Foreign Policy Analysis PDF

Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat The learning objectives can be summarised as follows: Knowing what FPA is – and its position within IR. Understanding the theoretical lenses through which FPA analyses foreign policy. Learning to use...

Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat The learning objectives can be summarised as follows: Knowing what FPA is – and its position within IR. Understanding the theoretical lenses through which FPA analyses foreign policy. Learning to use the basic concepts and theories to assess contemporary case studies in international politics. EXAMS: 1. Mid-term exam (40%) til s5 2. Final exam (60%) 2h : 8qcm (wrong -1pt, right -1pt, no answer 0pt) and 1 essay (intro; 1idea a § (plan analytique), conclusion)(2 subject) 600 words Session 1 : Introduction what is FPA? FPA is a subfile of IT => always come back to the State (even when don’t talk abt non state actors) Whatever unit decision, always assumption you can model the actor taking the decision into a state ⇨ Useful bc can decide how state interacts with this abstraction With the state you can understand international system level BUT in FPA State very useful but cannot be a realistic conceptualization of the State bc not a rational actor ⇨ This is why the main aim of FPA is to detangle, decompose the State to understand what is going on IR scholars understood their role to interpret the broader features of IR FPA =>analysis of sources of decisions: study of FPA decision making ⇨ Decision making ⇨ Indiv decision maker ⇨ FP decision process ⇨ What can affect FP ⇨ Analysis of the outcomes of the decisions Why are certain decisions taken by State? Factors determining the FP process? Definitions:  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat ▪ Explain decision taken by human decision makers with ref to or having no csq and which are external to their nation State ▪ Decisions can entail action, inaction or indecision => internal or external instit can directly or indirectly be impacted or influenced ▪ Analyze x decisions in a specific situation Ex: Ukraine’s war => don’t take one decision usually (one economic, humanitarian aids…) ▪ Decisions can change over time => need to look at them through time Ex: Ukraine with military equipment ▪ Stages of decision making from pbm recognition to contingency planning and option assessment ▪ Look into decisions of those human beings who are in position of authority Don’t want to explain accident, mistake (bc can’t be analyzed) or any decision which can’t be conceptualized as having an international component (analyze it as publicist scholar) ⇨ What abt globalization? Any decision will have an external impact Big issue but globalization not eternal + still things cleared classified FP Actual decisions made by human decision makers may not be immediately observable by analysis => authority not very transparent abt their decisions (nation secu concerns, secrets, lies, hard to talk to them…), what do we do with the information Decisions ≠ actions and decisions ≠ outcomes → Actions: sometimes, decisions will never result in an action bc decision is not to act or not enough consensus to follow an act Decisions taken in a way to not reveal the true decision taken Btw decisions and actions lay implementation => obstacles (intentional, political), lack of coordination btw policy areas, multilateral decision blocked by other countries with veto → Meant to achieve its aim BUT complete success is rare => sometimes achieve the opposite Ex: invasion of Iraq by USA Focus on decisions and decision-making process Decision makers cannot control the outcomes, actions or inactions that flowed from their decision (so many factors that make them less cleared) Process ≠ outcome: → Part of FPA is normative => idea in ’60 that decision-making process not that smooth and analysing it helped making decision to achieve better outcomes (tradition of US) Factors that influence FPDM and makers: Context (economy, geopolitics, geography…) The personality of the main stakeholders Political position Relationship  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Color of the room FPA critics saying FPA is impossible bc there are too many factors 6 main pillars: Multifactorial Multilevel Multi or interdisciplinary scholarship Integrative Actor specific => cannot assume or see human being as a rational unity and not equivalent of the state they serve Agent oriented => states not seen are THE agent as in IR bc they are abstractions, only human beings are agent and have agency Agency structure debate Relationship between FPA and IR structure agency => debate over the q that structure or agency that shapes human being ⇨ Structure can enhance possibilities and everything around us ⇨ Agency is the capacity of ind to act independently and to make our own choices Structures give a cleared cut of agency or human beings with their freedom that change structures FPA is more focused on agency => come from the critics of the constructivists in ’80 IR (constructivists) is more focused on structure FPA is valuable because it brings into IR the agency, analysis of the questions that go into the DMP. It adds the human decision makers as the key role of the DMP Reading S2: Hudson, Valery M., and Benjamin S. Day. 2020. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (Chapter 1, 14-28). The document addresses the foreign policy theory approach (CFP) and highlights the methods and challenges associated with this approach. It highlights the importance of conceptualising the dependent variable for foreign policy theory, as well as the need for empirical testing across nations and eras. In addition, the paper highlights debates around research methodologies, including the opposition between case studies and aggregated empirical tests. He also mentions the need to return to the founding vision of the PSC while integrating multiple levels of analysis. Finally, it mentions the work of individual researchers who have contributed to the evolution of foreign policy theory.  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Part 1 – Theories and Concepts (Foreign Policy Decision-Making) Session 2 – Introduction to Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) I. Origins of FPA 3 mains major works published end ‘50 beg ‘60 => imp bc build FPA as a discipline → Collective book Decision making as an approach to the study of international politique Snydier => imp to look at the nation level of analysis and to look to the decision maker (who governs the state) = critics of I theories and realism bc they are neglecting human making agency => why? Have to understand the motives, the background of the decisions made (= complects motivation and the set of actors) Try to bring forward the idea of national interest Also have to look at DCP rather than the DM outcomes 3 major basic things that can determine DM and their policies choices: ▪ Sphere of cptce: position of DM within the organization process ▪ Communication and information: DM is a mb of a community who is socialized with certain values that are learned and communicated ▪ Motivation: objectives that are socially determine + can’t be objective bc understand if look at the norms, values that are part of the DM (role of the personality) = multidisciplinary → Rosenau Pre-theories and theories of FP => tries to encourage a form of scientific or systematic generalization abt nation state behavior Need to create, think abt theories, concepts that can be generalized which can be used to predict nation state behavior = imp bc its way drawing to CP => Why is it possible to do so in CP and not in FP? Middle range theory => ≠ the idea to discuss very general ideas (= grand theory in IR such as the balance of power) BUT middle range is what we have in FPA to go under the very high level of grand theories, it is more specific theories and more context- bound (ex: DMP in democratic regimes) → Harold and Margaret Sprout Psycho-milieu relationship hypothesis in the context of IP => cannot understand FP without the undertaking of FP (strategies, decisions, intentions…) How to understand them? With the psycho-milieu of the DM => “international and operation environment and perceived and interpreted by DMakers” = discrepancy btw what is real and what you perceived given your personality, the way you are socialized => not possible to have a rational way to approach FP = multi factors to explain it (multidisciplinary again)  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Main conclusions: Peculiarities of Human being that are vital to be studied => the one that are doing FP These peculiarities need to be built into middle range theory (have to elevate your analysis to not lose the complexity) Have to use multi factors + the DMP is the focus than the DM outcomes II. Major research strength (classic phase of FPA) late 1950-60 until 1980 a. Group decision making (small grp dynamics and analysis of organization processes) 1rst major research 1. Small group dynamics FPA had the idea to bring these insights to the FPDMaking Leaders and advisors operate in a pol and soc context that determine when and how they matter => take into account the context (imp ++) Some elements mater to say if a group will be important in DMaking: - Group need to be involved, interested in the issue - Issue will be considered to be very much imp for the future of the regime and therefore seen as a crisis (if crisis, need to decide quickly so can’t take the opinion of everyone) - Small grp imp when it is something new and novel bc cannot use the classic preexisting process always used (bc all the processes are no longer relevant) - When high diplomacy (ambassadors, decisions taken at the higher hierarchical level) is involved => need to act fastly and also bc processes no longer useful Small group (president, inner circle of president…) central element in DMP when you have complex cases in which dominance of uncertainty, pol controversy, conflicting values => act through small grp bc need to act fast How do they bc central and why? Defining the nature of the pbm and presenting appropriate solutions for discussion During these moments that pol leaders are mostly impacted policies and more specifically FP (business in particular) Imp to look to the personality and the social element of those who takes the decision bc without it can’t understand what is going on In FPA lots of studies of the social group’s dynamics => Crisis in Cuba with JFK Concept of groupthink => within a small grp, reach consensus but not at the detriment of critical thinking or alternative solution ⇨ when you have a high grp cohesion, strong external pressure to make the right decision => everyone agrees with the proposal event though it is not true set aside their personal opinion bc of the grp pressure desire to avoid conflicts results into conformity (ex: decision to go to war) Erving Janis = psychologist who manage what is grp think and show that when you have extreme situation, face external threats => try to stay together and avoid ≠ perspectives to have a decision that is not the optimal one bc no discussion BUT agreement 2. Organization processes and bureaucratic analysis  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat How bureaucracy and processes in it can influence the FPDM? Every time org and bureaucracy put their own survival at the top of the list of priorities try to enhance their turf (= all their parameters of influence) => secure their sphere to infl on a specific domain budget: as much as possible to do more things try to have a strong identity = Org will try to increase