Foreign policy analysis is an integral part of the larger international relations theory which enables us to know the various causes of conflict, domination, cooperation and the submission outcomes among the different actors in global politics.
There are multiple international relations theories and in the following, it will be argued that international relations theory has the tendency to ignore foreign policy analysis. Foreign policy analysis being ignored and thus, the scholars and policymakers do not clearly understand global politics.
The study of international relations theory is important as it addresses real-world puzzles that face states as well as their leaders e.g. it explains how leaders can come up with high quality decisions and thus avoid sub-optimum effects in managing conflicts.
The end of cold war was a complex time as far as international relations aspects as international trade, interactions among once isolated people, and other issues concerning state borders required immediate attention were concerned.
International relations have various theories, each with their own perspective; the underlying assumptions of each theory are usually quite different. The international relations theory and foreign policy is significant as a result of the interconnection that exists between foreign policy on one hand and the classical, realism theory on the other hand.
I will use the various underlying perspectives of international relations theory to argue that international relations theory has tended to ignore foreign policy analysis. The first theory with regards to international relations is the rational actor model.
The rational actor model of international relations holds the view that a country is an independent actor, able to make rational decisions that maximize its own value. A state thus adopts a rational decision making that has the following processes: setting objectives, considering available options, assessing possible consequences, and profit maximization.
In accordance with the rational actor model, state leaders are only concerned with their own survival. For instance, Europe during the post-Westphalia period was characterized by religion wars. The religion wars were based on selfish dynasties, geopolitical and commercial gains instead of ideological reasons. This model usually does not consider various political variables such as bureaucratic procedures.
The rational decision making perspective holds the assumption that the international environment affects the actions that a state takes. Spanner (1998) suggests that assumption demonstrates there is a lack of any authority capable of mediating conflicts at a global level.
Thus the stability of a state, and its ability to remain a state, is decided by the actions of other states. The state thus lacks options necessary to determine its foreign policy and therefore, this is a strong example of international relations theory ignoring foreign policy analysis.
The rational actor model has the effect of undermining the freedom of decision makers. The assumptions made by the rational actor model on international relations have the effect of reducing cooperation among states.
The fact that the international environment affects the actions of a state implies that different countries will lack trust for one another as certain states benefit more than others. This dependence among states is dangerous, and is only applicable for a short period of time as states are only concerned with their own survival.
I believe that any progress a state makes raises concern among other states, so that cooperation is always short-lived.Furthermore, the rational actor model of international relations holds the view that all the people who are responsible for making foreign policy decisions are similar.
Usually, different states have different objectives, and therefore adopting the rational actor model implies that selfish leaders accomplish their own goals at the expense of weaker states. The leaders’ interests may be in the interest of the nation as a result of adopting the rational actor model.
There are many actors that are concerned in decision making, among them individual citizens and state leaders. These actors have different objectives; state leaders are concerned with enhancing state security, while individual citizens are concerned with their personal well being (Mlyn, E1995, P. 20-22).
This assumption tends to ignore the foreign policy analysis because the rational decision making process does not define the objectives to be achieved, or the actors who should pursue these objectives.
In the rational actor model each country makes decisions that are the same as any unitary actor; decisions are always sensible and well thought out.
I hold the view that this assumption of by the rational actor model in international theory ignores the external relations and the activities of nation-states due to the fact that there are many actors that are involved in rational decision making, each with different priorities.
The external relations and the activities of nation-states are usually collective, implying that a single actor may turn out to be ineffective as each person has specific character traits.
The individual actor is dangerous because one may not consider national interest and therefore ignore foreign policy analysis. I believe that this assumption has the effect of ignoring foreign policy analysis as it does not take into consideration the complex domestic as well as global environments.
I believe that foreign policy analysis is ignored by international relations theory whenever the state is the only actor involved in international politics. This is because states tend to concentrate on domestic issues and ignore what is going on at the international level.
