The State of the Art in Foreign Policy Analysis: An Introduction

This introductory chapter for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Foreign Policy Analysis argues for a repositioning of the subfield of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) to a central analytic location within the study of International Relations (IR). We take a critical perspective on the history of FPA’s relationship with the rest of the discipline and trace the origins and causes of the disconnect that has sometime existed between FPA scholars and the wider IR community. We argue that this disconnect is in need of repair, particularly given developments within IR, such as the ‘end of theories’ debate, problem-driven research, the domestic, ideational, and agency turns in IR, and methodological pluralism. We also argue that in order to play leader, bridge builder, and innovator roles, FPA research must also develop in new directions. We identify the broad trends in FPA research since the end of the Cold War. With this overview of the state of the art of FPA research, the chapter outlines how FPA can challenge some of its own weaknesses and gaps, and contribute to broad disciplinary questions. FPA research in new policy domains, on a wider variety of types of actors, and oriented to significant policy problems can, we argue, redefine FPA, and shape the study and understanding of international politics more broadly.

ABSTRACTThis article proposes that the study of Indian foreign policy and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) offers a “win-win situation” for scholarship. On the one hand, this bridge-building exercise leads to a better understanding of the making and substance of Indian foreign policy. On the other hand, it advances FPA in both theoretical and empirical terms, thus contributing to overcoming FPA’s US/Western bias and to decentering the field more generally. Framing the argument in terms of levels of analysis, we offer specific contributions to the understanding of foreign policy in areas such as leadership traits, poliheuristic theory, coalition politics, and state-society influences. Moreover, this line of research suggests the contours of a new comparative foreign policy agenda which could emerge from this examination of Indian foreign policy.

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) deals with the decision-making processes involved in foreign policymaking. As a field of study, FPA overlaps international relations (IR) theory and comparative politics. Feminist perspectives on foreign policy look at global politics with the aim of understanding how gender as an analytical lens and a sophisticated system of power produces, and is produced by, foreign policy (analysis). There are two main spheres of feminist inquiries when it comes to foreign policy: the role of women as sexed power holders involved in decision-making processes and power-sharing in the realm of foreign policymaking, and the role of gendered norms in the conduct and adoption of foreign policies. One the one hand, feminist foreign policies as a state policy orientation embraced by some governments (e.g., Sweden or Canada) are geared toward gender equality in one or multiple areas pertaining to foreign policy (aid, trade, defense, and/or diplomacy). Such policies claim that prioritizing gender equality in foreign assistance serves broader economic and security goals. On the other hand, gender mainstreaming, one of the major international developments in foreign policy, moves toward a broader engagement with the way institutions have distinctively gendered cultures and processes that inevitably affect outcomes: do diverse assumptions about femininity and masculinity affect the bureaucratic procedures and, by extension, the policy results? Broadening feminist takes on foreign policy, queer perspectives aim to bring to the field a distinctive focus on how foreign policies are productive of, and produced by, not only gendered norms, but also sexualized norms, subjectivities, and logics. These different areas of policy focus do not preclude the instrumentalization of women’s rights for foreign policy purposes, such as military interventions made in the name of women’s rights, that can be detrimental to women.

The foreign policy analysis (FPA) subfield is situated at the intersection of international relations (IR) and foreign policy behaviors of states. It is characterized by the primacy of the agent-specific ontology and the various cognitive decision-making theoretical models that explain the causal link between actors and foreign policymaking. FPA privileges realist conceptions of the world and downplays the role of normative considerations in foreign policymaking. With the end of the Cold War and the increased frequency of humanitarian interventions foreign policy analyses devoted more attention to normative considerations and the role of ethics or morality in foreign policy, while also retaining the focus on agent-specific explanations. In particular, the just war theory, while primarily a theory/tradition about moral reasoning, became the most prominent theoretical model in the debates about humanitarian interventions. However, the just war theory scholars mostly debate the theory’s reasoning with reference to the specific humanitarian actions instead of using it as a heuristic device for mapping out the moral compass of the actual decision makers. In other words, the FPA subfield has not experienced any paradigmatic transformations, similar to those in IR, and it is not ready to deal with the possibility of morality as a separate analytical category. The British foreign policy literature differs from the American along those lines, especially concerning the foreign policy of the European Union (EU). This literature looks at morality as the initial motivating factor behind EU foreign policy, whereas the American scholarship debates the morality of foreign policy outcomes based on the criteria set out by the just war theory. The FPA subfield in the United States could benefit from thinking about morality from a critical perspective. Incorporating critical approaches in FPA will elevate the role of morality in foreign policymaking.

