Decision-Making Theory

The decision-making theory primarily emerged within the realm of foreign policy
development. Across different political and international systems, decisions are made
through various processes. The decision-making approach seeks to understand the
entire decision-making process at national, international, or comparative levels and its
connection to policy formulation. Snyder, Buck, and Sapin first introduced this theory in
1954. It delves into international politics by analyzing the intricate factors influencing
state behavior. This approach gained traction in the United States due to scholars’
increasing interest in focusing on decision-making and governmental processes.

The decision-making theory or approach serves two key purposes. Firstly, it aims to
identify “crucial structures” in the political sphere where changes occur, decisions are
made, and actions are initiated and carried out. Secondly, it involves a systematic
analysis of decision-making behavior leading to action. Consequently, this approach
directs its inquiry towards actors known as decision-makers and the state, defined as
the decisional unit. In essence, the actions of states are perceived through the lens of
decision-makers’ actions.

The decision-making theory or approach emphasizes the creation of a conceptual

framework to aid in reconstructing situations as defined by decision-makers. Therefore,
the selection of facts and data for the study should be based on what explains the
behavior of decision-makers.

Table of Contents
1.Meaning and Explanation
2.Determinants
3.Factors
4.Assumptions
5.Models of Decision-Making Theory
1. 1. The Rational Policy Models
2. 2. The Bureaucratic Political Model
3. 3. History-making individuals model
6. Critical Evaluation of Decision-making Theory
7. Conclusion
Meaning and Explanation
The decision-making approach places importance on understanding why a nation
engages in specific actions in international politics and why it chooses one course of
action over another. Given the imperfect state of knowledge about international politics,
focusing on decision-making as a study area is prudent. The heart of many processes in
international politics lies in the realm where decisions are made, making it a valuable
focal point for investigation.
 Decision-making is defined as a “process that culminates in the selection, by decision-
makers, of one project from a socially defined, limited number of problematic alternative
projects. This selection is made with the intention of bringing about a particular future
state of affairs envisioned by the decision-makers.”

Determinants
The actions of decision-makers are influenced by three key factors:

1. Spheres of competence
2. Communication and information
3. Motivation
Despite these factors, there are also limitations to decision-making and its outcomes.
These limitations can stem from external factors beyond the decisional system and
constraints inherent in the nature and functioning of the decisional system itself.

Factors
The examination of foreign policy involves the study of various factors, including:

1. Purpose of the foreign policy

2. Decision-makers
3. Principles of decision-making
4. Process of decision-making and policy planning
5. Means of decision-making and policy planning
6. Internal situations of the state
7. External factors
The process of decision-making is influenced by both external and internal factors.
Internal factors encompass the role of public opinion, socio-economic conditions,
geographical and demographic considerations, among others. On the other hand,
external factors include the actions, reactions, and counteractions of other states in
response to decisions made by those in authority. Understanding and analyzing these
factors provide insights into the complexities of foreign policy formulation.

Assumptions
The decision-making theory or approach operates under the assumption that activities
are purposefully motivated and behavior is not random. It is founded on the idea that the
analysis of international politics should focus, at least in part, on the actions of those
responsible for state actions—namely, the decision-makers. The approach perceives
state action as a product of how identifiable official decision-makers interpret the
situation that calls for action. Its goal is to understand why decisions are made and,
more specifically, why a particular decision is chosen over others.
 In examining the decision-making process, this approach takes into account all the
elements and factors that influence a decision-maker. This includes aspects such as the
internal setting, external context, and the actual decision-making process. The official
decision-maker acts on behalf of the state, and their definition of the situation,
expectations, perceptions, personality, and final choices, along with the various
agencies and processes involved in decision-making, are all considered in this analysis.

Models of Decision-Making Theory

Supporters of the decision-making approach in foreign policy can be categorized into
two groups. The first group considers the state as the exclusive actor and places
minimal importance on internal variables. The second group, which acknowledges the
significance of internal dynamics, is further subdivided into two categories. One
category emphasizes the role of organizations, while the other underscores the
interaction among governmental actors in foreign policy decision-making. Frankel
discusses all three models of foreign policy-making proposed by Allison, particularly in
the context of the Cuban missile crisis, as follows:

1. The Rational Policy Models

The rational policy model operates under the assumption that states are unitary actors,
as per the realist perspective. In this model, the decision-making processes of each
state are studied as if they were a unitary actor—a cohesive unit with minimal internal
differences. Rationality, or rational choice, in this context, refers to purposeful and goal-
oriented behavior. It involves individuals responding to international events using the
best available information and selecting the alternative most likely to maximize their
goals.