its turf and strength and to preserve everything that is part of their missions In larger org find standard operation procedures => limits creativity Bureaucracy needs processes to implement their own policies Braham Allison studied Cuba missile crises (main author of the concept) b. Comparative FP Most controversial = response to the call for generalizable theories (Rosenau’s work) => idea is to concentrate on FP event (= tangible, artifact of the infl attempt that is FP (ex: economic embargo, war…) that you can collect, measure and which can give you the idea of the influence attempt of FP) We have to try to compare these events btw each other using behavioral dimension (ex: what instrument did you use? Economic, diplomatic, military? What level of commitment? Troupes, hackers?) => break down an event into smthg that can be coded Event = dependent variable and have to find all the independent variable that can explain this specific event = statistical study of FP => code everything that is part of the event in order to compare and then try to make some generalisations Naïve project bc basically tries to find a solution between 2 things that seems quite impossible to be brought together => not elevated enough bc still thinking as an FPA scholars (smthg generalizable but still want a fine level of analysis Didn’t work bc too many factors + large marge of variability ⇨ One variable in which you put all the things you don’t know => can’t be precise enough c. Psychology and societal milieu of DM in FP (analysis of ind and analysis of everything of national attribute…) 1. Analysis of individual Mind of FPMaker is not rational => believes, attitudes, memories, national and self- conception + factors that shape your societal concept as a DMaker Subfile is individual (next session) => personal character become crucial in understanding the FP choice One of the major authors: Alexander George ⇨ Dev an existing concept: operational coat => set of general beliefs about fundamental issues on history and q on politics that serve as a prism through which actors diagnosis the flow of pol events It is one variable to understand an individual and its personality, the context… => wrong to only take this variable  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat 2. Anything that analyses societal and national features Kal Holsti => national role conception He tries to capture how nation view its role at international level by looking at the elite’s perception of national level Societal group => understand the interplay between domestic and international pol and also on national attributes Are large nations more likely to go to war than small ones? III. Self-reflexion in the ’70 – ’80 Strong period of self-reflexion Quite difficult to found groupthink bc difficult to access to data on bureaucratic policy group dynamics so research based on old events => still relevant? ⇨ Yes bc patterns in group can be isolated from the historical context Fields expand after ’80 bc lots of research done in the field of pol psycho => kind of possible to put everything done in a field and apply it to FPA Societal level contracting in their research bc CFP was not dev as pol psycho CFP was a failure bc criticised the most bc too difficult and not coherent (try to generalised while carry on having fine analysis) Most funded by USA bc of the idea of predicting events  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Session 3 – Foreign Policy, the State, and Power Reading S3: The document "China’s Public Diplomacy towards Africa" discusses in detail cooperation between China and Africa in various areas. It highlights the importance of public diplomacy in strengthening relations between these two international actors. Specifically, the paper examines China’s economic strategies in Africa and their implications for other international actors, including Korea. There is also talk of massive investment by China in development projects in Africa, which has a significant impact on trade and diplomatic relations. The document also highlights China’s commitment to initiatives such as providing scholarships for African students, developing the Confucius Institutes in Africa, and promoting the Chinese language on the African continent. It also highlights the growing presence of African students in Chinese universities, thus underlining the importance of education in Sino-African relations. In addition, the paper discusses cultural exchanges between China and Africa, highlighting the impact of the "Korean wave" on the perception and purchasing behaviour of African consumers. Finally, it highlights the importance of media in public diplomacy, highlighting the role of CCTV (China Central Television) in global communication and its growing influence in the new world order of communication. Comments : When did fp become successful ? - When the aim is achieve - Normative value - When the relationship btw 2 states are in good term - The ability for a state to assert itself + promote its interred in a consistent measure within the internal system => eg switzerland : you're able to make a congress or peace for belligerent countries - Its critical, in order to assess xe need to understand power, sources and means to achieve that specific aim -> as a fp you need to forge all these dimensions I. Power and foreign policy.  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat 3 theories in IR: → Realism => balance of power within IS where the best way to be sure that there is an equilibrium is to have a bipolar system (the case with CW) Anarchy => no central gov, no police, no way of executing a form of cohesion countries have to defend themselves and find solution to enhance their own security → Liberalism => anarchical system BUT have IO (places through cooperation possible to achieve cohesion) → Constructivism Going to accept the main ideas of realism => nature of IR is anarchic which means states are trying to assure their own security and wealth ⇨ Form of direct competition btw the states to secure wealth and security ⇨ Cooperation seen as smthg tactical or strategic => ensure your security and wealth = security dilemma (= arms race) do smthg to level of security => neighbor feels insecure and thus leads to a dynamic of readjusting security -> struggle bwt states to gain security and wealth Centrality always around Power (= ability of a state to cause another state to take actions which are to the first sate advantage and which the other might not otherwise pursue -> abt cohesion) 2 ways of making someone do smthg that it would not do otherwise: → Hard power => direct actions (force and cohesion) ex: compel the target state to do something through a direct threat or intervention (military demonstration, economic vital interests…) → Soft power (Joseph Nie) => indirect actions (persuasion and influence) using diplomatic means, universal principals… (cultural diplomacy, idea of historical partnerships…) JN said that hard power is the ability for a state to make another state do what they wouldn’t do otherwise (= stick-carrot approach) and soft power is the ability to get a desire outcome bc the others want what you want Sources of state power: - Military - Economic - Geographic position - Materials - Size of pop - Level of economic dev - Strength of new technologies…  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat II. National interest: definition and debates. Discussed and questioned concept bc very illusive more than often it is decided by leaders and not citizen According to Morgenthau => synonym of power (= proper object of state FP and also the best measure for its capacity to achieve its aims) ⇨ In this realist perspective => how it is determined and implemented is crucial to understand FP choice made by the State and also the response Self-evidence => depending of the conditions of the State, you are going to have a certain national interest ⇨ BUT realists can determine for any State the national interests bc it is rational Idea of BOP To order the IS and to keep the equilibrium need a form of BOP on the one hand, state determines their strength and then try to make alliance with other states to become stronger realist conception => pbm at international level bc shift on the BOP (one hand, strong states alliance such as USA, UK, Australia… AND new challengers such as China that still figures out to make alliances with existing alliance or creating a third alliance) = All agree that states subscribe by necessity to the idea to maintain territorial integrity and economic wealth Important to us: a state wants in any case to ensure their citizens have wealth (economic prosperity) and to not being attacked (territorial integrity) III. Foreign policy instruments. What are the means available to a state to achieve a FP objective? Premise: best design FP in the world is granted irrelevant without a clear sense of the tools available for politicians and their utility, effects Har power tools: → Diplomacy Activity btw states => formal and informal discussions aimed to resolve pbms (mediation…) => can take place a bilateral or multilateral level As a diplomate => trained to know all the parts of diplomatic protocol (determined by using and forms of tradition codified from XIXth in Europe) Can talk abt pbm, solve issues, good relationship in terms of economic, trade relations… or find solutions to a pbm Used to express a moment of anger when there is something they don’t like → Economic instruments When diplo is insufficient => embargo, economic sanctions (more than often symbolic than rather effective) ….  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → Subversion = idea of gathering info through intelligence agency (or analysis by specialists) espionage, propaganda, → Military Ultimate expression of state willingness for its FP Clausewitz “war is continuation of policy by other means” Security alliance, presence of permanent military bases… not only going to war Also demonstration of strength Not only for enemy but also for states within your alliance Soft power tools: → Values promotion Educational exchanges, scholarships, fund NGOs that have an explicit value promoting agenda, human groups, trade unions… = domestic actors would embrace the values of the country that is launching the “attack” unconsciously would be more favorable to the FP each of these instruments have their strength and weaknesses => most of the time combination of the tools targeting a given FP pbm Take aways: Disentangle the relationships btw FP and power Need to understand what FP is and what instrument a state can have to impose its FP (= middle range theory) Power and the instruments are important and everything that goes within its understanding Case study: China’s public diplomacy in Africa What is public diplomacy? = basic diplomatic engagement with people aimed at influencing, mobilizing public opinion to advance your own nations interests and values Seeks to influence public opinion through media, educational pgm… (= part of Soft Power) Different type of PD: → 1rst try to understand and listen: what is the public opinion (researches to think tank, analysts…) → advocacy: involves creation and dissemination of info that is specifically targeting one policy objective → Classic culture diplomacy (= exporting your own culture to a foreign context…) → Exchange diplomacy (= neutral exchange btw citizens and elites) → International broadcastings (= transmissions through media such as radio, television, internet…) = influencing through soft power the way pub opinion perceives a certain policy and influencing this to the way you want them to see it Useful bc easier to talk to