This article argues that the dialog between Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) and Critical Geopolitics (CGP) can enrich FPA, deepen FPA’s engagement with International Relations (IR) theory and present a new research agenda for FPA’s middle-range theorizing. In the study, it is put forward that the conversation between FPA and CGP can strengthen the connection between FPA and IR theory in various ways. CGP’s emphasis on agent-centrism, ability to transcend the inside-outside dichotomy, critique of natural law-like generalizations in foreign policy, preoccupation with how-possible type questions, and interdisciplinarity can all contribute to FPA and FPA’s relationship with IR. Thus, the theoretical foundations of CGP, which are largely derived from post-structuralism, have a significant potential to strengthen the connection between FPA and IR.

This chapter identifies five approaches in small state studies which can be used to enable foreign policy analysis (FPA) approaches to explicitly capture small states as international actors, that is the capacity-related approach; the shelter-seeking approach; the neutrality approach; the hedging approach; and finally, the status-seeking approach. Also, FPA’s recognition of one of the common claims of small state studies regarding the nature of statehood, that all states are not functionally undifferentiated units would strengthen its distinctive field within international relations (IR). Furthermore, a more explicit focus of FPA on new security challenges of states acknowledging that small states are worse equipped to deal with them than larger states would further reinforce the FPA stand in IR. The FPA literature can also more explicitly benefit scholars of small state studies. First, FPA recognition of the significance of domestic characteristics of states strengthens the core theoretical base of small state studies; that is, small states’ foreign policy cannot be understood without taking into account domestic features of each and every state in question. Second, the identified five approaches in small state studies would benefit from the existing FPA studies on the same or related topics.

For much of the history of the study of international relations, and of foreign policy as a distinctive subfield, scholars have debated the relative weight of agency and structure in shaping the course of international events. Often, the significance of agency versus structure depends on the scope of inquiry. Efforts to identify broad patterns of social interaction tend to play up the significance of structure, while studies of specific events bring agency to the fore. International relations theory is typically associated with the former, and foreign policy analysis (FPA) is more closely linked to the latter. That association suggests that the question of agency versus structure in international outcomes is settled in FPA in favor of agency. An assessment of the literature in FPA shows such a suggestion to be wide of the mark. Not only does FPA struggle with the question of agency versus structure that pervades the study of international relations generally, but also it wrestles with how to reconcile agency and structure in the context of psychological constraints on human cognition. Thus, rather than resolving the debate between agency and structure, the literature on FPA shows that it extends down to the level of individual policymakers. The debate over the role of agency and structure occupies two axes. The first is the engagement of FPA with broader debates over agency and structure in international relations scholarship. The second is the tension between agency and structure in FPA that emerges once psychology is incorporated into the analytical matrix. In both cases, the significance of structure in the actual analysis of foreign policy is far greater than common conception recognizes. This reality means that FPA represents the cutting edge for theoretical and analytical efforts to understand the relationship between structure and agency in international outcomes.

This exciting new book aims to re-invigorate the conversation between foreign policy analysis and international relations. It opens up the discussion, situating existing debates in foreign policy in relation to contemporary concerns in international relations, and provide a concise and accessible account of key areas in foreign policy analysis that are often ignored. Focusing on how the process of foreign policy decision making affects the conduct of states in the international system, and analysing the relationship between policy, agency and actors, the work examines: foreign policy and bureaucracies fomestic sources of foreign policy foreign policy and the state foreign policy and globalization foreign policy and change. This work builds on and expands the theoretical canvas of foreign policy analysis, shaping its ongoing dialogue with international relations and offering an important introduction to the field. It is essential reading for all students of foreign policy and international relations.

This paper is concerned with Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) and non-state actors (NSAs). Globalisation has brought NSAs back on the agenda of International Relations (IR). As a result of globalisation, we witness at least some shift of authority from the state to NSAs (the extent of which remains debated). Although most of the empirical studies focus on ‘domestic’ issues, there are good reasons to assume that foreign policy is equally affected by this trend. Not only are NSAs autonomous actors in world politics, they are also increasingly involved in the making of states’ foreign policies. In this article, we ask to what extent FPA, IR's actor-centric sub-field, has taken into account this growing importance of NSAs. Given FPA's criticism of seeing the state as a unitary actor, one would expect FPA scholars to be among the first within IR to analyse decision making involving NSAs. However, a closer look reveals that FPA remains focused mainly on state actors, while ignoring private, transnational and international ones. Thus, FPA remains in a way state-centric. We close with an outline of possible directions for further FPA research.

