"Foreign Policy Analysis" redirects here.
For the
journal, see Foreign Policy Analysis (journal).
Foreign policy analysis (FPA) is a technique within
the international relations sub-field of political
science dealing with theory, development,
and empirical study regarding the processes and
outcomes of foreign policy.[1]
FPA is the study of the management of external
relations and activities of state. Foreign
policy involves goals, strategies, measures,
management methods, guidelines, directives,
agreements, and so on. National governments may
conduct international relations not only with
other nation-states but also with international
organizations and non-governmental organizations.
[2]
Managing foreign relations need carefully
considered plans of actions that are adapted to
foreign interests and concerns of the government.
[2]
Study
[edit]
Foreign policy analysis (FPA) involves the study of
how a state makes foreign policy. As it analyzes the
decision making process, FPA involves the study of
both international and domestic politics. FPA also
draws upon the study
of diplomacy, war, intergovernmental
organizations, and economic sanctions, each of
which are means by which a state may implement
foreign policy. In academia, FPA is most commonly
taught within the discipline of public
policy within political science or political studies,
and the study of international relations. FPA can
also be considered a sub-field of the study of
international relations (IR),[3] which aims to
understand the processes behind foreign policy
decision making. The most prominent scholars in
this field of study include Richard Snyder, James
Rosenau, Alexander George, Graham
Allison and Irving Janis.[4]
According to foreignpolicyanalysis.org, "As a field
of study, FPA is characterized by its actor-specific
focus. In the simplest terms, it is the study of the
process, effects, causes, or outputs of foreign
policy decision-making in either a comparative or
case-specific manner. The underlying and often
implicit argument theorizes that human beings,
acting as a group or within a group, compose and
cause change in international politics."[5] In other
words, FPA can be understood as a critique of the
dominant structuralist approaches in IR.
Stages in decision making
[edit]
The making of foreign policy involves a number of
stages:[6]
Assessment of the international and domestic
political environment - Foreign policy is made and
implemented within an international and
domestic political context, which must be
understood by a state in order to determine the
best foreign policy option. For example, a state
may need to respond to an international crisis.
Goal setting - A state has multiple foreign policy
goals. A state must determine which goal is
affected by the international and domestic
political environment at any given time. In
addition, foreign policy goals may conflict, which
will require the state to prioritize.
Determination of policy options - A state must
then determine what policy options are available
to meet the goal or goals set in light of the
political environment. This will involve an
assessment of the state's capacity implement
policy options and an assessment of the
consequences of each policy option.
Formal decision making action - A formal foreign
policy decision will be taken at some level within
a government. Foreign policy decisions are
usually made by the executive branch of
government. Common governmental actors or
institutions which make foreign policy decisions
include: the head of state (such as a president)
or head of government (such as a prime
minister), cabinet, or minister.
Implementation of chosen policy option - Once a
foreign policy option has been chosen, and a
formal decision has been made, then the policy
must be implemented. Foreign policy is most
commonly implemented by specialist foreign
policy arms of the state bureaucracy, such as
a Ministry of Foreign Affairs or State Department.
Other departments may also have a role in
implementing foreign policy, such as
departments for: trade, defence, and aid.
Key approaches
[edit]
(as put forward by Graham T. Allison in 1969.[7] For
a more comprehensive description see his
Book Essence of Decision 1971/1999)
Rational actor model
[edit]
The rational actor model is based on rational choice
theory. The model adopts the state as the primary
unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or
international relations) as the context for analysis.
The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor,
capable of making rational decisions based on
preference ranking and value maximization.
According to the rational actor model, a rational
decision making process is used by a state. This
process includes:
Goal setting and ranking.
Consideration of options.
Assessment of consequences.
Profit maximization.
In other words, it provides models for answering
the question: with that information what would be
the best decision for reaching one's goal? In this
theory, the underlying assumption is that
governments are unified and rational, in this
manner, they would seek for carefully planned and
well-defined foreign policy goals. In this sense,
rational choice model is primarily a realist
perspective of foreign policy level of analysis.
