Download Foreign Policy Analysis as Theoretical Explanations of Foreign Policy and more Summaries Political Science in PDF only on Docsity!
FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS
(listed in Rutgers catalogue as Theoretical Explanations of Foreign Policy)
Political Science 530
Jack S. Levy Rutgers University Fall 2016 Hickman 304 848/932- jacklevy@rci.rutgers.edu http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/ Office Hours: after class and by appointment
This seminar focuses on how states formulate and implement their foreign policies. Our orientation in this course is more theoretical and process-oriented than substantive or interpretive. We focus on policy inputs and the decision-making process rather than on policy outputs. An important assumption underlying this course is that the processes through which foreign policy is made have a considerable impact on the substantive content of policy. Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is a well-defined subfield within the International Relations field, with its own section in the International Studies Association (Foreign Policy Analysis) and in the American Political Science Association (Foreign Policy), and with a distinct ISA journal ( Foreign Policy Analysis ).
We follow a loose a levels-of-analysis framework to organize our survey of the theoretical literature on the making of foreign policy. We examine rational state actor, neoclassical realist, bureaucratic/organizational, institutional, societal, and psychological models. We look at the government decision-makers, organizations, political parties, private interests, social groups, and mass publics that have an impact on foreign policy. We analyze the various constraints within which each of these sets of actors must operate, the nature of their interactions with each other and with the society as a whole, and the processes and mechanisms through which they resolve their differences and formulate policy.
Although a disproportionate amount of the literature in the foreign policy analysis field and hence in this course is American in origin and focused on American foreign policy, most conceptual frameworks in FPA are much more general and applicable beyond the United States. So this is really a course in comparative foreign policy. I encourage students to bring comparative perspectives to bear on our class discussions and in their papers, and to keep in mind the question of whether it is in fact true that the theoretical frameworks of FPA are generalizable beyond the United States. Also, while our primary
focus is on the behavior of states, we include some literature on how inter- or supra- national organizations and non-state actors formulate their external policies.
Any course must emphasize some things and deemphasize others. In this seminar, we focus primarily on internal rather than external causal influences on foreign policy, in part because this is the norm of the foreign policy analysis field, and in part because external variables are covered at length in other international relations courses. Second, again reflecting the FPA field, we give only minimal attention to particular American institutions such as the Departments of State or Defense, the National Security Council, or the Congress. Third, we give significant emphasis to decision-making by top political leaders. Fourth, there are more applications to the literature on security than political economy, environmental policy, human rights, or other areas. This reflects the state of the literature on foreign policy analysis and the general neglect of decision-making variables in the subfield of International Political Economy and other sub-fields. It also reflects my own intellectual interests. However, I encourage students with an interest in international political economy, environmental policy, or other areas to think about how to apply decision-making models to their areas of interest. Finally, this syllabus gives more attention to psychological models than does the typical syllabus on foreign policy analysis. I leave it to you to decide whether that emphasis is warranted.
Readings
The following required books (all paperback) are available for purchase at the Rutgers University Bookstore (Gateway Transit Building, 100 Somerset Street, New Brunswick, 732 246 8448 tel).You might also check the used book market on the internet. I have also asked Alexander Library to place a copy of each of these books on graduate reserve. In the order that we will read them, they are
Morton H. Halperin, Priscilla Clapp, with Arnold Kanter, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 2006.
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
Rose McDermott, Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
We will also be reading a substantial number of articles and book chapters, because much of the important theoretical and empirical work in foreign policy analysis has been published in this form. All of the required reading except for the three required books will
You should consult with me about exactly which readings are relevant for a particular topic, but they are usually readily identifiable from the reading list below. For this presentation you need only cover the required readings. It is not necessary to summarize the readings in any detail, as we can assume that everyone has done the required reading for the week. Rather, the emphasis should be on briefly situating the reading(s) in the literature, identifying their primary contributions to the literature, noting any theoretical or methodological weaknesses, and highlighting additional analytic questions raised by the reading. The 6-10 minute time allotment is short, so time management is important. You will have more time to elaborate in the follow-up discussion in class. There is no paper requirement associated with this presentation. Your topic for requirement #2 should be different from your topic for #3&4. I do not want duplication of topics among different students for #2. (That is not a problem for #3&4).
