Actors & Structures in Foreign Policy Analysis

January 23, 2014

Overview

IntroductionHistorical backgroundThe role of actors and structures in ‘process’

approaches to foreign policy analysisThe role of actors and structures in ‘policy’

approaches to foreign policy analysisA possible solution – integrative framework

IntroductionForeign policy is impacted by a number of

actors and structures, both domestic and international

These actors and structures act in combination all of which makes foreign policy analysis challenging

Scholars have tried to create some kind of analytical framework or approach to make things clearer, but fundamental disagreements remain.

In other words…

Analyzing foreign policy is complicated…

Historical background

Realism: (Morgenthau) Effort to provide universal law-like explanations

for the external behaviour of all states Did this by linking the concept of power to

national interest. Idea that with these “laws” in place you explain

and understand the behaviour of statesRealism was the dominate approach to IR in the

US during the Cold War

Behaviouralism: Gained dominance in US social sciences

in post WWII era at same time realism was dominating IR in US

Effort to apply scientific approach to social sciences

Idea that could use testable hypotheses to develop a empirical generalisations of political behaviour

Two key questions

What are we trying to explain with our analysis?i.e. What is the object of our analysis (the

explanadum or independent variable)?What factors do we see as responsible for

explaining the thing we are trying to explain?i.e. What are approaches and instruments

that do the explaining (the explanans or dependent variable)

Essentially approaches to foreign policy analysis can be divided based on whether they focus on the decision-making process or on the policy itself when looking for explanatory factors

The role of actors and structures is considered in both approaches, with different perspectives placing more emphasis on one or the other

The role of actors and structures in ‘process’ approaches to FPA

Here the focus is on decision-making; identifying what foreign policy-makers are doing.

Process-orientated analysts of foreign policy consider how certain goals arise and why certain behaviours result.

Focus on the factors and processes through which foreign policy decisions, statements and behaviours are made

The aim is to explore the process of foreign policy decision-making rather than policies themselves.

The role of the decision-making process

Don’t see states as unitary actorsInstead states are the institutional

structures within which individual decision-makers act.

So can’t see actors as generic, because individuals will act differently, so focus on specific individuals

Levels of analysisProcess focused approaches tend to

favour a level of analysis frameworkAt its most basic there are three levels:

IndividualStateInternational

Impact of actors and structures are examined one level at a time

The role of actors and structures in ‘policy’ approaches to FPA

The focus here is the choice of specific policies, rather than specific decision-making process.

Policies are understood to result from processes, rather than being part of them.

The role of actors and structures in ‘policy’ approaches to FPA

The main focus is the action that is the product of the decision (i.e. the policy); distinguishing a foreign policy action from the process that preceded it.

The focus is on policy agreements, not the behaviour of any particular entity.

These approaches vary in the degree to which they see either actors or structures as more important

Structural perspectives and foreign policy

Realism (aggressive and defensive neorealists, neoclassical realists)

Neoliberal institutionalism (regime theory)ConstructivismThese perspectives don’t exclude actors

in their analysis, but instead see the structure as the key factor explaining how states behave

Actor-based perspectives and foreign policy

Cognitive and psychological approachesBureaucratic politics approach (Allison)New liberalismInterpretative actor perspective

Cognitive & psychological approachesContrasts with realist and liberal

approaches that see actors as rationali.e. actors are open-minded and adapt to

changing circumstancesInstead cognitive and psychological

approaches suggests that a variety factors can get in the way, including:Individual beliefs, personality, the way

they process information & cognitive traits

An example: Groupthink

Coined by Irving Janis in the 1970sIdea that highly cohesive groups under

significant pressure to make a good decision and maintain unanimity can end up acting irrationally and fail consider alternative approaches

Janis’ examples: Bay of Pigs, failed Iran hostage rescue, US failure to anticipate Pearl Harbour

Bureaucratic politics approach

Idea that internal negotiating and infighting results in a final decision that no person or group in the decision-making process intended

Thus, focus of this approach is on interactions of individuals or groups inside the organisation

New liberalism

In contrast to neoliberalism, focus on the importance of actors rather than institutions

In particular looks at importance of societal actors rather than politically appointed actors or groups

Interpretive actor perspective

Emphasizes the role of individual decision-makers as key explanatory factor

Thus, focus on analyzing the thinking and actions of particular individuals

Agency-structure problem

Tendency to see either actors or structures as key to explaining particular policy choice

Thus, treat them as distinct from one anotherProblem is that in real world actors and structure

interact and influence one another, so can’t really look at them separately

Challenge is to find an approach that integrates impact of both actors and structure across all levels of analysis

Foreign policy actions are explained in a three-way structure of intentional, dispositional and

structural dimensions.

Potential solution - integrative framework

Integrative framework

Step 1 Focus first on the relationship between a

given foreign policy action and the intention or goal that was behind it

Essentially trace reasoning behind a specific action - i.e. they did this in order to achieve that

Example: the US decision to invade IraqStarting from step 1, what kind of things

would we look for to examine the intentional dimensions of the decision to invade Iraq?

How would we determine what the specific goal(s) or intention of the invasion was?

Integrative framework

Step 2 Trace the link between the intentional and the

dispositional dimensions, focusing on the underlying values that motivate actors to pursue certain goals over others.

Here bring cognitive & psychological approachesPerceptions, beliefs, values etc.

These first two steps focus on actors

US and Iraq

Based on step 2 how would we analyze why the US decision-makers chose those particular goals over others?

What kinds of information would we be looking for to help us explain these choices?

Integrative framework

Step 3Examines how structural factors affect actorsLooks at how these structural factors are

perceived, reacted to and taken into account by the actors.

Structural factors affect the cognitive and psychological dispositions of individuals.

Can either enable or constrain actors’ dispositions

US & Iraq

How would we determine how structural factors and the actors perceptions of them impact their choices?

What structural factors were likely to be important in this case?

Integrative framework

Not a complete solution to agency-structure problem

Tends to be a static approach, i.e. can use it to explain a single foreign policy action, but not a series of actions over time