This chapter reviews the current scholarly debate on the concepts of socialization and recognition in international relations (IR), focusing on how they can be analysed jointly and in dialogue with Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA)’s main subfields. We argue that socialization/recognition research could gain by applying FPA concepts and instruments in three different ways. First, using FPA focuses on the decision unit level and how specific state agents (diplomats, leaders, etc.) enact foreign policies to accelerate or block socialization/recognition schemes. Second, adopting FPA’s focus on social actors as active agents of foreign policy could help socialization and recognition studies sharpen their understanding of how these actors are decisive in socialization and recognition processes. Third, using FPA’s methodological plurality has the potential to move socialization and recognition research away from the excessively theoretical and small-n analyses that dominate both fields today to more comparative and large-n approach

The problematic implications of the long absence of a dedicated encounter between Marxism and FPA (foreign policy analysis) are discussed. This absence has been marked by a series of different starting points and theoretical preferences between both intellectual projects. A paradigmatic turn for the incorporation of FPA and international politics into a revised Marxist research program is needed. Whereas FPA originated within a United States–centric Cold War context, growing out of the subfield of “comparative foreign policy,” which initially pursued a positivistic methodology, Marxism’s European theoretical legacy afforded neither international relations nor foreign policy analysis any systematic place since its inception in the 19th century. Recurring rapprochements were qualified successes due to Marxism’s tendency to relapse into structuralist versions of grand theorizing. While these could speak to general theories of international relations in the field of IR (international relations) from the late 20th century onward, FPA fell again and again through the cracks of this grand analytical register. Marxist FPA has only very recently been recognized as a serious research program, notably within the two traditions of neo-Gramscian international political economy (IPE) and Marxist historical sociology. With this move, Marxism has started to identify a problematique and produced a nascent literature that should bear fruit in the future.

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) occupies a central place in the study of international relations. FPA has produced a substantial amount of scholarship dealing with subjects from the micro and geographically particular to the macro relationship of foreign policy to globalization. It brings together many different subject areas, indeed disciplines, as between international relations and comparative politics or political theory, or history and political science. FPA generates case studies of major world events, and the information that probes behind the surface of things, to make it more possible to hold politicians accountable. Meanwhile, officials themselves are ever more aware that they need assistance, conceptual and empirical, in making sense of how those in other countries conduct themselves and what can feasibly be achieved at the international level. However, each subject under FPA needs to be revitalized through the development of new lines of enquiry and through the struggle with difficult problems. Work is either already under way or should be pursued in eight important areas. These are (i) foreign policy as a site of agency, (ii) foreign policy and state-building, (iii) foreign policy and the domestic, (iv) foreign policy and identity, (v) foreign policy and multilateralism, (vi) foreign policy and power, (vii) foreign policy and transnationalism, and (viii) foreign policy and ethics.

This exciting new book aims to reinvigorate the conversation between foreign policy analysis and international relations. It opens up the discussion, situating existing debates in foreign policy in relation to contemporary concerns in international relations, and provides a concise and accessible account of key areas in foreign policy analysis that are often ignored. Focusing on how the process of foreign policy decision making affects the conduct of states in the international system, and analysing the relationship between policy, agency and actors, the work examines: ● Foreign policy decision making ● Foreign policy and bureaucracies ● Domestic sources of foreign policy ● Foreign policy and the state ● Foreign policy and globalization ● Foreign policy and change This work builds on and expands the theoretical canvas of foreign policy analysis, shaping its ongoing dialogue with international relations and offering an important introduction to the field. It is essential reading for all students of foreign policy and international relations.

Neoclassical realism as a theoretical model belongs to the Realism School of Thought. It has its own vision about the state’s foreign policy analysis. This model’s assumption is interesting for scholars because it simplifies for the researchers in terms of how they analyze the different types of foreign policy decision-making. This model also is a result of its previous models in the same school such as classical realism and neorealism or structural realism. This work is a scientific effort for the sake of depicting the basic ideas behind the theory by showing and explaining the systemic and intervening variables on which this theory is working on them. The importance of this research is: the writer through using the original sources has made a precise explanation for the different assumptions of the theory, for this purpose, the study takes benefits from the comparison as well as the content analysis methods. In conclusion, the author concludes that Neoclassical realism theory has powerful theoretical assumptions for analyzing the state’s foreign policy because this model from two different levels of analysis is explaining foreign policy, internal and external factors, while the classical theory focuses on the internal issues, the neorealism focuses on the systemic factors.

Assessments over the results of April 2022 Presidential Election in France will guide the scholars of foreign policy analysis on the future of internal and external policies of France and the European Union (EU). Within this framework, the aim of the paper is to identify the foreign policy approaches of the presidential candidates and the political parties they have represented in France. The paper adopts a diverse approach from traditional foreign policy approaches which take internal and external factors separately as units of analysis in foreign policy-making processes. Contrary to the traditional perspective, the authors focused on the interaction of internal and external factors, because it is argued in the paper that this interaction creates mutual impacts on agents and shapes foreign policy-making procedures. Methodologically the paper elaborates the interaction through an analysis on the discourses of seven presidential candidates and programs of the political parties they have represented. It is concluded in the paper that the interaction between internal and external factors in French foreign policy has currently concentrated on the themes such as migration, security, economy, climate change, Islam, NATO membership and the future of the EU. The article tries to contribute to the foreign policy analysis literature through a comprehensive analysis on the combination of internal and external factors and to illuminate the probable reflections of presidential election process in France.