As a consequence, state leaders tend to maximize their office tenures instead of contributing to foreign policy decisions. If the leaders are concerned with safeguarding their own political interests, it is also possible for the leaders to make war without considering the national interest or the welfare of the citizens.
The case of the late Mobutu Sese-Seko, who was the president of Zaire, is a good example of a leader who safeguarded his own political interests at the expense of his citizens, and in turn ignored key foreign policy decisions.
For instance, Mobutu Sese-Seko opted for the single party states and thus, institutions including trade unions, civil service and military were brought under close control (Hawley, 1998, P.45).
Another model of international relations is the inter-branch politics model, which I believe also ignores foreign policy analysis. The inter-branch politics model has three variables: executive leadership, the legislative-executive process and congressional cohesion.
The inter-branch politics model widens the global economic system instead of narrowing it and I believe that this is responsible for ignoring foreign policy analysis. In accordance with the analysis of Schattchneider, D (1998), special interest groups play a crucial role as far as the formation of trade policy is concerned.
In his analysis of the United States’ trade law, Hawley (1998) demonstrates that there are legislative negative outcomes such as lose of control of the entire political system especially in a case where presidential leadership is absent or errant.
In his analysis, he argues that errant presidential leadership is responsible for encouraging protectionist predilections instead of resisting them.
In the legislative-executive process regarding the legislative-executive process of inter-branch politics model, a high level of responsiveness and trust are necessary when merging the various preferences of multiple branches into a unified government policy.
This is often not the case, and is another reason why I argue that international relations theory ignores the foreign policy analysis (Pastor, 1982, 350).
The interaction among the executive leadership, the legislative-executive process and congressional cohesion, explains why the United States foreign economic policy has been liberal and consistent as every member of the congress acts to defend the interests of his or her own district (Pastor, 1982, P. 350).
However, there are policy failures of the inter-branch politics model due to the fact that the legislative-executive and congress do not integrate their goals and priorities.
The special interest groups usually confront the legislative-executive process and I believe that this too ignores foreign policy analysis. In addition, public participation is often discouraged with regards to the inter-branch politics model of international relations (Pastor, 1982, P. 350).
The third model considered is the bureaucratic politics model. Under this model, various government agencies are involved in decision making and foreign policy decisions are usually based on compromises and bargaining among the competing government agencies.
Each organization poses constraints on the decision makers and there is great influence exerted by the main participants. I believe that this has the effect of ignoring foreign policy analysis.
Allison (1998) in his analysis of the bureaucratic-politics model of international relations explains that bureaucratic organizations ignore foreign policy analysis due to the established methods that are required to be followed while performing designated tasks.
In his analysis, Allison (1998) explains that the foreign policy of a state is a result of the negotiation and bargaining of the foreign policymakers instead of a unitary state that acts rationally. As different groups pull in different directions, conflicts are bound to arise.
Confusion also occurs and in most cases lobby groups and leaders form temporary alliances in order to influence certain foreign policies (Houghton, 2001, P.181).
This model is also characterized by frequent fighting among the insiders over foreign policies. For instance, splits have been witnessed among the key advisers in the United States as a result of foreign policy decisions e.g.
President Reagan spoke about the need for democracy and liberty around the world and he also initiated sweeping efforts that were I aimed at restricting the flow of information flow among the American people.Also, the President advocated for nuclear deterrent capacity.
The president came under heavy criticism as the opposition members claimed that the claimed that the efforts were not effective and they were bound to fail. It should be noted that bureaucratic organizations are parochial in that each administrative unit pursues only their own objectives.
The overlapping agencies compete among themselves in pursuit of their objectives, having the effect of ignoring foreign policy analysis. The leaders do not execute their mandate in a neutral manner and so, they assume policy positions that are meant to increase their influence.
The September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States are an example of the negative effects of the bureaucratic-politics model of international relations. The intelligence agencies were at fault because they failed to provide warnings to prevent the attacks.