someone that have the same values than you China’s PD? *education* Each language has their own way of thinking  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Scholarships, exchanges, invests in building schools *economic diplomacy* Use its own resources (loans mostly) to promote trade, investments => “one belt, one road” initiative (= key platform to integrate Africa to their trade) through railways (Djibouti- Ethiopia => landlock countries can have an access to the sea) and in Kenya standard railways Has a project and the builds the infrastructures => BUT pbm pay for a foreign company to engineer and build the project but not local workers so China comes with the engineers to start the project and employs the locals (ex: Egypt with creation of the new administrative capital “New Cairo” => particularity of China: bc it is a communist country; the companies are state-owned companies win-win for both countries) *media diplomacy* Also invest in media => China’s global TV Network *dev assistant* = ODA (official dev assistance) kind of money for free in agriculture, health In western term try to give human rights values (try to not finance project that are not in line with human right values or sustainable dev) Particularity of this ODA: interests higher in giving money bc impose a way of seeing the world *high profile visit* Shows interests in a way of understanding, considering the other State as a partner *debt trap diplomacy* Chinese gov doesn’t give any data abt the debt of the helped countries (ex: Sri Lanka => give the access or the property of a port for a defined time bc they are poor and cannot afford the management of the structure => a way for China to grab territory and gain more and more influence) Cannot study this bc don’t have data => need to be critical = disguised a way of “neocolonialism” BUT good tactic bc succeed in extending their influence (depends on which perspective you’re seeing it) How would the French pub opinion react if France was doing the same as China? wouldn’t be happy bc only wants to focus on France and its “outre-mers” NGO’s => scandal Session 4 : Foreign Policy Decision Making Intro : Many ways to understand the IR  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat -> main ideas conveyed => we are not interested to pursue a grand theory of IR bc FPA is interested in FPDM (process rather than the outcome) middle-range theories Middle-range theory -> level of abstraction is low so closer to reality I. Rational approach of analysis FPDM Realistic approach => BOP, system of anarchy… In FPA do not care abt grand theories -> use it as a G thing that we have bc useful in the lecture to give few ideas abt it Make sense given this type of approach at beginning of FPA => analysis of FPDM is a rationalist manner ⇨ Rational => take or apply rational choice theory to the study of FPDM WHY? - methodological and analytical tool to be rigorous - rational choice theory => (apply first in social and economic sciences and used to explain economic and social behaviours) assumes that ind by weighting costs and benefits to maximise their self-interest and utility Understand people when use this theory as rational use your rational side and not your emotion side Preference ranking => choose option which provide the greatest benefit => make decision in rational and logical manner based on the available info you have (assume that everyone has the same amount of info) Applied to international system why do we do that? -> vary rigorous, needed, logical theory to create some regularities=> maximise utility of State in IS: a state first identifies and prioritises policy goals and then identifies or selects the FP means and which one fulfils our aim and at what cost? = this way of reasoning to explain a behaviour is common Rules of the game are the same for every State => as a variable, IS is more or less constant (rules of the game are something that war can logically theorised) game theory => mathematical framework used to analyse situations where players make decisions that are interdependent rational choice theory explains how the rules work but not the setting and the potential interactions btw ≠ players that all follow their rational and logical to maximise their benefits FP => used game theory to understand some FP dilemmas => why certain States do not collaborate? Why do we have war? Snider and Diesing => tried to analyse (’60 ’70) how State behave in a moment of international crisis Pervasive consent expectation of war bc anarchy so no one punishing you for making war -> explicit or implicit threat of war is the ultimate form of pol pressure and ultimate means of security, wealth… = wanted to provide a theoretical explanation on how these threats of war affect the behaviour of States and actually used or manipulated States in order to advance and protect their interests  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Also tried to add the IS as the 2nd level of analysis => variable to take into account to understand how states behave Identify 9 ≠ games where they take crisis situations to analyse how state behave ⇨ Thomas Chalay => applied it to nuclear threats with the prisoner dilemma (incites to defect on your mates even though better to collaborate BUT in moment of uncertainty -> better to defect) Idea is to use the game in an uncollaborative and to explain why States come to a nuclear race - Deterrence => use of a threat to prevent an opponent from taking undesirable actions by convincing him to be afraid of the csq of the threats - Need to be credible => need to convince you are willing to use it even if face of the cost is crucial for deterrence = through games theories => explain how both sides have to calculate their action bc even the threat of nuclear war can influence decisions even though there is no direct nuclear war = brinkmanship -> use strat of escalation to produce a change in a behavior of an aggressive opponent -> advance in a strategy to make the other one back off What makes it credible? Why would one back down? Only if threat of not backing down is credible + predictive FP outcome: balance of terror = US doctrine in terms of nuclear weapon during CW Few pbms: → Implicitly: form of relying on perception of decision makers => structuring and context of negotiation and the process that accompanies them The way you understand a situation might be ≠ bc ≠ personality, ≠ background… = irrational part of rational approach → Pbm is the fact that rationalists do not acknowledge that explicitly => ind level is more complex with more rational actors Start of the critics of FP scholars of the rational approach What abt domestic level? A rationalist would tell that there are some domestic contains that need to be taken account => each time a model didn’t work or there is a variation, simply would be bc of the domestic level = do not really take it into account in an explicit manner Bc international level is the one thing that decides the rules of the game II. Critics against its model The main pbm with this type of reasoning: structure and agency debate ⇨ FPA => really useful (Rosenau => generalization of state behaviors) but need to include ind leaders bc they are the one to influence people in DM process bc of their experience, limitation…. Sprout (= classic example of criticizing)  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Env can be distinguished between the operational env (objective reality) and psychological env which is subjective and under the influence of perceptional varieties FPDMakers take decisions based on psychological environment rather than their rational part Distortion of both env has an impact of FPADM and the FPA as a whole = DMakers do not act in a pure rational manner => operate in a env with certain amount of infos -> can make decisions only in this type of env and type of limitations = Dmakers are biased bc form of prejudices bc sort of distortion within the FPDM process FPA do not threw away BUT to integrate these critics in their own analysis => basic env of FPA scholars needs the rational and realistic approaches Bounded rationality Simon => main arg: people operate under limited cognitive, infos and time → Limited info: don’t have access to all relevant info to make a fully informed decision → Cognitive limitation: AI would change it BUT until now limited capacities to process infos (not a robot or computer so limited number of data you can process so simplify bc cannot process everything) → Time constraint: work in period of time where they have not enough time to make a decision -> use even more the possibility available = ind will not make an optimal choice as rational theory would tell but settle for satisfactory decisions = more applicable to leaders What does it mean? In this sense => complex and uncertain env in FPA Policy makers do not have the possibility to consider all possible alternative and outcomes Don’t seek the optimal policy but take satisfied decision => take the one that requires the minimum requirement Use shortcuts or heuristics bc don’t have the time or cognitive capacities Alex Mintz: poli- heuristic FP decision understood at best at 2 steps: - Non rational elements that entered in the 1rst phase => DMakers think at what is pol possible as a leader and dev the menu of option on that basis - Policy options are ranked in a rational manner using rational choice BUT tries to integrate rational and non-rational elements The way still continues to take rational approach => FP scholars accept basic attempts of these critics but not very much keen on abandoning the logic of rational choice FPA not a critical thinking of IR Criticize certain elements but take for basis the elements of this way of thinking, ontological method  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Session 5 – Psychology and Personality of the Leader Rappels rational choice theory is too simplified because doesn’t take into account other factors → critical theory would say on the contrary that power in the realist conception is absurd because it doesn’t rely on tools and military  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → we have to look at things more deeply I. FP as a product of human agency In some level it’s interesting to look at the psychology of the individuals contrary to rationalists → everyone will act the same way as a rational player Leaders of states are pivotal in the FP process therefore essential to take their psychology into account When do leaders matter ? - when they govern in a regime with few constraints → in a parliamentarian regime power is more diffused between actors and institutions whereas in a dictatorship the leader is really important → nuance : very general ideas because even in parliamentarian regimes can be very important as well - when a leader is interested in FP because in this case they won’t really delegate and keep the decision makings for themselves → nuance : disinterested leaders can start getting interested in FP in some situations - during a period of crisis usually it will be handled at the highest level of government → nuance : there are a few leaders, aware of their own biases, who will understand that their own psychological issues could get in the way and thus surround themselves with more people to make decisions ⇒ very critical of themselves - when advisors are not able to read the situation very well the leader could take over like in a period of crisis - when leader is inexperienced in FP, a trained leader would have learned to deal with diplomats whereas inexperienced leaders will develop FP responses, reactions in given situations → if a leader has a particular interest