The rational choice process involves several steps:

1. Problem recognition and definition: Decision-makers objectively define the

characteristics of an external problem based on full information about the actions,
motivations, and capabilities of other actors, as well as the nature of the international
environment.
2. Goal selection: Those involved in foreign policy must determine what they want to
accomplish, identifying and ranking values in a hierarchy from most to least preferred.
3. Identification of alternatives: An exhaustive list of available policy options is created,
along with an estimate of the costs associated with each alternative.
4. Choice: The decision-makers ultimately choose the single alternative with the best
chance of being achieved, following a rigorous process of means-ends and cost-benefit
analysis.
Theodore Sorenson, one of President Kennedy’s closest advisors, suggested eight
steps that decision-makers must go through before arriving at a final decision, as seen
in the Cuban Missile Crisis:
1. Agreeing on the facts
2. Agreeing on overall policy objectives
3. Precisely defining the problem
4. Canvassing all possible solutions
5. Listing the possible consequences of each solution
6. Recommending one option
7. Communicating the selected option
8. Providing for its execution
However, there are substantial impediments to the execution of the rational choice
model:

1. Bounded rationality: Decision-makers often face insufficient and inaccurate

information to recognize emergent problems and make appropriate responses, leading
to bounded rationality.
2. Value complexity and uncertainty: Determining the best goals for national interest is
challenging in an environment marked by value complexity and uncertainty, with
competing values necessitating trade-offs.
3. Overloaded policy agenda and short deadlines: Policymakers work with overloaded
policy agendas and short deadlines, leaving little room for reflection on decisions.
4. Satisfying behavior: Decision-makers may not always make value-maximizing
choices; instead, they often choose alternatives that appear superior to those already
considered—a concept described by Herbert Simon as satisfying behavior.
5. Two-level games: There is often incompatibility between domestic demands and
external diplomacy, requiring decision-makers to play two-level games. Disagreements
among policymakers about goals may result in muddling through or making incremental
policy changes through small steps.
2. The Bureaucratic Political Model
The formulation and execution of a state’s foreign policy involve the collaboration of
various governmental organizations, commonly referred to as bureaucracies. These
organizations enhance efficiency and rationality by assigning specific tasks to different
individuals, establishing rules, and defining standard operating procedures for decision-
making and task execution.

In his 1971 book “Essence of Decision,” Graham Allison identified two crucial elements
in this model: the organizational process and governmental politics. The organizational
process reflects the constraints imposed by organizations and coalitions on decision-
makers’ choices in policy-making. Governmental politics, on the other hand, highlights
the negotiations and conflicts that occur among key participants and caucuses within
aligned bureaucratic organizations during the decision-making process.

Large-scale bureaucratic organizations also contribute to policy-making by

implementing standard operating procedures (SOPs), which effectively limit the range of
viable policy choices. Governmental politics is intertwined with the organizational
character of foreign policy-making in complex societies, with participants often reflecting
 their organizational affiliations. The saying “Where you stand depends on where you sit”
encapsulates these bureaucratic imperatives.

The process is intensely political as bureaucrats within the foreign policy establishment,
driven by the primary responsibility of protecting national interests, engage in
passionate advocacy for what they believe is right. This results in different groups
pulling in diverse directions, leading to a mixture of conflicting preferences and unequal
power, distinct from any individual or group’s intended outcome. Rather than being a
value-maximizing process, policy-making is inherently political.

Bureaucratic agencies are parochial, prioritizing their own interests over the state’s.
Each administrative unit within a state’s foreign policy-making bureaucracy seeks to
advance its purposes and power, sometimes at the expense of national interests. This
parochialism fosters competition among agencies responsible for foreign policy, as they
adopt policy positions to increase their influence relative to other agencies.
Bureaucracies tend to resist constant interference or deep penetration by political
leaders.

Every bureaucracy develops a shared mindset or dominant way of viewing reality, akin
to the groupthink observed in cohesive and solidary small groups. Bureaucracies, often
self-serving and guardians of the status quo, resist change, posing a significant
challenge for foreign policy-making. The reluctance of bureaucracies to adapt to
changing times is a major obstacle in the foreign policy-making process.