The bureaucratic-politics model was thus responsible for paralysing the intelligence agencies, as they competed against each other rather than share information that could have uncovered the terrorist plot (D’Anieri, 2009, P.163).
I believe that bureaucratic politics are dangerous since the leadership seeks policies that suit their own needs, thereby producing two different forms of policies i.e. the more conventional bureaucratic apparatus of the modern state and the growth of quasi state organizations.
The bureaucratic-politics model is also unspecified; it does not explain the leaders’ role in foreign policy formulation. This model does not treat the advisers and leaders differently and instead treats them as equals.
The role of leaders and advisers in foreign policy is therefore left vague. This model of international relations theory is incomplete and is an example of international relations theory ignoring foreign policy analysis (D’Anieri, 2009, P.163).
Another model of international relations theory that ignores foreign policy analysis is the organizational process model. The organizational process model provides the decision makers with direction on how to carry out tasks: how to write reports, how to prepare budgets, and so on.
The rules set out by the organizational process model enable decision makers to perform tasks more effectively, and with better understanding. However, having too many rules can cause rigidity in an organization, making it difficult for the organization to adapt and change.
In his analysis, Allison (1998) explains that the organizational process model is concerned with the relative power an organization has over foreign policy. An understanding of how organizations think and act is important as it helps to explain foreign policy decisions.
In the organizational process model, the behaviour of the government is often viewed less as a matter of deliberate choice and more as an output of large organizational deliberations. Allison (1998) held the view that such factors as the organizational procedures has an effect on outputs of large organizations.
He further added that the decisions that are made by leaders are usually constrained by the organization’s capacities and limitations.For instance, presidents it is hard for presidents to make foreign policy decisions by themselves without considering inputs from large organizations.
Thus, the executive choices are influenced by the options presented and the information provided by the senior leadership team of these powerful organizations. The power of organizational process model is based on the organizational ability to uncover its routines.
In producing the outputs of foreign policy, organizations are usually influenced by their objectives, repertoires and standard operating procedures (Vertzberger, 1990, P.207).With this regards, I believe that the organizational process model tends to ignore foreign policy analysis.
The political process model is an international relations theory that ignores the foreign policy analysis. The political process theory tends to ignore foreign policy analysis in that it holds the idea that domestic politics plays an important role in shaping foreign policy decisions.
Gaubatz and Smith (1999) explain that election cycles are an important factor in the decision processes of democratic leaders in regards to war. War may be hastened or delayed for many years depending on the election cycle, and during those periods foreign policy analysis is ignored.
An analysis by Fearon (1994) holds the view that democratic leaders are more reluctant to respond to threats due to the negative perception their citizens will have. Autocratic leaders on the other hand, tend to act very quickly following external threats.
Given this view on international relations theory, threats of war by democratic leaders should be considered very seriously as opposed to threats issued by autocratic leaders. This is so due to the fact that autocratic leaders do not suffer audience costs, as opposed to democratic leaders who face huge negative feed-back from their citizens.
This thus implies that threats from democratic leaders carry a heavy weight and should be taken seriously, cause the rivals to backing down or make an attempt at the negotiation process. Fearon’s model, however, tends to ignore foreign policy analysis due to the assumption that there is a higher audience cost in democratic governments as opposed to autocratic governments (Fearon,1994,P.901).
The democratic peace model of international relations is another model that has the tendency to ignore foreign policy analysis. The fact that states remain the sole actor in international relations causes democracies not to engage in wars amongst themselves, and this tends to ignore foreign policy analysis.
Democratically ruled states are less likely to engage in war with one another as opposed to autocratic states.Usually, citizens are able to hold their influential leaders accountable for their actions through such aspects as competitive elections among others as compared to an authoritarian political state.
According to Philosopher Kant (1795), democracies offers cautionary tales for the autocratic states and this explains why they are peaceful. Democracies usually promote democratic reform across the world. However, I believe that democratic leaders ignore foreign policy analysis as they are unable to promote foreign policies that are considered risky by citizens.