[8] The rational actor model has been subject to
criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of
political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes:
"political decisions, non-political decisions,
bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous
policy, and sheer accident."[9] It also ignores
emotions, emotional flooding, selective attention,
and groupthink.
Governmental Bargaining Model
[edit]
In this model the state is not seen as
a monolithic unitary actor. Instead it is a collection
of different bureaucracies vying for increasing their
funding and size. Individual decision makers try to
bargain and compete for influence with their own
particular goal in mind.[2] Things are often viewed
as a zero-sum game where one bureaucracy's "win"
or increasing their level of funding is seen as a loss
for another bureaucracy. Here decisions are made
by bureaucracies competing against each other and
suggesting solutions to problems that would
involve using their resources so as to increase their
level of importance. Bureaucratic politics model, in
keeping with its pluralistic connotation, can also
refer to that inner state processes including no
institutional actors, who with their informal
channels would affect policy results.
Organizational Process Model
[edit]
Organizational Processes model emerges from
clusters of governmental organizations that look
after their own best interests and follow 'standard
operating procedures'.[2] In this model different
bureaucracies have different standard operating
procedures. These procedures are made in order to
allow day-to-day operations to be carried out. Often
an order or decision will have to work around these
standard procedures. It is often exceedingly
difficult for a bureaucracy to do something "out of
character" or contrary to their standard procedures.
Other models
[edit]
Inter-branch politics model
Self-aggrandizement model - In this model one
leader acts on behalf of his or her interests. (also
known as cognitive processes and psychology
approach)
Political process model - In this model the
decision making body is affected by many non-
governmental actors such as NGOs or the media.
Multilevel and Multidimensional approach - In this
model, scholars study particular aspects of
foreign policy making by using various major
theories.
Social constructivist approach - In this model,
scholars focus on the role of ideas, discourse, and
identity to make FPA.
Institutions
[edit]
Council on Foreign Relations
Chatham House
American Enterprise Institute
Brookings Institution
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is a subfield of international
relations (IR) focused on understanding how states or
other actors make decisions regarding their relationships
with foreign countries. It examines the processes, actors,
and factors that influence the creation and execution of
foreign policy.
Here are the main facts to understand Foreign Policy
Analysis:
1. Actors in Foreign Policy
State Actors: The government, particularly the
executive branch (presidents, prime ministers,
foreign ministers), is the central actor in foreign
policy decision-making.
Non-State Actors: Includes international
organizations (UN, NATO), multinational corporations,
NGOs, and even influential individuals or interest
groups.
Public Opinion: Public sentiment and democratic
pressures can shape foreign policy, especially in
democratic systems.
2. Decision-Making Models
Several models explain how decisions are made in foreign
policy:
Rational Actor Model: Assumes that governments
act like rational individuals who weigh costs and
benefits before making decisions. The state is seen
as a unified entity.
Bureaucratic Politics Model: Focuses on internal
political dynamics, showing that foreign policy
outcomes are the result of bargaining and
compromise among different government agencies,
each with its own interests and priorities.
Cognitive Psychology Model: Examines how
individual leaders’ cognitive biases (e.g., perception,
decision fatigue) influence foreign policy.
Organizational Process Model: Highlights that
decisions are shaped by standard operating
procedures, past practices, and institutional routines.
Constructivist Approaches: Focus on how
identities, norms, and social interactions (rather than
pure rationality) shape foreign policy.
3. Levels of Analysis
Foreign policy can be analyzed at multiple levels:
Individual Level: Focuses on the role of leaders’
personalities, beliefs, experiences, and psychological
factors.
State Level: Looks at the internal dynamics of the
country, such as political structures, domestic
institutions, political parties, and economic interests.
