Foreign Policy and Politics Essay

Introduction

Foreign policy is as a result of the enforcement of international relations. Over the years, the concept of foreign policy has evolved and different models have even come up in order to conform it to current issues.

The kind of foreign policy adopted by different countries depends on the kind of relationship that exists among the countries in question. Foreign policy provides a common ground on which countries interact with each other. The decision-making process of foreign policy can be viewed as being very complicated when various factors come into play.

One thing is very pronounced though: the leaders or executives of a country do not make these decisions on their own. They have enlisted the help of specialists, who in this paper will be referred to as bureaucrats or actors or agents. These specialists and the organisations for which they work for are the contributing factors.

This paper will look at the brief background of foreign policy and how it is closely related to international relations. The Bureaucratic Politics Model (BPM) will also be discussed in order to give a background on bureaucratic politics and illustrations with the use of two case studies both involving foreign policy of the US will be used to argue the distortions brought about by bureaucratic politics.

It will be shown from the model and the case studies that bureaucratic politics does indeed introduce distortions and though it has positive aspects to it, the distortions far outweigh the positives when it comes to decision making on foreign policy.

The disadvantages associated with the BPM will be shown from the above two case studies and general disadvantages will also be listed. A suitable way forward in dealing with the BPM will finally be highlighted.

Background

Foreign policy as defined by Hill is “the sum of external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually a state) in international relations” (2002, p. 3). It is necessitated by the fact that different states all have to converge and put their differences aside in order to relate with one another. With such diversity it is evidently hard to have a common ‘theory’ that is able to define the different behaviours of different nations.

As Newmann (n.d. p.1) put it, these theories are then able to explain the foreign policy and international relations phenomenon. Different authors have come up with different theories; one thing they agree on is that there are distinct “levels of analysis” and that “theories of state behaviour” (Newmann, n.d. p.1). The two are discussed below.

The levels of analysis include:

• the system level– in which a particular state is almost defined by the international system, for instance, when the US and USSR were the most powerful states, other state behaviours were defined by them and currently the US is considered as the lone superpower and by default it intervenes in the affairs of other states;
• the state level– where a state determines its own behaviour considering its past, culture, its economy, religion or its geography;
• the organizational level– the organizations within a state have a major input in foreign policy making, for instance the US-Iraq example, the organizations that may have had some significant input are the department of defence of the central intelligence agency;
• lastly the individual level– where the state leaders are considered to have a heavy influence in policy making (Newmann, n.d., p.1).

The theories that are covered in various ways by different authors include:

• Classic realism-where obtaining power is the focus of most states; neo-realism- which tries to explain that states seek power because there is no “world government”;
• neo-classical realism-which combines the previous theories; liberalism- which promotes cooperation and tries to “enforce international law”;
• neo-liberalism– emphasises on the creation of international constitution; cognitive theories- which incorporate some of the already listed theories;
• and finally constructivism– which dwells on the nature of a state (Newmann, n.d., p.1).

However, there are those who do not see the importance of the above theories as being useful in policy making (Walt, 2000, p.1). Walt (2000, p.1) differed with this opinion by stating the importance of theories. Consequently, other literatures have formulated models, which are in part almost like theories, in order to describe what influences decision making (Chapter4, n.d., p.1).

Some are discussed by Damerow (2010): the rational actor decision making model, the bureaucratic decision making model and history-making individuals model.

Walt (2000) also emphasized on the “complexities of the contemporary world politics” (Walt, 2000, p.1) and stated that no one model is complete on its own, but that all of them bring necessary competition so that better policies are made. One thing is very clear though, these models and theories are put in place with the aim of enhancing the decision making process but they fall short in various ways thus creating distortions.

Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is a concept that “involves goals, strategies, measures, methods, guidelines, directives, understandings etc” (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007, p. 223). Foreign policy making can be noted to have evolved from what it was in the previous times especially after the end of the “Cold War” (Walt, 2000, p. 2).

The influence bureaucratic politics has on this dynamic issue has been neglected since it can go to the extent of “distorting the formation of state preferences and lead to suboptimal international behaviour” (Walt, 2000, p. 4).

To understand how the foreign policy works, Graseck (1993, p. 1) outlined a number of themes that are worth considering in depth (though her work was directed for the US students, it can be applied by anyone who wishes to study this subject): Having an in depth comprehension of the international systems which constitute:

• “state sovereignty, alliances and balances of power, diplomacy” etc;
• “Responses to international conflict”;
• “Non-State and Transnational Actors”;

A historical view of foreign policies in order to appreciate the current ones; “Linking foreign and domestic politics”; “Success in the international system”. (Walt, 2000, p. 4)

Other than the above themes, there are certain factors that generously influence foreign policy making: “environmental factors, psychological factors, international factors and domestic influences” (DeRouen & Mintz, 2010, p. 2).