Requirements 3 & 4: Given the different backgrounds and goals of different members of the seminar, I have set up two alternative “tracks” or paper requirements, a literature review track and a research design/paper track. You are free to select whichever track you prefer. However, I generally recommend the research design or research paper requirement to IR majors planning to write a dissertation that includes a component on how states formulate and implement their foreign policies (on security, economic, human rights, environmental policy, and other issues). It is perfectly reasonable, however, for first-year IR students who have limited exposure to a particular topic to do a literature review for this class, to pave the way for a more focused research effort in subsequent courses. I recommend that IR minors, whose dissertation work is not likely to focus on how states formulate foreign policy, adopt the literature review track. A good strategy there is to either pick a broad topic that is likely to serve you well in preparation for comprehensive exams, or to pick a topic overlapping with the research you plan to do in your major field. Please feel free to consult with me about which track best serves your interests. Regardless of which track you choose, I expect all students to do all the required readings, to come prepared to discuss those readings in class, and to participate in the discussions.
- literature review track (due Sunday December 18, by email attachment) The basic requirement is a literature review, along with a presentation in class on the subject of the paper and on the day that subject is scheduled, as specified in the syllabus. The literature review should be approximately 12-15 pages (single space, with a space between paragraphs, including footnotes and references). It should be a critical review of the literature on a well-defined theoretical question relating to foreign policy analysis, often but not always equivalent to a sub-section of the syllabus. For example, good topics include the bureaucratic politics model, audience costs, Congress and foreign policy,
foreign policy in parliamentary systems, ethnic groups or economic interest groups and foreign policy, culture and foreign policy, learning, prospect theory, emotions and decision-making, and intelligence failure, to name a few. Decision-making by sub-state organizations and inter-governmental or supra-national organizations (the European Union, for example) is also a viable topic as long as it has to do with world politics and not primarily domestic politics. Whatever topic you choose, you must secure my approval in advance – to avoid misunderstandings and to facilitate the scheduling of presentations. I would be happy to talk to you about what kinds of topics make the most sense given your background and objectives in your graduate program and beyond.
The readings (required and otherwise) from the relevant section of the syllabus generally serve as a useful guide to what literature you should cover in your review, but please consult with me for suggestions as to possible additions (if the list on the syllabus is short) and/or priorities among them (if the list is quite long). Please do not assume that by reading all of the items in a particular section of the syllabus you have adequately covered a particular topic for your review. I also encourage you to incorporate material from other courses where relevant.
In your literature review you should summarize the literature on your topic and at the same time organize it in some coherent way – preferably around a useful typology or theoretical theme or set of categories, not around a succession of books and articles. That is, I do not want twenty paragraphs on twenty different authors or books/articles. You should note the theoretical questions that this literature attempts to answer, identify commonalities and differences among the various readings, identify the key concepts and causal arguments, survey some of the empirical research that bears on these theoretical propositions, and relate it to the broader literature on war and peace. You should identify the logical inconsistencies, broader analytical limitations, and unanswered questions of the leading scholarship in this area. You should also suggest fruitful areas for subsequent research. If you have any thoughts on how particular hypotheses could be tested, please elaborate on that. But remember that space is limited.
I suspect that many of you will be uncertain what my expectations are for a literature review. To partially alleviate that uncertainty I will post a few literature reviews from past courses on my Sakai site (in folder #00).
The presentation based on each literature review will be scheduled for the day we discuss that topic in class. This is important, and it requires you to plan in advance. This means that if you want to do a literature review on a topic that arises early in the term, you must get to work early, in some cases before the semester begins.
limit for most journal submissions. We will schedule research design/paper presentations for late in the term. However, if your topic fits earlier and if (and only if) you are ready at that time we could go earlier (which would be a good way for you to get timely feedback on your project). Although I tolerate incompletes for research papers, I still expect a presentation of the theory and research design during the term.