Democratic leaders hold the view that defeat in war is costly for their society and therefore, only get involved when they are guaranteed of success; another reason why international relations theory ignores foreign policy analysis (Goldstein, 1993, P.54).
On the other hand, autocratic leaders are not influenced by their domestic supporters as they are only concerned with obtaining power or support. The autocratic leaders are, however, judged based on their ability to enhance the living conditions of their supporters.
This implies that escalating threats of war do not have major cost implications for autocratic leaders as they perception of their citizens is less important compared to democracies. Also, autocrats are less apt to engage in negotiations to settle disputes, another example that ignores foreign policy analysis.
Autocrats are only required to pay their supporters, ensuring that their office tenures are safe and to create loyalty among their supporters. The autocrats thus spend a huge amount of resources in winning the loyalty of their supporters rather than being involved in foreign policy decision making (Walker & Malici, 2006, P.7).
The political process model of international relations theory has the effect of ignoring foreign policy analysis. This model of international relations describes various actors who affect the foreign policy decision making, for example non government organizations.
Under this theory, there are constant interactions among the various actors and as a result foreign policy analysis is often ignored. The interplay between various actors is often described through paradigms, narratives and perceptions and this has the effect of ignoring foreign policy analysis.
Usually, there is continuous feedback from the various actors; the model assumes an interactive political process and so, foreign policies remain unchanged. For instance, the United States’ foreign policies in the Middle East have impact on many nations besides the United States, causing reactions against the United State’s unilateralism.
This model represents a case where the foreign policy of country is contradictory, because it is not in agreement with key segments of the society.
I hold the view that often the various actors in the political process cannot agree on all foreign policy decisions, making it impossible for all actors to speak with one voice and thereby ignoring foreign policy analysis (Henehan, 2000, P.37).
Conclusion
There are many approaches to examining International relations. Foreign policy analysis is an important aspect as it enables us to understand the policy decisions. Several approaches exist to examining international relations, such as the rational actor model or bureaucratic model.
As demonstrated here, these approaches often have the effect of ignoring foreign policy analysis. As demonstrated in the rational actor model, the inter-branch politics model, the bureaucratic politics model and the organizational process model, the assumptions that are made by the models do not properly reflect the underlying realities of foreign policy analysis.
In other examples, aspects of foreign policy analysis are completely missing, such as in the rational actor model and the bureaucratic politics model. Given this, it is clear that international relations model ignore foreign policy analysis. This is a serious problem and thus, efforts should be made to correct these models to better reflect foreign policy analysis.
Reference List
Allison. (1998).Russia and Eurasia: Foreign and Security Policies. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
D’Anieri, P. (2009). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Fearon, J. (1994).Handbook of Defense Economics: Defense in a globalized world, Volume 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gaubatz, G. & Smith, A. (1999). Democratic Default: Domestic Audiences and Compliance with International Agreements. London: Cengage Learning.
Goldstein, D. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political Change. New York: Cornell University Press.
Henehan, T. (2000). Foreign policy and Congress: an international relations Perspective. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Houghton, H. (2001). US foreign policy and the Iran hostage crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1795).Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mlyn, E. (1995).The state, society, and limited nuclear war. New York: SUNY Press.
Pastor, R.1982). Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Economic Policy. New York: University of California Press.
Schattchneider, D. (1998).M.C. Escher’s legacy: a centennial celebration: collection of articles coming from the M.C. Escher Centennial Conference, Rome, 1998, Volume i: Munich.
Spanner, G. (1998). APAIS, Australian public affairs information service: a subject index to Literature. Australia: National Library Australia.
Walker, S., & Malici, A. (2006). Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis: States, Leaders and the Micro foundations of Behavioral International Relations. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Vertzberger, Y. (1990). The world in their minds: information processing, Cognition and perception in foreign policy decision-making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
ALDubibBanderS2627898 Page