Chapter 1 - History and Evolution of FP

Question 1

3 Kinds of Hegemons

Answer 1

1. Global hegemon (U.S. between 1989 - mid 1990s)
2. Regional Hegemons (China, EU, Brazil)
3. Economic Hegemons (EU)

Question 2

Two Things that Prompt Policy

Answer 2

Perception of an opportunity or a threat

Perceived by decision-makers

Question 3

Foreign-Policy Executive

Answer 3

PM, Cabinet, bureaucrats

Question 4

Inter-mestic Hourglass

Answer 4

The global sphere exists in the top, is filtered through the foreign policy executive to the domestic sphere.
Vice versa
Criticism - There are more actors than just the FP executives at this point

Question 5

Intervening Variable

Answer 5

People or things that can affect your behaviour - imperfect transmission belt that makes one’s perception of threat or opportunity not lead ‘logically’ to the policy output

Question 6

3 Paradoxes of FP

Answer 6

1. The state is the only and primary actor, yet its role has fundamentally shifted
2. All foreign policy is the same, yet unique
3. FPA is IR theory, yet it is a middle-range FP theory

Question 7

First Paradox of FP

Answer 7

The state is the only primary actor, yet its role has diminished/shifted.

• The national interest is unitary and alone dictates state behaviour
• FP has opened up to new actors (TNCs, IGOs, NGOs, etc.)

Question 8

3 Goals of States (outdated)

Answer 8

1. Maintaining security
2. Maintaining prosperity
3. Maintaining prestige
   Arguably that prestige has lost its influence. Starting in the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the powerful states did what they wanted.

Question 9

Congress of Vienna

Answer 9

Congress in 1815 where Gaal hypothesizes that prestige as a form of power ended. Power became the primary consideration, 5 of the 8 (who were the strongest) alone decided what to do.
Prior to this, small nations with no power but prestige had considerable influence.

Question 10

The Concert of Europe

Answer 10

An agreement to strictly keep the balance of power between 1815-1914.
Any actor that tried to mess with the balance would be attacked by all.

Question 11

Interpretations of IGOs and Institutional Power

Answer 11

Regime theorist (Keohane / Nye) - they have transcended state interest
HST (Gilpin) say they are just an extension

Question 12

Example of economic power not resulting in structural power

Answer 12

India has huge economy, but because France has a seat on the UNSC, it has more structural power despite being smaller.

Question 13

Paradox 2 of FP

Answer 13

All foreign policy is the same but unique

• The one national interest exists through the macro lens. Domestic factors are irrelevant.
• Each actor and context is unique. FP outcomes are unique according to the micro approach.

Question 14

Question of Middle Range Theory

Answer 14

Question: How can past factors and present be combined not to be predictable but insightful

Question 15

Paradox 3 of FP

Answer 15

FPA is IR theory but actually FPA is a middle-range FP theory

• Abstract, theoretical views of the state that emphasizes structural forces. Agential focus.
• FPA is generic framework to understand and analyze specific situations. Individual, national, regional, cultural, and identity can influence FP

Question 16

Intended v Real Outcome in US Embassy in Jerusalem

Answer 16

Intended outcome: appealing to voter base
Actual outcome: base didn’t care that much
Threatened peace and threatened America’s role as arbitrator

Question 17

6 Steps to FP cycle

Answer 17

1. Agenda Setting
2. Policy Formulation
3. Decision-making phase
4. Implementation
5. Evaluation
6. Maintenance, Succession, Termination

Question 18

Agenda-Setting

Answer 18

Power in agenda setting

Difference between institutional and public agenda

Question 19

Policy Formulation

Answer 19

Input from as many people as people

Draft a few policies and look more closely

Question 20

Implementation

Answer 20

When the bureaucracy flexes its muscles, shows its influences.