Systemic Level: Examines the international system,
including the balance of power, international norms,
and global economic conditions that influence a
state’s foreign policy.
4. Influences on Foreign Policy
Domestic Factors: National interest, economic
conditions, public opinion, political parties, and
pressure from interest groups.
External Factors: International alliances, the global
balance of power, diplomatic relations with other
states, economic sanctions, or trade agreements.
Cultural and Ideological Factors: Ideologies,
historical experiences, and cultural values can shape
a nation’s worldview and policy choices (e.g.,
nationalism, liberalism, or realism).
5. Types of Foreign Policy
Defensive/Protective: Protecting a state’s interests
and borders (e.g., national security).
Expansionist: Seeking to extend influence or
territory (e.g., imperialism, colonialism).
Cooperative: Building alliances, engaging in
diplomacy, promoting international stability (e.g.,
peace-building efforts).
Isolationist: Avoiding international engagements or
entanglements.
6. Foreign Policy Tools
Diplomacy: Negotiations and dialogue between
states to resolve conflicts or build relationships.
Economic Sanctions: Using trade restrictions or
financial penalties to influence another state’s
behavior.
Military Force: The use or threat of military action
to achieve foreign policy goals.
Soft Power: The ability to influence other countries
through cultural attraction, ideas, and values (e.g.,
media, cultural exchange, humanitarian aid).
Intelligence Operations: Using covert means to
gather information or influence foreign governments.
7. National Interests
Security Interests: Protecting the nation from
external threats (military defense, alliances, etc.).
Economic Interests: Ensuring access to trade
markets, resources, and investment opportunities.
Ideological Interests: Promoting or protecting
certain political ideologies (e.g., democracy, human
rights).
Environmental Interests: Addressing global
challenges like climate change and resource
management through international cooperation.
8. Historical Context
FPA is shaped by a state’s historical experiences. Past
events, such as wars, treaties, revolutions, or colonialism,
can deeply influence a country's foreign policy behavior
and its approach to international relations.
FPA is shaped by a state’s historical experiences. Past
events, such as wars, treaties, revolutions, or colonialism,
can deeply influence a country's foreign policy behavior
and its approach to international relations.
9. Foreign Policy Success and Failure
Success: Achieved when a country meets its
strategic goals, builds international cooperation, or
avoids major conflict.
Failure: Often occurs due to miscalculation, lack of
coherence, overextension, or failure to account for
unintended consequences.
10. Norms and Institutions
International norms, laws (e.g., United Nations
conventions), and institutions (e.g., the World Trade
Organization) often influence or constrain foreign
policy choices.
Some states, especially in a globalized world, find
themselves balancing national interests with
international norms and obligations.
11. The Role of International Relations Theory
FPA draws from broader international relations theories:
Realism: Focuses on power politics, national
interest, and state security.
Liberalism: Emphasizes cooperation, international
institutions, and economic interdependence.
Constructivism: Considers how identity, norms, and
beliefs shape state behavior.
Marxism: Examines foreign policy in the context of
class struggle and economic exploitation.
12. Ethical and Legal Dimensions
Foreign policy often raises ethical dilemmas, such as
the morality of military intervention, human rights
violations, or covert actions.
Legal frameworks (e.g., international law, UN
Charter) help determine what is acceptable in foreign
policy conduct, but there is often debate over
adherence to these laws.
Key Takeaways:
Foreign Policy is Complex: It involves multiple
actors, both domestic and international, with
competing interests and diverse influences.
It is Shaped by Context: Both internal (domestic
politics, economics) and external (international
norms, global security) factors shape decisions.
Influenced by Theory: Understanding foreign policy
often involves applying theories of international
relations, from realism to liberalism, to guide
analysis.
Dynamic and Evolving: Foreign policy is not static
—it evolves based on changes in international
relations, domestic priorities, and leadership.
By understanding these fundamental elements, you can
better grasp the complexities of how states make
decisions in the international arena.