in a region they might want more relations with that region ex: Henry Kissinger was an expert in foreign relations - when a leader has a hand on the leadership style : wants to have control over the process ex: Macron is a micromanager (into details) - some group dynamics are interesting to look at (will be more detailed in another session) We use psychology to understand how leaders act II. The role of psychology a. Perception and cognition It is through our senses that our minds make contact with the world around → but pour senses capt more information than the mind can process  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Perception is everything that can be attributed to those sensory inputs = we perceive more than we notice ex: we saw the teacher but we didn’t notice what colour her shoes were = we perceived she was wearing shoes but we didn’t try to care for their colour As we perceive more than we notice we build filters that help us decide which inputs are worthy of more detailed processing ⇒ this process is called cognition Cognition : the processing of perceived things b. Heuristic policies Shortcut on how the mind should focus on some things in a specific situation ex: today we don’t care about her shoes but during the fashion week we would’ve cared about her shoes Problem : every individual has its own tailored set of filters → we all have similar ones but they are all different as well because depend on our experiences Inability to know, think or understand everything for the human brain → we make a simplified model of reality → inescapable We are wired to be able to think quickly how to react in case of danger for ourselves or others = inescapable we are all like that and can’t change it, it’s natural Heuristic : the way in which we process information (for all of us not just the leaders) → short term memory based on our day to day life that only has the space for 5 or 7 items once the limit has been spent some information just falls off, is dropped out → which ones ? → priority list in our minds that depends on the individual and the situation → long-term memory is way bigger in terms of capacity (limitless) in which we place some information of the short-term memory that we believe is important to remember → associative recall : taking things you think you remember and try to connect them to the one thing you want to remember ex: where do i put my keys → try and associate it to another memory of when did i last saw them ⇒ creating a schematic model through which you can enter your long-term memory and try to find what you are looking for but in this case you recall rather than remember by trying to connect the dots ⇒ that is how we are wired → one of the reasons why conspiracy theories work because they try to find patterns to connect First priority is to get the information, understand the explanation, rather than the acting the explanation (empirical evidence) For cognitive theorists individual decision makers are focused on integrating a belief system = source of decision making → that is how they believe things work Form of over confidence → when first getting the information feel less secure about the accuracy of your information but then the level of confidence into your information gets more important as it goes through the cognition and heuristic processes ⇒ cognitive biases  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat III. How does FPA use psychological information ? 5 characteristics : how individuals in a position of power behave in FP a. Beliefs the way individuals view political realities ⇒ how leaders can map the political terrain on which they can operate in form of norms guiding the political institutions they lead → right and wrong behaviour → but hard to change because they will believe their actions are right There is a set of rules based on personal experiences in the mind of leaders they use to analyse new situations and develop policy responses for these new situations → thing that explains how you will behave and present the options to you → FPA tries to make sense of these beliefs that are part of the operational code in the way in which they process information, guiding policy OR look at cognitive mapping (Robert Axelrode) the belief system leads to the development of a cognitive map combining perception, prejudice (bias) and understanding of historical lessons → then apply this cognitive map to decision making Makers tend towards the policies choice that are suboptimal rather than wait for the good things that would be best for long-term short-term… → more likely to choose something that is less of the two evils Leaders distort information that don’t align with their beliefs they prefer consistency in the information they perceive in their cognitive map rather than having a dissonance ⇒ they are part of a group and they take self-esteem to a high level through wanting to be right b. Motives When leaders climb a political ladder they have a variety of motives to bring them to wanting that position It can be a sense of obligation to serve or because you want to address a cause/solve a problem (activists) or for recognition and prestige Leaders’ motivation can shape their behaviour in their choices, interactions… 3 types of leaders : - in high need of power are willing to take risks, manipulator, politics seen as fun, interested in having political experts as advisors, viewed by followers as being charismatic, etc - in need for achievement will be moderate in risk taking, want feedback, personal control on the outcomes, will want technical experts to achieve their policy objects and succeed - in need for affiliation = to be liked by others, will be friendly, cooperative but also very defensive when feel threatened, peace makers, consensus builders and have friends as advisors to have a lovable atmosphere around them but it is polemical because picked by the leader for affinities, not capacities Don’t only influence their behaviour but also on the position they get Statistically those who want to rise will have higher probabilities to succeed  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat c. Leadership style Important for any leader in the decision making process Leadership style is less essential than beliefs and motives because the leadership style has less direct impact on policy → sets the tone and pattern for governing always a part of the pattern of governing Whereas motives and believes will change the policy options Manager Hermann = most important scholars in the field and developed categories of leadership style - Expansionist leader is driven by desire to set government … → less constraints on norms and willing to take risks ex: Putin - Evangelistic leader ideologically driven and motivated to promote a specific set of values and perceptions of the world ⇒ shape FP according to their believes ex: Reagan with opposition to communism - Directive leader will prefer to control decision making process tightly and guide their subordinates closely with top down leadership style and use their own judgment to make their decisions, small circle of trusted advisors and disregard alternative viewpoints ex: Margaret Thatcher - Consultative leader who values the input from others and involve advisors in decision making. Like debate and discussions, with collaborative environment and more likely to make decision based on consensus and try to evaluate a lot of situations before deciding ex: Barack Obama - Reactive leader tends to respond rather than shape events → will be waiting until circumstances involve decisions = reluctant = slow to act and tend to focus on minting stability and avoid disruption ex: Jimmy Carter (FPA very US centred) - Incrementalist leader who prefers step by step implementation → prefer slow adjustments over time and evaluate each small st before proceeding ex: George H.W. Bush (senior) Hermann gives all these leadership styles and connects then to 3 personal traits - Responsiveness to constraints = reaction - Openness to information = integration of new information - Motivation = why do they do it Expansionists are challenging constraints, close to information, and want to expand their power and territory Evangelistic challenges constraints, close to information but more relationship focus to make people join your cause d. Reaction to stress and pressure Leaders are under a lot of pressure  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat As stress increases leaders focus less on the consequences and often see the present in terms of the past + decrease number of options available, leave behind info that doesn't fit and short term decisions Important when leader is under threat e. Background factors Nature of political experiences has an impact on your actions → if a lot of experience have a sense of what works and take this as part of reasoning Political leaders will be more active in the areas they know about Nature of first political experience is very important in the memory Conclusion: We have to think critically it can be fascinating but we can't only rely on psychological aspects of FP decision making At the end the psy environment is less relevant than the operational factors it can't rely only on the individual level Critical perspective: perceptions, images, ideologies are socially constructed thus it depends on the society you grow up in thus we should look into the individuals social background rather than psychologically Reading : Main argument: the reaction of a certain situation depends on the leadership and their personality traits Methodology: counterfactual methodology (much used in history) enabling the maintenance of the context and change one variable and see how it would change the framework in itself ex: Joe Biden's very experienced in FP he believes in multilateralism and cooperation he sets out efforts to unite Donald Trump → he is more conflictual  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Session 6 : Bureaucratic Politics and Governmental Arrangements I. Group Dynamics impacted by the psychology of the leader, part of the psychological approach → looking at the same human psychological and cognitive limitations we used to challenge the rational approach through the analysis of individual leaders there’s a new set of problems arising when group decision-making structures need to understand the way in which decision-making takes places as a structure A. Influence in groups Groups tend to come to more extreme positions if compared to the positions of each individual member, group members are often willing to accept more risks than if they were to decide individually. There’s a polarization process deriving from a variety of psychological dynamics : ex : in-group experts = if a member of the group is an expert, you will most probably listen to this person more than if you had to take the decision on our own ex : desire to belong to a group, you attach yourself to the loudest, most proactive, assertive person of the group ex : diffusion of responsibility, diffused within the group so you can have a more extreme position A lot of work about polarization within groups has focused on minority influence = minorities can influence majorities if they’re very committed to the position they hold. Minorities can have an even greater influence if the issue is not that personally relevant to the majority, or if they use a shared frame = you use the framework your opponent uses as well to make them feel like you understand them From a cognitive point of view, when minorities are successful, they do not only have the power to “gain their acceptance” but are capable of changing cognitively the