As earlier mentioned, there are different models and theories that many have formulated, however, the rational actor model and the BPM seemed to have gained more popularity. The two are almost similar in their approaches. With that in mind, the rational actor model will be discussed in brief in the next section before the BPM model is tackled. Both of these models, however, factor in the above mentioned factors in their approach.

The Rational Actor Model

This model views the decision makers as being able to make decisions with the belief that their choices “will lead to the best feasible outcomes for them as defined by their personal values or preferences” (Mesquita, n.d. p. 2). These values may be in favour of the national interest or otherwise (Mesquita, n.d. p. 2).

What seems to be a positive side to this model is that the actors often put in consideration the obstacles that can hinder them from achieving their purpose and will adapt themselves accordingly (Mesquita, n.d. p.2); this- as will be shown later, has similarities to the Poliheuristic theory.

Damerow (2010, p.1) lists the limitations to this model as:

“bounded rationality”- actors are not always right; “cognitive dissonance”- actors settle for familiar beliefs; “overloaded policy agendas”; “making satisficing decisions rather than optimising ones”; “prospect theory”- being unwilling to have losses; “two level games”- inclusion of domestic politics in the whole decision making process. (Damerow, 2010, p. 1)

Others consider this model to be superior compared to other models, except for the limitations of course, and have used it from time to time. The BPM does not differ much from this model and will be discussed in the next section.

Bureaucratic Politics

Every state has its own form of bureaucratic organizations that will help implement the foreign policies (Donovan, 1993, p.195). Bureaucratic politics can be seen as currently holding all the power that a specific state needs in order to make some very fundamental decisions.

Bureaucratic organizations are often recognized because of their “formalized rules and regulations, systematic record-keeping” among others (Carpenter, 2010, p.1). They also explain how some decisions were arrived upon by the bureaucrats and how they seek to “promote their own agency’s special interests as a major motivating factor in shaping the timing and the content of government decisions” (Johnson, 2005, p.1).

Those implored with this task are always in competition with each other since different sections of government will seek advice from different bureaus (Johnson, 2005, p.1). This then raises the question, the bureaucrats that are supposed to effectively fulfil their duties, are they then compromising the decision making process? Or are they helping?

DeRouen and Mintz (2010, p.6), stated that “the executive relies on bureaucrats to provide information for the decision process” (DeRouen and Mintz, 2010, p.6). If this is the case, what basis are the bureaucrats using to make such fundamental decisions that will affect policies not just in a particular state, but globally? Hill (2002, p.72) noted that bureaucracy has extended from just foreign affairs to local “governmental department”.

The Bureaucratic Politics Model, BPM

Graham Allison, Morton Halperin, Robert Gallucci are some of the names that are behind the formulation of the theory concerning bureaucratic politics (Hill, 2002, p.85).

The BPM can be summarised as: “Focusing on bargaining processes between the bureaucratic actors and the government, actors are driven by interests of their organizations and decisions result from interaction of the actors’ competing policy preferences” (Brummer, 2009, p.2). In an article by Brummer, three propositions characterize the BPM, and they are discussed in detail below.

The first proposition as presented by the BISA article is simply put as “where you stand depends on where you sit” (Brummer, 2009, p.2). What this simply implies is that the one, who has been entrusted with the responsibility of making weighty policy decisions, is heavily influenced by his “bureaucratic position” (Brummer, 2009, p.2).

This position will often come as a result of the person as a whole i.e. “their sensitivities to certain issues, commitment to various projects and personal standing with and debts to groups in society” (Brummer, 2009, p.3).

What this first proposition does is that it reveals to us that there is definitely an interaction between the “bureaucratic process and individual factors” (Brummer, 2009, p.3). This in itself proves to be a ground for distortion in making the foreign policy decision.

The second proposition on the other hand is that “the competing preferences of bureaucratic actors clash in political bargaining processes” (Brummer, 2009, p.3). Different actors representing different organizations will differ in their thoughts concerning the foreign policy that is being discussed since the actors all represent various interests.

What makes it worse is that all these actors are at different positional levels with others having more power; this power has an influence on the bargaining process by either acting as a “privilege or a discriminator” among the actors (Brummer, 2009, p.3). If this is the case, then it surely follow that the decision making is almost not ‘fair’ considering all the vast interests being represented.