I should note that although I am generally quite open to very different methodological perspectives, the norms of mainstream IR favor research that aims to construct and test falsifiable (loosely defined) hypotheses about foreign policy or international behavior, or to construct interpretations of particular episodes and then support those interpretations with empirical evidence. I share these norms, and I am unenthusiastic about theoretical arguments about the empirical world for which there is no conceivable evidence that would lead to their rejection. At the same time, I recognize the value some research communities place on formal theory construction independent of empirical test, or on radical constructivist critiques without systematic empirical analysis, and I would be willing to discuss the possibility of papers along these lines.
On reference style for papers for either track: You may use either a variation of the “Harvard” style or APA (American Psychological Association), with parenthetical in-text citations, or a more traditional bibliographic style – as reflected in the Chicago Manual of Style or MLA (Modern Language Association). The main point is to be consistent. See various journals for illustrations. I want a separate bibliography even if you use a traditional footnoting style. I strongly prefer footnotes to endnotes. They make a paper easier to read.
Paper Due Date (for either track): December 18
Grading The bulk of your grade consists of my evaluation of your paper and two presentations, weighted as follows: Shorter presentation (requirement #2): 10% Literature review or research paper presentation (#3): 20% Paper: 70%
In addition, the quality and quantity of your contribution to class discussion will be an important factor in my evaluation of your performance in the course. Although I do not attach an explicit weight to this component of your grade, my judgments on this dimension may be decisive in any borderline case. I suspect that many of you will fall into this category.
TOPICAL OUTLINE
The number refers to the week of the term, beginning with the week of 5 September 2016. Letters refer to multiple topics each week. Depending on student selections of paper topics, we might need to move a few things around.
- COURSE INTRODUCTION
THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION Overviews of the Foreign Policy Analysis Field Levels of Analysis Framework The Agent-Structure Debate
- EVOLUTION OF THE FIELD OF FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS The Decision-Making Approach The “Comparative Foreign Policy” Research Program Other Early Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis Issue-Areas
THE "RATIONAL" (ANALYTIC) MODEL The Basic Paradigm Expected Utility Theory Preference Aggregation and Social Choice Theory
REALIST THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY Are There Realist Theories of Foreign Policy? The Debate Neoclassical Realism
- GOVERNMENTAL-LEVEL EXPLANATIONS - I The Bureaucratic Politics/Organizational Processes Model The March-Simon Research Program on Organizational Theory Other Approaches to Organizational Theory Agenda Setting Governmental Politics/Organizational Process: Applications Organizational Reform Evaluations of the Bureaucratic/Organizational Model
8. IDEAS, CULTURE, AND CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES
"Ideas" Ideology Religion Culture Empirical Applications Strategic Culture Constructivist Approaches The “Story Model” Feminist Approaches Psychology and Constructivism Honor, Respect, Recognition, Humiliation, and Status Theoretical Background Applications to International Relations and Foreign Policy Social Comparison
- PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES - I Introduction to Political Psychology Early Psychological Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis Contemporary Theories of Psychology and Foreign Policy - Overviews Beliefs and Images Operational Code Cognitive Biases Overconfidence Emotions and Motivations From Social Psychology Anger Methodological Issues in the Study of Psychological Models
- PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES - II
LEARNING Bayesian Updating "Psychological" Models of Learning Organizational Learning Learning: Empirical Applications Other Models of Foreign Policy Change
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOBIOGRAPHY
General Theoretical Approaches to Personality Applied Personality Studies Psychobiography Alexander George’s Research Program on Presidential Personality Psychoanalytic Studies of Decisions for War
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND ADVISORY SYSTEMS Political Leadership Advisory Groups and Management Style
SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR Overview Groupthink and Beyond
- BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY Introduction Useful Anthologies Heuristics and Biases Prospect Theory Framing Aspiration Levels Sunk Costs and Models of Entrapment Dollar Auction Model Other Models of Risk Behavior Time Horizons and Intertemporal Choice Construal-Level Theory Poliheuristic Theory Dual Process Theories Gender Differences in Decision-Making Evolutionary Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Biopolitics
- THREAT PERCEPTION, CRISIS DECISION-MAKING, AND BARGAINING Threat Perception and Intelligence Failure Intelligence Failure: Case Studies Crisis Decision-Making The Impact of Stress Psychology of Bargaining Psychology of Conflict Resolution
COURSE OUTLINE AND READING LIST
Number indicates week of semester; letter indicates multiple topics in a given week. Asterisk (*) denotes required reading.