views of the members of the majority → relevant for FP but also for any other policy area  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat B. Group decision-making Groups in DM-process tend to go towards 2 ends of a continuum : from groupthink to polythink. Groupthink (Irving Janis) = when there is a form of cohesion and coherence within a group When individuals are part of a group, they tend to seek a form of consensus, to maintain it even if it means they do not promote their own interest and even if they put aside their own expertise on a certain issue. The best or optimal decision is the most rational one, often diluted or abandoned because of this strive to find a common position as a group. In a groupthink process, members engage in an excessive concurrence seeking self-censorship, mindguarding (you don’t allow yourself to think certain elements) → leads to very bad decisions. The problem is that even though you can be aware of those group dynamics and do some management, this type of dynamics is very strong and very important when in a period of crisis, because there’s not enough time to put in place the mechanisms to circumvent the psychological approach of the way individuals behave. BUT some scholars argue that a better approach might be the new-group syndrome = new group members might be overwhelmed by someone that has a lot of expertise or the norms, the rules of the group, so sometimes we need not to look at the group as a unitary thing but we should rather focus on the individuals composing the group Polythink = the group decision dynamic is dominated by conflicts between members; idea that group members all have a different way of perceiving the same decision problem This dynamic refers to a group with a wide range of diverging opinions that bring very incoherent policies; members hold conflicting viewpoints that make it difficult to have cohesive strategies and search consensus. We can ask ourselves what leads to polythink rather than groupthink : → background and expertise : in situations where decision-makers come from a variety of backgrounds, polythink can emerge the less new members you have, the more pressured they are to conform to the group → question around complexity : in highly uncertain situations, leaders and advisers might propose very varied approaches due to stress, they’re less open-minded to find a common way, connected to a weak leadership Groupthink : a dominant voice makes it less easy to not conform with them Polythink : no clear/direct leader to lead the discussion → diverging opinions arise  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Institutional or political constraints : decision-makers with competing national interests → polythink, members prioritize their own goal over group cohesion C. Advisory structures This approach takes as a hypothesis that the relations among individuals within advisor structures can have an impact on policies. Attempt to categorize 3 main decision-making structures, discussed by Johnson : 1. formalistic / hierarchical → hierarchical authority, leader at the top, top-down DM process → information from below comes through the filter of staff, strict procedures → effect on group dynamics : limits open debates, reduces influence of lower-ranking advisors, does not integrate a lot of diverging viewpoints on an issue 2. competitive → relatively unstructured → leader in the center rather than on top of the pyramide, multiple advisors and committees giving a lot of diverging opinions → conflict encouraged to facilitate externalization of creative ideas and opposing viewpoints BUT leader makes the final decision → effects on group dynamics : debates, multiple channels of advice, variety of viewpoints useful for the leader BUT encourages a form of competition between different bureaucratic apparatuses or advisors 3. collegial → president emphasizing teamwork, shared responsibility, promotion of collegial decision- making → informal procedures with a focus on consensus building → leader in the center of a network of advisors who interact in a very collaborative and inclusive manner → effect on group dynamics : allows a wide-range of voices to be heard, enables collaboration and openness, BUT can lead to coordination problems and inefficiency because too many voices, needed to accept there are dissenting voices and sometimes not everyone can get what they wanted The main element we need to look at = where is power, the degree of centralization In a more centralized system (hierarchical structure) : tight control by the leader Collegial and competitive structures : decentralization (even though collegial = very horizontal and competitive = kind of a mix) In a decentralized authority structure, more space for advisors to be heard.  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Those different types of structure depend on the leader, which might be more or less open to accepting conflict, depends on their management style II. Bureaucratic politics = the way policies are implemented, way a policy is thought of Sometimes, leaders don’t have the expertise in terms of norms and law to make a decision; bureaucracies have to gather information, develop propositions, offer pieces of advice, and implement policies. Because of complexity, governments have been organized bureaucratically. Bureaucracies are very much what makes a State, so it’s necessary to look at them; FP scholars started to look at ministries because they all contribute to the formulation and implementation of FP. The analysis of a FP decision making needs to take into account FP bureaucracies and all of the factors making them play such a role in FPDM = bureaucratic politics approach. → FP as an interplay between leaders, bureaucratic actors and organizational structures → = middle-range theory Graham Allison studied cuban missile crisis and developed 3 FPDM models. → main assumption : DM within small groups involves a form of competition between bureaucratic apparatuses because they all represent different organizational goals. 1. rational actor model → Allison : these assumptions are not good enough to explain what happened during the cuban missile crisis, so not a good approach 2. organizational process model → each different institution within a government (ex : different ministries) operate internally in a hierarchical manner, set of routines that forms the backbone of any FP decision → organized hierarchically through a set of routines → when you know them, you know the way in which things are done BUT problem : little communication between the bureaucratic apparatuses SO no cross fertilization of ideas → the policy options provided reflect the organizational needs of each institution, ex : the ministry of defense’s organization need is better weapons, more security 3. bureaucratic politics model (the best model according to him) → bureaucracies are in competition high competition : they want to be heard by the head of states, and high competition for resources  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → bureaucratic leaders that are able to adjust their positions effectively and have privileged relations with the head of state win the conflict → disrespect of the offered policies’ merit : you are not heard because your solution is the good one but because you are good in the competition race → the leader is in a position of “ first among his pairs” = you are not at the highest level of hierarchy but you’re the person who makes the final decision → the leader’s contribution to the development of the decision is very narrow, he just decides Another variable : partisan politics → partisan logics come into the mix = what you think is best for you as a party leader The model of bureaucratic politics is vital : easy to understand and fundamental. It had a lot of troubling consequences for scholars : for many, there was a question of democracy → in a democratic context, decision-making is ideally influenced by elected leaders who represent the public’s will BUT the bureaucratic politics model implies that bureaucrats (= unelected officials) can exert significant influence over FP → the fact that decision owes so much to the political skills of a bureaucrat rather than to the very nature of the FP is quite concerning in terms of national interest Critics towards Allison : the bureaucratic politics and organizational processes model are very much overlapping → why is there a distinction between both ? → competition is the distinction BUT Allison acknowledged there’s not so much differences; he ended up mixing both models → bureaucrats are “faceless” people, part of anonymity : they react in terms of standardized operating procedures but they remain complex individuals with identities and outlooks → from a different angle, spoiled system : bureaucrats are in line with what you want because they’re appointed to key policy-decision role = they seek cohesion rather than conflict → Allison’s model is a very US-based model : FPA has been developed in the US, so a lot of analysis elements are not the same that we could find in other countries Session 7 : Culture and Identity  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat How can culture and identity influence FP ? → have been neglected and came back after 9/11 If we study the beliefs of the leader, we can’t ignore their national culture or identity. The socialization process is also part of our way of thinking; it’s not only about psychology. The socialization process is full of history, and forms the political architecture of a political leader's belief system. I. The Clash of Civilisations In The Clash of Civilisations, Samuel Huntington said that the cold-war inter systems lead to the creation of a clash system : he suggested that the primary global conflicts would no longer be ideological but cultural. According to him, conflicts would be driven by clashes between major cultural or “civilizational” groups, focusing on two potential areas of tension : the “Islamic” civilization and the “Confucian” civilization (essentially China and East-Asia) → saw them as emerging powers challenging the dominance of the Western civilization. → China might form alliances with countries in the Islamic world, not necessarily because of shared values but out of “convenience”- mutual opposition to Western influence → muslim-majority countries like Iran, Sudan, and others might align with China in opposition to Western countries Those conflicts, according to him, wouldn’t always follow national borders, but often be regional. → future conflicts would stem from cultural and civilizational differences → people’s identities (shaped by cultural, religious, historical backgrounds) = powerful source of division Huntington faced critics arguing that he oversimplified and generalized cultures, which could reinforce stereotypes and lead to misunderstandings. He was said to underestimate the role of economics, politics, and individual agency. II. People’s view on their nation We are seeking to answer 3 questions, that people of nation-states try to answer themselves : → who are we ? (about the collective identity of a nation) → what do we do ? (about the values, actions and behaviors that characterize the nation’s identity) → who are they ? (helps define the “other” or those who are considered outsiders or different from the national group)  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Every time we say “we”, it implicitly creates a boundary by excluding others. The national citizens give slightly different answers to those questions. Within any national community, there’s usually a common narrative, but perspectives can vary