Question 21

Evaluation

Answer 21

Actually happens at each stage

Question 22

3 Paradigmatic Works

Answer 22

1. Richard Snyder - Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics
2. James Rosenau - Pre-Theories and Theories of FP
3. Sprout couple - Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics

Question 23

Richard Snyder - Decision Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics

Answer 23

1. Emphasis on FPDM
2. Positivism - wanted to be able to predict events
3. Multi-causal and interdisciplinary (conceded defeat in terms of positivism)

Question 24

James Rosenau -

Pre-Theories and Theories of FP

Answer 24

1. Middle-range theory
2. The need to integrate information from several levels of analysis
3. Shows the debate on whether multi-level analysis is too complex to be helpful or whether it’s necessary to explain things

Question 25

Sprout Couple - Man-Milieu Relationship in the Context of International Politics

Answer 25

1. Emphasized psychological, social, political contexts | 2. How do individuals act as independent or intervening variables to effect outcomes

Question 26

Classic FPA Scholarship

Answer 26

(1954-1993) 1. Focus on group decision making (groupthink and problem framing) 2. Focus on organizational process and bureaucratic politics (SOPs)

Question 27

Groupthink

Answer 27

Asserts that decision making is a psychological process over a rational one

Question 28

Effects of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

Answer 28

1. Allow for little flexibility | 2. Isn't rational necessarily, but makes things manageable

Question 29

The Psychological and Societal Milieux of FPDM

Answer 29

1. Individual Characteristics (actor-specific theory) 2. National and society characteristics (Polity types) 3. International system (Polarity, power distribution) - This was a rebuke of positivist, data-based assumptions of earlier FPA scholarship

Question 30

The Psychological and Societal Milieux of FPDM

Answer 30

1. Individual Characteristics (actor-specific theory) 2. National and society characteristics (Polity types) 3. International system (Polarity, power distribution) - This was a rebuke of positivist, data-based assumptions of earlier FPA scholarship

Question 31

FPA Self-Reflection (HIPM)

Answer 31

Late 70s - 80s 1. Historical analysis to be insightful 2. Doesn't explain why x did y, but what does x generally do historically? 3. No conceptual or methodological tools 4. Putnam's Two-Level Game 5. Introduction of middle-range theory

Question 32

Two-Level Game

Answer 32

``` Robert Putnam 1st level - international factors 2nd level - domestic factors Nexus = FP executives Distinct from inter-mestic in that the two actually mix together and have impacts on one another ```

Question 33

Middle-Range Theory

Answer 33

A mix of grand theories and overly specific and contextualized for insight

Question 34

Contemporary Research Agenda of FPA (IAMMMP)

Answer 34

1. Accept the impossibility of prediction 2. Look below the state level and use actor-specific information 3. Build middle-range theory as the interface between actor-general and real-world complexity 4. Pursue multi-causal explanations 5. Multidisciplinary 6. Process of FPDM just as important as outputs

Question 35

Framing

Answer 35

An important part of the group level which can affect the 2nd level of the two-level game. Very important in middle-range theory in that it creates narratives, applies to cultural binaries, highlights how many actors can pressure the system

Question 36

US vs European Research

Answer 36

US is quantitative and macro level while Europe is process tracing

Question 37

Neoclassical Realism

Answer 37

Unit level variables constrain or facilitate the ability of all types of states to respond to systemic imperatives

Question 38

Primary Levels of Analysis in FPA

Answer 38

1. Cognitive Process 2. Leader personality and orientation 3. Small-group dynamics 4. Interface of leader personality with small-group composition 5. Organizational 6. Bureaucratic Politics 7. Culture and foreign policy 8. Domestic political contestation 9. National attributes and foreign policy 10. Systemic effects on FP

Question 39

Classic FPA - Pt. 2 (Electric boogaloo)

Answer 39

1. Small-group decision making 2. Organizational process and bureaucratic politics 3. Comparative foreign policy 4. Psychological influences on FPDM 5. Societal milieux (context)