The third proposition “concerns the nature of the outcomes of the bargaining processes among bureaucratic actors” (Brummer, 2009, p.4). What results therefore has been described as “unintended compromise solutions” which no one had initially anticipated and this is majorly due to the bargaining that took place that finally made the actors to settle on a result that is suitable for everyone (Brummer, 2009, p.4).

Bringing together different actors who represent various interests means that “the decisions of a government are not the result of rational decision-making process but of compromise, conflict and confusion” (Brummer, 2009, p.4). Such a ‘compromised’ outcome means that bureaucratic politics in a way reduce the standards of outcomes of foreign policy decisions that are made.

Two American Case Studies

Two case studies as elaborated by different authors will be discussed in detail to show the case of bureaucratic politics and how they compromise and heavily influence the decision making process. The first to be considered is the “US Arm sales to Taiwan” (Qingmin, n.d. p.1). This case considered by Qingmin (n.d., p.3) largely involves the three US administrations of Carter, Reagan and G.H. Bush and the sale of “FX fighters to Taiwan”.

Statements made by different people considered this relation to be very secretive and one that needed no divulging of other information, makes it a bureaucratic process (Qingmin, n.d. p.2). As such it is considered as very hard to determine the ‘fairness’ that was used in order to make some of the decisions.

An interesting concept however is that before US and China had established any formal diplomatic relations, no one considered it as a problem for the US to sell the FX fighters to Taiwan especially in Carters regime (Qingmin, n.d., p.3). However, once the diplomatic relations were established, China requested the termination of these sales.

During the Reagan time, the US-Taiwan sell did not continue since it was noted to create tension between US and China. However, when G.H. Bush came to power, advanced fighters, “F-16s” were sold; which brought up questions concerning the decisions made about this delicate matter (Qingmin, n.d., p.4). how these decisions were reached upon will not be known since as earlier indicated, the US-Taiwan relations were very secretive.

Qingmin (n.d.) drew the following conclusion when addressing the three regimes and the different factors that were factored in during the decision as to whether to sell the fighters or not:

using the “where you stand depends on where you sit” analogy, different departments were in conflict about the whole issue, others feared the estrangement of the US-China relations while others were seeing it as a “US global strategy” (p.20)- this is the first case of distortion associated with the process;

the policy making process was also affected on the basis that in Reagan’s time, the conflicts were serious and during Bush’s time, the conflicts could not even be perceived (p.22)- with such a parity in the two regimes, it is evident that bureaucratic politics had some influence;

finally, there was also notable “influence on presidential leadership and decision-making capacity on bureaucratic conflict” (Qingmin, n.d., p.23)- since the president is mostly charged with the task of policy-making, his personality or even his policy making style will determine whether there is bureaucratic conflict or not (p.23).

Qingmin concluded by saying harmony should characterize the different departments in charge of policy making to ensure good future relations (n.d. p.25). Since if this is not the case, and conflicts are more pronounced, decision making will be interfered with.

A second case study still involving the US is one touching on the Palestine state (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1). Rubenberg (n.d.) summarized the US policy from a “global and historical perspective” (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1) i.e. she showed that although times had changed and the ideology of policies seemed to be evolving, the Palestinians still seemed to be under the US’s bondage.

The regimes had changed, the bureaucrats involved in the policy decision making had also changed but what seemed constant is that whatever policies that were proposed seemed to be against the freedom of Palestine; this raises the question concerning the bureaucratic process and politics- why is it that even with changing times, the end result of the policy making seems to be the same?

Three reasons for the above question are highlighted by Rubenberg. First of all, the US system is structured in such a way to oppose all movements and especially the one from Palestine.

This is the case because since the US is considered as a world power, then “the markets and resources required for its economic supremacy and military superiority” (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1) are found in third world countries such as Palestine and hence the US will do all it can to ensure the political stability of Palestine (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1).

This type of structure will stand the test of time and all those involved in the policy making decisions will have this specific goal in mind. This for sure highlights the biasness of bureaucratic politics.

Secondly, almost similar to the first, the US policy makers have their allegiance to their country only and do not care much that the people in Palestine are being estranged (Rubenberg, n.d., p.1).

As such, the US has even gone to the extent of creating other alliances with the neighboring states, for example, Saudi Arabia, so that they have local support (Rubenberg, n.d., p.1). Thirdly, the US-Israel relations were purely based on “institutionalization of beliefs about Israel’s strategic utility to American interests” (Rubenberg, n.d., p.1).

The above two case studies were used for purposes of illustration of how bureaucratic politics in some ways distort the whole process of decision making on foreign policy. In the next section, the negative aspects of bureaucratic politics will be highlighted.