between individuals. Moreover, foreigners might perceive a nation differently than its own citizens do. A national identity is not static. It can change, evolve, and be contested : in the West, there has been a shift in national identity due to cultural, political, and social changes. ex : Brexit → can the British identity coexist with European identity ? This debate reflects a broader questioning of how national identity can or should incorporate elements of a larger, collective identity. A nation’s understanding of “who are we” can significantly influence its FP : the way a country views itself (its values, goals, priorities) shapes how it interacts with others on the global stage (cf. national role conception ?) This topic ultimately points to the importance of self-reflection on national identity. Both individuals and the nation as a whole are encouraged to consider what it means to be part of a community and how their shared or differing identities shape both domestic cohesion and international relations. III. Analytical lenses What are they : cultural ? identical ? National symbols as the national flag, or national anthem contribute to national identity and give information about “what are we” and “what do we do”. The creation of a community also means the creation of an “other”, projecting towards someone else that is excluded. National identity is political, and can be shaped and reshaped by the community : a change of regime often leads to a change of identity (ex : the French revolution reshaped the way of being French). The whole issue is that we experience culture in our daily lives, but when we want to define it, we don’t know how to. The problem is not about what we can include in the definition, but rather about what we can exclude. ex : if your Brazilian mother-in-law cleans your house when she comes, is it because of her personality or because she’s Brazilian ? → strong vagueness of the definition  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat IV. How is culture defined and studied ? There are 3 ways to study culture. Culture as an organization of meaning : culture is seen as a system of shared meanings that help people interpret the world. Clifford Geertz : culture is embedded in public symbols such as language, rituals and traditions. Artifacts only reveal their true meaning when understood in their context. Geertz advocated for ethnography = a method in anthropology where researchers study people’s cultural symbols and stories in their real-life setting to capture the deeper cultural significance. → understanding culture requires seeing these symbols within their cultural context → in our hyper-connected world, some of these cultural stories risk being lost, which could erode aspects of our cultural identity Culture as value preferences : culture is seen as a set of values that shapes what people desire, value, and prefer in their lives → lead to predictable patterns of behavior within a culture, often called “cultural syndromes” Geert Hofstede developed a model to explain cultural differences based on 6 dimensions. By looking at these value preferences, we can understand what each society considers important, and predict certain behaviors based on these values. power distance : reflects how power is distributed in a society High power distance cultures accept greater inequalities; low power distance cultures prefer equality. individualism VS collectivism Individualistic cultures (ex : US) emphasize personal responsibility, while collectivist cultures (ex : Japan, Mexico) emphasize group cohesion and loyalty. masculinity VS feminity "Masculine" cultures (ex : Japan, Germany) value competitiveness, achievement, and assertiveness, while “feminine” cultures (ex : Sweden, Norway) prioritize care, quality of life, and cooperation. uncertainty avoidance Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance (ex : Portugal) prefer stability and clear rules, while those with low uncertainty avoidance (ex : Denmark) are more open to flexibility and ambiguity. long VS short-term orientation Cultures with long-term orientation (ex : China) prioritize future rewards, patience, and persistence, while short-term oriented cultures (ex : US) focus on immediate results and gratification.  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat indulgence VS restraints Indulgent cultures (ex : Australia, US.) support freedom and personal enjoyment, while restrained cultures (ex : Russia) emphasize strict social norms and self-discipline. Culture as a template of human strategy : culture is seen as a set of strategies that offer advantages in certain situations. Rather than explaining behavior solely by cultural values, this approach looks at the way culture shapes people’s mental structures of “strategies” that help them succeed in specific areas. → each culture equips its members with mental frameworks that are useful in some contexts but not others → culture does not rigidly determine individual behavior but rather provides tools or strategies that people can adapt based on the situation → predicting a person’s actions isn’t solely about understanding their culture but it’s also about understanding their personal perspectives within that culture Culture offers tools for interpreting situations and responding effectively, but it doesn’t fully dictate an individual’s choices. It gives individuals a set of strategies or frameworks that they can use flexibly depending on the context. V. FPA perspective on culture and identity What can FPA tell us about this ? → understanding cultural factors can reveal the motivations behind FP decisions. In FPA, culture is viewed as a system of shared meanings that can influence national identity and the way States engage with each other. This involves analyzing the symbols, language, and ideas that political leaders use to frame themselves as part of a “we” versus “the others,” often creating a sense of unity within the nation while defining outsiders. FPA also studies how culture shapes negotiation styles and diplomatic behavior. ex : Chinese diplomacy often emphasizes moral judgment : Chinese leaders often make decisions with an emphasis on moral considerations, aiming to present their actions as ethically grounded → this “moral superiority” can be seen as a negotiation strategy rooted in a historical perspective where cultural values play a central role in diplomacy Alexander George’s Operational Code = conceptualization of culture The Operational Code represents the conceptual framework or mindset shaped by cultural influences : it encapsulates the way leaders view the world, their assumptions about other nations and the values guiding their FP decisions.  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → understanding a country’s Operational Code offers insight into its likely diplomatic actions and strategies In FPA, cultural analysis is only valuable if it provides insights that help predict or explain FP decisions in the near term; to make culture a practical tool in FPA, scholars emphasize identifying cultural trends and patterns that directly impact FP choices. Culture isn’t viewed as opposing power dynamics but rather as a complementary force that can reinforce political agendas → seen as dynamic and adaptable, serving as a tool in political competition In FPA, culture is valued as a political instrument because it can be mobilized to support specific FP goals. ex : rather than solely analyzing Chinese behavior through the lens of traditional state- centered power, FPA looks at which Chinese cultural elements are being emphasized by leaders to serve political objectives Leaders and policymakers selectively use cultural narratives to support or oppose certain policies, often as a strategic choice within the context of power competition. Even within a single culture, there can be contradictory values, and selecting one cultural element over another can itself be a political decision. → culture = essential yet dynamic force → used strategically to advance political objectives → provides leaders with rhetorical tools to justify actions, influence public opinion, and engage diplomatically → flexible resource adapted to fit the immediate goals and competitive needs of the State FPA recognizes that culture and power are intertwined, with culture serving both as a force shaping FP decisions and as a tool in political strategy and competition. Session 8 : Domestic sources of Foreign Policy Domestic politics = one of the key differences between IR and FPA  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → in FPA, we acknowledge the fact that domestic influence is significant in terms of FP and can even be central in FPDM We want to see society at large to see how its dynamics can influence FP. In any human community, there always is a diversity in terms of viewpoints and an unequal distribution of power between individuals → an opinion can have a different impact than another depending on the individual’s position As a result of this, we need to take power struggles into account in FPA. We need to replicate everything we know in terms of sociology, political science etc → all of those fields have something to say in terms of domestic politics 3 basic questions helping us to approach the analysis of domestic politics in FPA → in what fashion is power distributed within the domestic institutions ? → how different are the players’ policy preferences ? → how is information distributed domestically ? = aim to look at these approaches separately and then bring them all together into a theoretical framework According to the sociological approach, the most important factor for domestic influence is the actual structural forms of the State itself→ institutional origin According to the structuralist approach, FPDM is driven by the nature of the economic system within which the State is embedded and lies into the hands of a small elite that traditionally at least has been acting according to its own perceptions of national interest According to the pluralist approach, FP is the product of a competitive, pluralist environment, expressed by interest group politics (parties, media…) I. The sociological approach For some FPA scholars, the most significant source of FP is to be found within the State structure itself, because it is the place where FPDM happens. → mediated by constitutional arrangements Within each peculiar constitutional framework of each and every State, domestic institutions and interest groups operate and create a form of coalition strategy that ultimately decide whether how effectively the domestic can influence the FP domain + role of the rules of political participation Traditionally, the executive branch has the right to formulate and implement FP while the legislative and other institutions have rather limited power. However, this depends on each model :  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → German/Austrian model : when a minister has to go the European level, he gets a mandate; parliament clearly states things you can or cannot negotiate → France : no mandate = constitutional constraints differences from one country to another Point of access = when you have a State-dominated approach (France), you have very few points of access through which the society can get access to the decision-maker However, in the US for instance, there are quite a lot of points of access. These differences are tied to the nature and regime-type of the State : → democratic regimes allow for multiple points of access as part of their legitimacy is derived from popular mandate and accountability to the population → authoritarian regimes often lack this