable and observable things
o = Foreign policy is the output (acts or decisions).
▪ However, this does give a full explanation of what is happening
in the world.
- Hence the question, what about the things that are not accounted for?
o Intangibles in foreign policy decision-making
▪ E.g., the role of the leader’s personality or psych.
- Also important to study the process, and not merely the output of foreign
policy decisions.
2. Critique of rationality/rational actor model
- Who’s to say that states are rational actors driven by utilitarian (cost-benefit)
considerations?
3. It’s important to unpack the black box of foreign policy decision-making:
- Bureaucracies and ministries of foreign politics
- Executive vs. legislative vs. judicial authority
- Interest groups, public opinion, media
- Psychological and cognition