Note: The additional reading, beyond the asterisked required reading, is not really “recommended,” but instead a guide for those writing papers on a particular topic. I hope this analytically organized bibliography of the field of Foreign Policy Analysis will be helpful in your future research and teaching.
1. COURSE INTRODUCTION (September 6)
Course objectives, organization, procedures, readings, requirements, etc.
THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION
1a. Overviews of the Foreign Policy Analysis Field
- Valerie M. Hudson, “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations.” Foreign Policy Analysis , 1, 1 (March 2005): 1-30. Walter Carlsnaes, "Foreign Policy." In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations. 2nd^ ed. London: Sage,
- Pp. 298-325. Valerie M. Hudson, Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. 2 nd^ ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Chap. 1. Ole R. Holsti, "Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy." Diplomatic History , 13, 1 (Winter 1989), 15-43. Jean A. Garrison, ed., “Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20: A Symposium.” International Studies Review , 5, 2 (June 2003): 155-202. Steve Smith, "Theories of Foreign Policy: An Historical Overview." Review of International Studies , 12, 1 (January 1986), 13-29. Steve Smith, "Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 16, 2 (Summer 1987), 345-48. Marijke Breuning, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2007. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013. Eugene Meehan, "The Concept 'Foreign Policy.'" In William Hanrieder, ed., Comparative Foreign Policy. New York: David McKay, 1971. Chap. 9. Christopher Hill, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. NY: Palgrave, 2003.
1b. Levels of Analysis Framework
- Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press,
- chap. 1
- Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. Chap. 1.
- Jack S. Levy and William R. Thompson, Causes of War. Chichester, UK: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010. Pp. 14-20.
- G. John Ikenberry, David A. Lake, and Michael Mastanduno, "Introduction: Approaches to Explaining American Foreign Economic Policy." International Organization , 42, 1 (Winter 1988): 1-14. J. David Singer, "The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations." World Politics 14, 1 “The International System: Theoretical Essays” (October 1961): 77-92. Barry Buzan, "The Levels of Analysis Problem in IR Reconsidered." In Ken Booth and Steve Smith eds., International Relations Theory Today. London: Polity Press, 1994. Arnold Wolfers, "The Actors in International Politics," in Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962. Chap. 1. James N. Rosenau, "Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy." In R. B. Farrell, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1966.
1c. The Agent-Structure Debate
Alexander E. Wendt, "The agent-structure problem in international relations theory." International Organization 41 (Summer 1987):335-70. David Dessler, "What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?" International Organization , 43 (1989): 441-73. Walter Carlnaes, "The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis." International Studies Quarterly , 36 (September 1992), pp. 245-70. Gil Friedman and Harvey Starr, Agency, Structure, and International Relations: From Ontology to Empirical Inquiry. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Charles W. Kegley, Jr., ed. International Events and the Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1975. Maurice A. East, Stephen A. Salmore, and Charles F. Hermann, eds., Why Nations Act. Beverly Hills, calif: Sage, 1978. Charles F. Hermann, Charles W. Kegley, Jr., and James N. Rosenau, eds. New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987. James N. Rosenau, "Comparing Foreign Policies: What, Why, How." in Rosenau, ed., Comparing Foreign Policies. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1974. James N. Rosenau, "CFP and IPE: The Anomaly of Mutual Boredom." International Interactions 14, 1 (1988): 17-26. Michael Brecher, Blema Steinberg, and Janice G. Stein. "A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behavior." Journal of Conflict Resolution 13 (March 1969):75-101. International Studies Notes , 13, 2 (Spring 1987). Special Issue on "The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy."