mandate and may restrict points of access to maintain control; traditionally, they have used FP situations to distract from domestic difficulties Democratic peace theory, Kant : a perpetual peace is possible because democracies are less likely to go to war against each other, 4 pillars : → having a republican government → creating a federation of States → creating a form of universal hospitality → respecting sovereignty and non-intervention Michael Doyle substituted “republican” with “liberal” → liberal democracies rarely go to war with each other because of their common internal characteristics and structural stability This can also be explained by the existence of a transnational capitalist class within the developed countries AND developing countries as well. → shares the norms and the values that derives from the interests of the leading capitalist countries that force leading institutions → more inclined to resolve conflicts peacefully through negotiation → the presence of institutional checks and balances imposes substantial constraints on the leaders’ ability to declare war unilaterally Only mature democracies fit the theory; unstable democracies don’t. From a methodological view, if you decide not to apply your theory to cases that don’t fit, it’s very questionable and biased. → many scholars ask themselves whether correlation = causality  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → we shouldn’t talk about democratic peace theory BUT about liberal peace theory because it’s capitalist structures and shared values that drive peace; not democracy itself We can then conclude that regimes can have an impact on FP. II. The structuralist approach → focus on economics and social classes; class-based approach A) Marxist theory The first tradition comes from marxism. According to structuralists who work from a marxist perspective, the roots of FP are driven by the exploitative policies that are the basis of the capitalist system, nothing more than the representation of bourgeois interest. → try to bring together the interests of the capital with labor and market → Lenine : capitalist countries seek new markets because they have an overproduction and need to put what is exceeding outside; they have already used and saturated the markets of their neighbor, and need to look further Competition among nations → constant increase in the demand for resources → the more you produce, the more you want to conquer new markets and look for new resources → leads to efforts to not only export your domestic products, but also your domestic modes of production and the transparency of your own societal class contradictions to other markets, other realities At the end of the day, capitalist countries export their influence to industrializing and non-industrial countries, seeking new opportunities for production → central-periphery relationship with exploitation of non- and semi-industrialized States This produced a FP oriented towards the maintenance of this relationship → capitalist class uses its FP to extend its capitalist economy interest → the ruling class that owns and controls the means of productions shapes FP to secure market + investment possibilities abroad Here, FP is a tool for exporting inherently capitalist tensions by exploiting foreign labor + resources → putting those tensions abroad so that the domestic capitalist economy is stabilized B) Critical theory  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Cox : there is a transnational capitalist class that is not only in the developed world but also in developing countries → shares the norms and values derived from the interests of the leading capitalist countries, which force the institutions like the World Bank Those local elites actively subvert local consideration in order to favor capitalist interest and, thus, basically continue perpetrating local economic dominance C) Elite theory = describes FP as being conducted by and for the elites within each society C. Wright Mills identifies a “power elite” (corporate leaders, politicians, military commanders) that are the driving force behind FP and national policy → this small group of interconnected individuals hold power within key institutions → they make decisions based on shared interests : prioritize economy +security policies This elite is powerful because it controls the political, economic, and media institutions and keeps maintaining this power thanks to policies they design and implement in order to expand their power and wealth Here, the idea of national interest is important : the elites are able to present their interest as the national interest, they are strong enough for societies to mobilize to protect their own interest in the name of the national interest → we could say they manipulate the public opinion through media etc to justify FP actions critics of the structuralist approach : → oversimplification, we cannot completely put aside ideology, national interest → what about democracy and public influence ? there are still possibilities, in democratic societies, for citizens to make up their own mind III. The pluralist approach In pluralistic societies, FP is a result of competition between the interests and inputs of different groups, not just the elites. → focus on electoral democracies and the role of substates/non-state actors → most wildly used approach in FP analysis to assess role of domestic politics in FP A) Interest groups → lobbies, single issue movements, constituency based groups, special interest-based groups, political parties as the aggregation of localized interests  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat They either offer political or financial mobilization for electoral support; they can also do both. They do so towards governments and political parties in exchange of their backing of FP positions. ex : federation for european automobile manufactures → have a certain agenda and either through documents or money will try to gain electoral support for those policy-makers that defend their FP interests such as protect them against Chinese car makers How can we know how strong these interest groups are in terms of power ? It is about the domestic structures. → more power in more decentralized systems because allows them access to multiple points of influence → less power in more centralized systems where DM is more concentrated within the executive or specific institutions B) Public opinion → very complicated → a bit like culture : intuitive, we would assume that it makes sense BUT the connection between public opinion and FP is not well studied → problem : we are not really sure in which direction causality runs : is it leaders that influence public opinion or the other way around ? → still unresolved; the answer is part of your way of approaching and analyzing things Public opinion can be separated between the mass and the various interest groups and lobbies + attentive public that is interested in FP The public opinion can be perceived as a background constraint,, setting limits on what policies are publicly acceptable → it is a factor influencing the decisions + approach adopted → understudied because according to a classic view, it has no role or influence over FP Christopher Hill talked about public opinion as the LockNess Monster : something we often talk about but never see and according to Thomas Risse Kappen, there’s only a section of the public opinion (5-20%) that is really interested in FP. → top level : the elites, then attentive public, finally rest of the public Where does the truth lie ?  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → idea of issue saliency : routine diplomatic issues don’t penetrate the sphere of public concerns, unless it’s about issues that concern people directly C) The media and any information sources The media play a crucial and also sometimes controversial role in FP processes because they are an information bridge between the public, the State and international events. The media as agenda setter : influences which international issues capture public and government attention → can turn policy-makers to align their policies with public concerns that are influenced by the media quite important in times of crisis and conflicts because ex the Vietnam war wouldn’t have been the same if we hadn’t had journalists showing use the images etc The media as a clearing house for information by presenting government officials, diplomatic developments, expert analysis, they became a platform for both official resources and independent perspectives → intermediary between policy-makers and the public, allowing citizens to be informed and make their own decision The media as propaganda instruments, can be used by governments to shape public opinion and build support around their FP decisions ex : promoting patriotism by portraying adversaries negatively → media used to unify public sentiment behind government so it can create a favorable environment for policy initiatives “CNN effect” = CNN created “breaking news” to get immediate attention from the public, → when you take the attention from one point and shift it to another point → the media puts the spotlight only on things that are breaking news worthy; any long- term discussion becomes impossible to be made → short-term policy perspectives Noam Chomsky : the process of opinion formation in democracies → the media elites shape the citizen outlook to conform their own particular interest to win support → manufactured consent : the media creates a form of consent among the public that aligns with elite’s interest According to him, this process filters out all dissenting views and limits the public debate  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat It is only when elite opinion within a State is actually divided over a particular FP issue that the media will actually be able to influence public opinion → as soon as there is a moment of friction within the elites, then media can become very important and powerful Non-state actors are often there to bring forward and shape public opinion of FP issues ex : think tanks = strategic study centers worldwide, nearly 300; philanthropic foundations; semi-State actors ; multinational corporations that fund non-state actors to support perspectives aligned to their interests; NGOs, new media on the Internet The 2-level game, Robert Putnam : HE developed a model to help us understand the rival dynamics in FP : according to him, decision-makers operate within 2 competing frameworks, each having their own rule and operational logics; he calls them gameboards → external environment = anarchic → domestic environment = operates under certain rules The line between the 2 boards becomes often indistinct, blurred. Policymakers find themselves to be compelled to achieve a win set, a policy that satisfies all interests on both boards. This model is interesting because it says that individual decision-makers operate under 2 perspectives sometimes in contradiction with each other and have to find a policy that brings these two competing and very different gameboards together. + captures the feeling of pressure that comes from both the domestic and the international level Session 9 : National Attributes and the External World try to elevate the level of analysis → individual-level, bureaucratic level, State-level, international level we talked about the 2-level game by Putner BUT now we want to put them together we start taking a form of dynamic between the State and international level → not taking the idea of the international level like in IR → we are at the verge of being between the State and the international level I. National