Negative aspects of bureaucratic politics

Two consequences are mentioned by Hill (2002, p.86) which come about as a result of bureaucratic politics i.e. it shields the domestic politics approach from “scepticism of realism, neo-realism and some form of historicism” (Hill, 2002, p.86) and it also presents “foul-ups” in decision-making instead of “rationality or inevitability” (Hill, 2002, p.86).

Meaning that, the domestic politics almost have no other choice other than to be involved with the international matters (Hill, 2002, p.86).

There is some form of compromise when it comes to decision making especially since not at all times do the bureaucrats act in “intelligently or in the public interest” (Newell, n.d., p.12).

Another concern as illustrated by Johnson (2005, p.1) which emphasized on this compromise was that; “the policies and policy recommendations…are often the by-product of bureaucratic turf-battles and expedient compromises between bureaucratic chieftains rather that the product of reasoned analysis of how most effectively and efficiently to carry out the policy commitment…” Johnson, 2005, p.1).

Another challenge posed can be the “principal-agent” problems (Waterman, Rouse and Wright, 2004, p.32). The principal in this case is either the executive authority or the president who is delegating the decision making process. The problem is narrowed down to knowledge and monitoring (Caughey, Chatfield & Cohon, 2009, p.4).

The actors who are often known as the specialists, as earlier mentioned, hence the actors may seemingly have an upper-hand when it comes to the policy decisions since they are considered more knowledgeable (PSC, 2009, p.2).

The other issue is the monitoring of the actors by the ‘principals’ (PSC, 2009, p.2). The principal may not always have the time and foreknowledge to ensure that the actors are working in line with the principal’s preference (PSC, 2009, p.2).

The structures that confine bureaucratic policies also present the following “dysfunctions”: one is that very limited alternatives make their way to the top most executive (Renshon and Renshon, 2008, p.10) – and this is for the simple fact that the actors involved will so often debate among themselves and the ones with more influence will proceed to share their opinions with the executive.

This in itself shows that there is a flaw since the executive will not be consulted with the other alternatives that were presented. Secondly; the biasness of the actors may portray itself in their search for information (Renshon et al., 2008, p.10).

Their search will be confined to their preferences and preferred solution (Renshon et al., 2008, p.10). This definitely creates a flaw in the whole decision making process since there could be a vital piece of information that was not considered yet it is necessary for the policy.

Hataley (n.d. p.8) brought to light various aspect of the negativity of bureaucratic politics: he stated that the BPM validity is questionable when applying it to Canada- which also begs the question; where else will this model have a problem?

The secrecy associated with bureaucratic politics means that the public do not have a say and cannot contribute to whatever debates that go on (Hataley, n.d., p.8). If the public was able to vet the process then transparency would be achieved and this might on the other hand bring other complexities if larger groups of people are involved (Kegley, 2008, p.66).

Positive aspects of Bureaucratic Politics

The negativity may seem to outdo the positive elements, but as a matter of fact, despite all the negative media bureaucratic politics has been given, it has to some extent worked and accomplished its goals.

The following are resources which seem to favour bureaucracy:

• “information and expertise”- in as much as opposition is made about the bureaucrats, it is their knowledge that has placed them in that position hence, it cannot be overemphasized that they are intelligent;
• “power of decision”- those who are charged with bureaucratic duties are not under the same rules as “legislatures” hence their independence works to their advantage and are able to efficiently deliver their duties;
• thirdly, the bureaucratic organizations have massive “supporters”- i.e. the ones who have placed them there and those who hope to benefit from it;
• fourthly, the bureaucrats are “divorced from partisan politics”- hence they do not have to pledge their allegiance to any “constituents” especially when decision-making is involved;
• fifthly, “agency ideology” is developed- which in fact means that there are some “operational objectives” that are set up of which act as guidelines; lastly, “permanence and stability” the bureaucrats are able to perform their duties with a long term focus (Hataley, 2009, pp.5-6).

Raman with reference to the South Asian community has indicated that the expertise from local area are good but those who can even be better are the “non-state expertise” (Raman, n.d., p.1). Similar to the above example, the non-state expertise “do not have to be politically correct and acceptable” (Raman, n.d., p.1), their duties are executed on a very professional basis.

Another advantage associated with this group is the fact that they are able to criticize each other constructively without any “inhibitions or mental blocks” (Raman, n.d., p.1). This may lead the particular government to enlist help from outside if it is proving to be beneficial.

Way Forward

With all the negativities surrounding the bureaucratic politics, the question is how can it be changed so that it becomes a suitable alternative to both the bureaucrats and all those to whom the policy will affect? In an article by Brummer (2009, p.6), there are two ‘solutions’ as to understanding the “influence of bureaucratic structures on actors” Brummer, 2009, p.6).

