Influences on Foreign Policy Decision Making

The first focus leads to the study of personality traits, beliefs, and values as the factors that explain foreign policy decisions. It emphasizes the enduring qualities of an individual decision maker. Insight into the personality, character, beliefs, and values of the individual help the ability to evaluate what motivates the decision maker.

The second focus leads to the study of the perceptions and how this influences foreign policy decision making. The individual’s perspectives, and process for sensing events and global situations, are specific to that particular situation. Views on the perception, framing, and problem representation do not necessarily reverse the significance of personality; however they are more interested in how the policy makers fit in specific decision making situations (Jervis, 1968). At the individual level of analysis, studies show that frequently, the level employs ideas borrowed from the field of psychology, like framing – which is a tendency for people in being able to judge risk in expressions of how a situation is presented to them (Levy, 1992 ).

Additionally, an individual is not likely to make a decision alone, and instead works together with other individuals in a group or in a bureaucracy (Graham & Zelikow, 1999). In such cases, their personalities and views interact as they jointly decide how best to describe the problem before them. Group relations are often classified at analysis at the individual level of because the focus tends to be on basically understanding the dynamics of the interpersonal interactions rather than those of the group as an undifferentiated unit.

3.3.2 The State Level of Analysis

The state level of analysis focuses on internal factors of the state such as that compel states to engage in different foreign policy behaviours. Analyses like such include the institutional framework of the state like the relationships between the executive and legislative branches of government, the organization of the government bureaucracy, or whether the state is a democracy), domestic constituencies (such as interest groups, ethnic groups, or public opinion more generally), economic conditions, and also the state’s national history and culture. At this level of analysis, the emphasis is on how factors internal to the state influence the behavior of that state on the global stage (Hudson, 1997). From a decision making perspective, these factors are often characterized as constraints that determine the parameters of the possible for leaders. Certainly, the relationship between leaders and the domestic environment is much more complicated than this simple characterization.

3.3.3 The System Level of Analysis

This level of analysis focuses on interactions and comparisons between states. It brings forth questions about the relative power of states (Waltz, 2010). The international system is defined as a set of states whose interactions are guided by their relative capabilities, such as their power and wealth, which influence their possibilities for action and for success on the global stage. (Ibid) These relative attributes may change across time as a country’s economy yields more wealth or as it attains technological or military capacities. The reverse may also be true: countries can lose as well as gain power. Changes in relative capabilities of states may create opportunities, though they may also serve to increase the constraints on states. An increase in military capacities may embolden a state, while an increasingly interdependent world economy presents constraints.

The system level of analysis makes certain assumptions about the political interests of countries, among which is first and foremost the idea that a state’s power is central to its ability to maintain the integrity of its borders. However, the definition of political interest, sometimes called national interest, is not necessarily straightforward. For instance, the U.S. response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was not a foregone conclusion. Indeed, Saddam Hussein may have calculated that the United States would decide it was not in its interest to intervene. Hence, the systems level of analysis can provide insight into the capabilities of states and explain outcomes, but it cannot explain foreign policy decisions or behaviors very well (Waltz, 2010).

On the dividing line between the state and system levels of analysis sits the two-level game. This concept describes the fact that decision makers in foreign policy try to satisfy domestic population and the international imperatives all together, which oftentimes requires a delicate balancing act (Putnam, 1988) This is especially true when the domestic and international environment push decision makers in different directions. Such is often the case in the economic sector: workers may prefer protectionist policies that keep their jobs secure even if the industry in which they work is no longer internationally competitive. On the other hand, countries that have similar industries that are internationally competitive will try to preserve access to as many markets as possible. Hence, decision makers are caught between the international principles of free trade and the interests of their constituents, who may lose their jobs as a result of international competition. Adhering to the internationally accepted principles while not upsetting the domestic constituencies can be tough.

From the above understanding of the three levels of analysis, it is clear that the system-level analysts contend that the economic realities of the international system help shape the choices that countries make. Again, this is the same in systems from the global to the local level. Similarly, the international system has economic facts of life that help shape behavior. Interdependence is one of the economic facts of life that influences states’ behavior. For example, many studies conclude that increasing economic interdependence promotes peace as countries become more familiar with one another and need each other for their mutual prosperity (Schneider, Barbieri, & Gleditsch, 2003). The table below summarizes the three levels.

Table 3.1 Levels of analysis and the study of foreign policy

3.4 The Importance of studying Foreign Policy Comparatively

The goal of foreign policy analysis is to gain generally applicable knowledge about how foreign policy decisions are made; why leaders make the decisions they make, why states engage in specific kinds of foreign policy behaviours, as well as to assess the opportunities and constraints presented by the international system (Snider, Bruck & Sapin, 1962). Historical events happen only once, and each is unique. However, focusing on what makes each event unique gives little general knowledge. Knowing all available details of, for instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis shows very little about how leaders generally respond to foreign policy crises. The latter concept can be defined by three elements: there is a high threat to something that is valued and important; leaders perceive that they have only a shorter amount of time in making a decision, and the occurrence of the threatening situation takes the decision makers by surprise (Snyder, Bruck, & Sapin, 1962).

Most decision makers and observers of foreign policy intuitively recognize a crisis when one occurs. However, one task of foreign policy analysis is to move beyond intuitive knowledge to explicit knowledge. Making knowledge explicit helps to re-examine the assumptions and question the lessons that have derived from past experiences. This is what foreign policy analysis aims to do: to systematically contrast and compare.

Although decision makers derive knowledge from their experiences, they often interpret the lessons narrowly, fail to re-examine their gut reactions, and they compare previous and current crises only superficially. In doing the latter, leaders may make analogies on the basis of superficial commonalities while ignoring significant differences between situations (Snyder & Borghard, 2011). Although politicians are often astute judges of character, their intuitions have their limitations when judging people from different countries and cultures, often after meeting them in highly formal situations for only a short period of time. In sum, studying foreign policy comparatively and systematically has the potential to yield knowledge that is far more helpful than merely knowing historical facts: a systematic understanding of foreign policy events as alike or different can help decision makers to fashion appropriate responses. Moreover, understanding the peculiarities of the personalities of specific leaders can facilitate more useful and productive diplomacy (Ibid).

3.4.1 Making Foreign Policy

3.4.1.1 Type of Government, Situation, and Policy

One variable that affects the foreign policy process is the type of government a country has. These types range along a scale that has absolute authoritarian governments on one end and unfettered democratic governments on the other. The more authoritarian a government is, the more likely for foreign policy to be centered in a narrower segment of the government, even in the hands of the president or whatever the leader is called. It is important to realize, though, that no government is absolutely under the thumb of any individual. States are too big and too complex for that to happen, and thus secondary leaders (such as foreign ministers), bureaucrats, interest groups, and other domestic elements play a role in even very authoritarian political systems. (Geva & Skorick, 2006).