2c. Other Early Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis
James N. Rosenau, ed. International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York, Free Press, 1961. James N. Rosenau, ed. International Politics and Foreign Policy , rev. ed. New York, Free Press, 1969. Harold and Margaret Sprout, The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Roy C. Macridis, Foreign Policy in World Politics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1958. Warner R. Schilling, Paul Y. Hammond, and Glenn H. Snyder, Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Samuel P. Huntington, The Common Defense. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. ch. 9 Bernard C. Cohen, The Political Process and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. David Braybrooke and Charles E. Lindblom, "Types of Decision-Making," in Rosenau, ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press,
- Chap. 20. Roger Hilsman, The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affaris. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.
2d. Issue-Areas
James N. Rosenau, "Foreign Policy as an Issue-Area," in James N. Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy , chap. 17; or Rosenau, ed., Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy , chap. 2. William Zimmerman, "Issue-Areas and Foreign Policy Processes_._ " American Political Science Review 67 (December 1973):1204-12. Richard W. Mansbach and John A. Vasquez, In Search of Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981. Chap. 2-3. Matthew Evangelista, "Issue-area and foreign policy revisited." International Organization 43 (Winter 1989):147-71.
THE "RATIONAL" (ANALYTIC) MODEL
2e. The Basic Paradigm
- Graham T. Allison,"Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis." American Political Science Review 63, 3 (September 1969): 689-718. Pp. 689-96 only.
- James G. March, “Limited Rationality.” In March, A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press, 1994. Chap. 1 (plus the short preface to Primer , in a separate pdf)
- Jack S. Levy and William R. Thompson, Causes of War. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Pp. 130-33 only. David A. Lake and Robert Powell, "International Relations: A Strategic Choice Approach." In Lake and Powell, eds., Strategic Choice and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman, 1999. Intro & chap. 1-2. John D. Steinbruner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974. Chap. 1-2.
2f. Expected Utility Theory
James D. Morrow, Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Chap. 2. Robyn M. Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1988. Chap. 8.
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State.” Security Studies 15, 3 (2006): 464-95. Michiel Foulon, “Neoclassical Realism: Challengers and Bridging Identities.” International Studies Review 17, 4 (December 2015): 635-61. Thomas Juneau, Squandered Opportunity: Neoclassical Realism and Iranian Foreign Policy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015. Alse Toje and Barbara Kunz, eds., Neoclassical Realism in European Politics: Bringing Power Back In. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2012. Randall L. Schweller, “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing,” International Security , vol. 29, no. 2 (2004):159– 201.
3. GOVERNMENTAL-LEVEL EXPLANATIONS - I (September 20)
3a. Bureaucratic Politics/Organizational Processes Model
- Graham T. Allison, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review 63, 3 (September 1969): 689-718. Theoretical sections only
- Morton H. Halperin, Priscilla Clapp, with Arnold Kanter, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 2006. Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman, 1999. Chap. 3-6. Morton H. Halperin and Arnold Kanter, "The Bureaucratic Perspective: A Preliminary Framework." In Halperin and Kanter, eds., Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1974. Pp. 1-
John Steinbrunner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974. Chap. 3.
3b. The March-Simon Research Program On Organizational Theory
James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations. New York: Wiley,
R. M. Cyert and James G. March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior , 3rd ed. New York: Free Press,
James G. March, A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press, 1994. Chap. 2-6. James G. March, Decisions and Organizations. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988 James G. March and Johan P Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: the Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press, 1989. James G. March and Johan P Olsen, "Garbage Can Models of Decision- Making in Organizations." In James G. March and Roger Weissinger- Baylon, eds., Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making. Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman, 1986. Chap. 2. Johan P. Olsen, "Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics." American Political Science Review , 95, 1 (March 2001), 191-98. Jonathan Bendor, "Recycling the Garbage Can: An Assessment of the Research Program." American Political Science Review , 95, 1 (March 2001), 169-90.