properties : major, middle and small powers  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → the size of a country has an impact on its FP → we always come back to the idea of power : what matters is who has power → many other factors that can determine how a State can behave : resources, capabilities… We divide States in 3 primary categories : major, middle and small powers → States’ categorization is a foundational approach in FPA → brings forward the idea of a difference among States in terms of responsibilities, capabilities and influences Upon which factors is such categorization based ? qualitative AND quantitative factors military capability : its strength, size and technological sophistication A major State has the possibility to project its strength globally A middle State has a moderate military power and focuses on a regional level (South Korea) A small State either does not have any military power or really small one, it’s really reliant on alliances to defend itself (Bouthan) economic strength : GDP, trade value, economic influence A major State is a leading global economy that has an important control over international financial institutions (Japon) A middle State is either an emerging country or a regional power (Brazil) A small State has a limited economic influence and is dependent on aids and trade partners (Samoa) population size strategic location and resources A major State controls or accesses global resource networks (US) A middle State such as Turkey controls accesses points that are quite vital between the black sea and the mediterranean A small State can be so in terms of all of the other options BUT all of its power relies on being in a strategic position (Singapore) political stability and governance : having a stable and well-governed State enables you to have an important position regardless of your size A major State has strong institutions (Germany) A middle State has effective governance (New Zealand) A small State struggles with political stability A major power is in quest for primacy, turned towards hegemonic aspirations. → characterized by a substantial economic, military influence → allows it to project power on a global scale  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Their FP is often geared towards establishing and maintaining a leading position within the international order. → form of active role when it comes to shaping the international system, those who are leaders in global governance, security alliances and economic institutions because it’s in their national interest ex : US, the Bretton-Woods system based on a US leadership The idea of hard and soft power : a major power exerts its power in both senses ex : the fact we all speak english 3 characteristics of a major power : → global influence allows them to establish diplomatic resolutions, trade agreements → military expenditure allows them to be deterrent, well-advanced technology → leadership in multilateral institutions (US in the NATO SC) Middle powers = reliant on multilateralism → level of influence is moderate → exert their influence through multilateral alliances and coalition-building → focus on niche areas where they can have an influence → key components of diplomacy and conflict resolution → preference for negotiation rather than confrontation In terms of FP, they engage multilaterally → have to put everything they have on one horse because limited capability → lot of cultural diplomacy they use to influence the international system Small powers pursue one key objective : their security because they don’t have a strong military capability → they emphasize security and economic stability → they do not have much in terms of resources and capability SO need to align with some coalition because cannot exert influence → seek protection through alliances OR become neutral ex : Switzerland is neutral, important political and economic stability, can be a forum for multilateralism to be exerted BUT tries to stay as far as possible from war → reliant on exerting their influence through multilateral frameworks, where their voice can be heard and amplified → strive for regional stability Medium category positioning itself in a form of challenger : emerging powers  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat → geographical characteristics → part of this because usually we always put them either in small or middle powers ex : Taiwan, India → the fact we can create a new category says there is a potential rise to something more, those categories aren’t fixed Often, they advocate for changes in the international system → we need to expand the SC, more States need to be represented there… Italy : example of a middle power BUT always a discussion → is it an inspiring middle power ? it’s not a Small state either → difficulty in categorization BUT useful because enables us to get in understanding how certain State can behave depending on their size, economic position and so on II. Understanding the external world as a system (Hill) According to Hill, the external world is a system that inspires States’ behavior The international environment is a structured system in which States operate based on material constraints (geography, resources) and international norms → there is a form of probabilistic behavior The external system is not deterministic : you are not damned forever to be a small State BUT you can not not take into account your external environment, the international norms, your geographical situation, etc → it doesn’t determine your FP BUT makes it more probable to do certain things rather than others There are some forms of systemic constraints : → Hill presents the concept of environmental probabilism = while States are still capable of making their own decisions, their behavior is influenced by factors such as geography, natural resources, political structures → any DMakers needs to take them into account when deciding on its State’s FP The material : resources → green transition, geopolitical tensions → Europe is in a very bad position because of its lack of natural resources → european countries’ FP is influenced by this lack of natural resources Geography : the fact you are an island has an impact on your FP ex : on your naval power  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat Political environment : given that we have a form of global governance, which can be shaped because there’s no central authority, international norms have an impact on your behavior as a State → the political environment can encompass security alliances, trade alliances… → joining them is a decision International norms : ex : Putin is considered as a war criminal in some States: if he goes to a State that has declared it, he can be arrested International norms shape you as an individual, but also States. The decision-makers have to take into account all these constraints, that shape probabilistically the environment and need to be taken into account International norms are a framework that shape the decision-making internationally BUT there still is a part of agency → interesting perspective which gives us the possibility to have a new analysis emphasizing both systemic influences and the role of individual agency in navigating through all of these geopolitical constraints → takes us back to the idea of a 2-level game BUT here the dialectic element is less important, focus on the international system which geopolitically and probabilistically shape States’ behavior National role conception, K. Holsti : self-conception of States, self-image States behave in accordance to certain role conceptions shaped by cultural values, international norms, etc → national role conception reflects how a State sees itself on the global stage Holsti describes a few national role conceptions : a State can see itself as a liberator = supports anticolonialism, revolution ex : Cuba during the cold war, France in the 18th-19th (les Lumières as spreading liberating ideas) a State can see itself as a regional leader = takes the responsibility for leading or organizing a form of political, economic, military effort within a region ex : Brazil, South Africa a State can see itself as a bridge builder = bridge between conflicting groups ex : Austria a State can see itself as a defender of the faith, of an ideology ex : Iran, Soviet Union (communism)  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat a State can see itself as a protector ex : Hungary, protective of minorities in neighboring countries → might go as far as intervening in conflicts because see yourself as a protector States can combine national role conceptions. Holsti always is aware of the fact that the national role conception can change over time because of a shift in domestic priorities or global events. ex : Hungary after the end of the communist rule, its national role conception was mostly bridge builder BUT today changed under Orban, defends christianity in Europe ex : Turkey had more of a regional role before, geared towards the West, but islamization has brought the idea of defender of a faith The national role conception has an impact on FP → if you see yourself as a regional leader, you might intervene in a close conflict → if you see yourself as a mediator, you might organize a forum = idea of self-image In certain ways, the US can be seen as the defender of an ideology III. Case Study: Switzerland as the ideal type of a small State FP The uniqueness of Switzerland : a classic typical small State → doesn’t send military for UN peacekeepers → prefers to be alone rather than being part of NATO, of the EU The swiss national role conception : see themselves as a mediator responsible to facilitate dialogue and reconciliation between adversaries We might see new mediators coming to the scene, for instance Turkey Session 10 : Transnational actors exact same exam than the midterms BUT 6 questions rather than 8 The idea of globalization is omnipresent : everyone talks about it or experiences it. We want to understand its impact on States and, consequently, to their FP. Given the phenomenon, many key FPA scholars have been asking themselves “what is the challenge around globalization ? around transnationalism ?” transnationalism = going beyond the nation-state  Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. Hanna (Corsini) Murat I. Definitions According to J. Nye and R. Keohane, transnational relations consist in contexts, coalitions and interactions across State boundaries that are not controlled by the central FP organs of governments Another definition would be to say it is the sustained linkages and ongoing exchanges among non-State actors based across national boundaries. → we are not talking about classic diplomacy between two governments across national borders A transnational actor is a private group or individual who, while it relies on physical facilities inside the State, does not need the government to conduct international relations. ex : GreenPeace bureau can be located in a State BUT does not need the government to implement its FP and IR. Those transnational actors directly relate to other international actors or to States, without the need of an intermediary. Globalization is a conventional way of describing the environment within which States and transnational actors operate. → very concrete, we experience it in our daily life There are 2 schools of thought around globalization. → hyperglobalists : say globalization is dominant in our life and it’s complicated to try to pursue a reactionary or distinctive path of development → transformationalists : transformative + nationalists, they’re more cautious; acknowledge gl