3. History-making individuals model

This model revolves around the idea that individual leaders play a central role in
shaping history and are the primary determinants of a state’s foreign policy. Figures like
Hitler and Napoleon are examples often cited within this category. The challenge lies in
reconciling this perspective with the realist view that posits leaders have limited impact,
as all engage in rational decision-making. This apparent contradiction can be elucidated
by distinguishing between procedural rationality and instrumental rationality.

1. Procedural Rationality: This concept forms the basis of the realist perspective,
portraying states as acting similarly because decision-makers engage in the same
logical and calculated end-means calculations. It aligns with the realist metaphor of
world politics as a billiard-ball game.
2. Instrumental Rationality: In contrast, instrumental rationality is a more constrained
view. It simply posits that individuals have preferences and, when faced with multiple
alternatives, will choose the one they believe will yield the preferred outcome.
While this model accords significant importance to individual leaders, notable figures
like Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger caution against placing excessive reliance on
personalities. They highlight that most leaders operate within various political,
psychological, and circumstantial constraints that limit their accomplishments and
control over events. According to Margaret G. Hermann, the impact of leaders is
 influenced by factors such as their worldview, political style, motivations for holding their
position, interest and training in foreign affairs, the foreign policy climate during the
leader’s political career inception, and how the leader was socialized into their current
position.

The impact of leaders’ personal characteristics on their state’s foreign policy tends to
increase when their authority and legitimacy are widely accepted by citizens. However,
it’s crucial to recognize that leaders operate within a complex web of influences, and
their individual agency is often constrained by broader factors and circumstances.

Critical Evaluation of Decision-making Theory

While the decision-making approach has proven to be a useful tool for studying the
foreign policy process, it has faced criticism on several fronts. Scholars, while
acknowledging its positive contributions, argue that this approach is inherently limited.

1. Partial Approach: Critics contend that while the decision-making approach is

impressive and innovative compared to traditional power-centric approaches, it falls
short of providing a comprehensive study of international relations. It is accused of
being state-centric, placing excessive emphasis on states as primary actors and
neglecting other objective realities in international politics.
2. Doubts about Conscious Moves: Hoffmann raises doubts about the assumption that
politics is entirely made up of conscious moves and choices that can be neatly
categorized, challenging a fundamental premise of this theory.
3. Neglect of Non-Decision Elements: The approach tends to neglect aspects that are
not mere additions of separate decisions made by various units. While suitable for
foreign policy analysis, critics argue that it is too weak for addressing other aspects of
international relations.
4. Post Hoc Explanations: Critics argue that the theory primarily provides post hoc
explanations and historical reconstructions of specific decisions, limiting its ability to
offer proactive insights.
5. Principles of Indetermination: The theory is based on the principles of
indetermination, lacking guidance on which of the numerous elements influencing
decision-making is truly relevant.
6. Value-Free Approach: The decision-making approach adopts a value-free stance,
analyzing decisions in the realm of foreign affairs without passing judgment on whether
those decisions are right or wrong. Critics argue that this neglects ethical
considerations.
7. Dominance of Causes: The approach may not adequately account for situations where
external causes dominate, compelling decision-makers to make certain choices due to
personal risks they dare not take.
In summary, while the decision-making approach has its merits, it is not without its
limitations. Critics argue that it falls short in providing a holistic understanding of
international relations, and its state-centric focus and value-free stance raise concerns
about its ability to capture the complexity and ethical dimensions of decision-making in
international politics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be acknowledged that the decision-making theory or approach has
significantly contributed to the understanding of the foreign policy-making process, an
aspect often overlooked by other theories. This theory effectively delves into the deeper
roots of state behavior patterns, representing a substantial improvement over the
institutional approach. Instead of merely describing state interactions, the decision-
making approach offers an elucidation of diverse interaction patterns.

However, it is important to note that this approach tends to overlook the significance of
norms and values in both national and international politics. Additionally, there is a lack
of uniform methods or techniques for analyzing the decision-making process, which can
be considered a limitation.

Nonetheless, the decision-making theory or approach stands as an advancement over

institutional approaches by striving to explain the behavioral patterns of states under
different circumstances. Its focus on the intricacies of decision-making has added
valuable insights to the study of foreign policy processes.