The first –simplification- stated that a lot of emphasis should be placed on agents/the actors since they are the ones who will finally make a decision. One setback with this, however, is that it downplays the importance of structures which should not be the case.

The second ‘solution’ aims to seek a connection between bureaucratic structures and the agent (Brummer, 2009, p.7). It focuses on strengthening the “persons and personality” such that all the other factors that contribute to a person’s well being are factored in (Brummer, 2009, p.7).

The Poliheuristic theory has been suggested to be incorporated with the BPM in order to address some of its shortcomings (Brummer, 2009, p.7). This theory is summarized as a two-step process that combines “cognitive and rational factors” (Brummer, 2009, p.8).

The first stage involves “rejecting alternatives that are unacceptable to the policy maker on a critical dimension or dimension” (Mintz, 2004, pp.4-5) and the second one involves “selecting an alternative from the subset of remaining alternatives while maximizing benefits and minimizing risks” (Mintz, 2004, pp.4-5).

This theory seems effective in trying to eliminate the personal factors of the bureaucrats or the leaders by insisting that the decisions be done very analytically (Smith & Dunne, 2008, p.18).

Another way of ensuring that the decision making process becomes fast and efficient, devoid of politics, is to have “Standard Operating Procedures, SOPs” (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2007, p.362). This will also help in times of crisis and when decisions need to be made fast.

They will also avoid putting pressure on the actors and hence making SOPs very lucrative. In the article by Renshon et al., “multiple advocacy and the devil’s advocate” have been proposed as amicable solutions in quest for better judgment (2008, p.18).

Multiple advocacies have their focus on reducing conflict arising in the decision making process as depicted by the BPM and use it to “improve the quality of the whole process” (Renshon et al., 2008, p.18).

Devil’s advocate on the other hand, helps to air the view of the opposing side of the presented arguments concerning a policy (Renshon et al., 2008, p.19). In the US for instance, the bureaucratic organizations are accountable to the president, congress and to the judiciary, a concept that can be adapted by various states (PSCI, n.d. pp21-3).

Conclusion

The concept of foreign policy is very broad and as such it draws various sentiments from different authors. What has been established so far is that US is the leading state with various bureaucratic organizations that govern its policy making.

Bureaucratic policy on first viewing can seem very efficient but on scrutiny brings about a lot of criticism. It has advantages and disadvantages that are associated with it and as such one can argue for or against it.

References

Brummer, K. (2009) The Bureaucratic Politics Model and Poliheuristic Theory. University of Erlangen: Germany.

Carpenter, D. (2010) Bureaucratic Politics: Military, Government, Economic and Social Organizations. Web.

Caughey, D., Chatfield, S. & Cohon, A. (2009) Defining, Mapping and Measuring Bureaucratic Autonomy. Web.

Chapter4. Foreign Policy. Web.

Damerow, H. (2010) Foreign Policy Decision Making Models. Web.

DeRouen, J. and Mintz, A. (2010) Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Web.

Donovan, J. C. (1993) People, Power and Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Graseck, S. (1993) Teaching Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Web.

Hataley, T. (2009) Bureaucratic Politics and the Department of National Defence. Web.

Hill, C. (2002) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson, R. H. & Sorensen, G. (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, P. M. (2005) A Glossary of Political Economic Terms. Web.

Kegley, C. W. (2008) World Politics: Trend and Transformation. London, UK: Cengage Learning.

Mansbach, R. & Rafferty, K. L. (2007) Introduction to Global Politics. London, UK: Routledge.

Mesquita, B. B. Foreign Policy Analysis and Rational Choice Models. Web.

Mintz, A. (2004) How Do Leaders Make Decisions?Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 48, No. 1. Web.

Newmann, B. A Brief Introduction to Theories on International Relations and Foreign Policy. Web.

Newell, C. Bureaucratic Politics: Wither Goest Democracy? North Texas State University. Web.

PSC. (2009) Introducing Bureaucratic Politics Model. Web.

PSCI. Federal Bureaucracy. Web.

Qingmin, Z. The Bureaucratic Politics of US Arms Sales to Taiwan. Web.

Raman, B. Decision-making in foreign policy. Web.

Renshon, J. & Renshon, S. (2008) The Theory and Practice of Foreign Policy Decision Making [Online] Blackwell Publishing. Web.

Rubenberg, C. A. American Foreign Policy: A Case Study- The Question of Palestine. Web.

Smith, S. & Dunne, T. (2008) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Walt, S. (1998) International relations: One world, many theories. Web.

Waterman, R., Rouse, A. A. & Wright, R. L. (2004) Bureaucrats, Politics and the Environment. University of Pittsburgh: Germany.