Foreign Policy Outputs Research Articles

Coalition governance and foreign policy decision-making

This article explores processes of coalition governance in foreign policy. Specifically, it argues that such processes are shaped by two interrelated dimensions of coalition set-up: first, the allocation of the foreign ministry to the senior or a junior coalition partner and, second, the degree of policy discretion which is delegated to that ministry. Bringing these two dimensions together, the article distinguishes four types of coalition arrangement for the making of foreign policy, which are expected to have predictable implications for the process of foreign policy-making and, ultimately, for the foreign policy outputs of multi-party coalitions and their quality.

Introduction: coalition politics and foreign policy

Multi-party coalitions are an increasingly common type of government across different political regimes and world regions. Since they are the locus of national foreign-policy-making, the dynamics of coalition government have significant implications for International Relations. Despite this growing significance, the foreign-policy-making of coalition governments is only partly understood. This symposium advances the study of coalition foreign policy in three closely related ways. First, it brings together in one place the state of the art in research on coalition foreign policy. Second, the symposium pushes the boundaries of our knowledge on four dimensions that are key to a comprehensive research agenda on coalition foreign policy: the foreign-policy outputs of multi-party coalitions; the process of foreign-policy-making in different types of coalitions; coalition foreign policy in the ‘Global South’; and coalition dynamics in non-democratic settings. Finally, the symposium puts forward promising avenues for further research by emphasising, for instance, the value of theory-guided comparative research that employs multi-method strategies and transcends the space of Western European parliamentary democracies.

The EU and the Gulf monarchies: normative power Europe in search of a strategy for engagement

The Persian Gulf region is of strategic importance to the European Union (EU). Yet, different political realities of authoritarian government in the Gulf challenge crucial parts of EU foreign policy that are based on normative power Europe concepts. Cooperation with the ruling dynasties appears beneficial for EU decision-makers if one looks at the comprehensive agenda of common interests in the Gulf region. In 2004, the EU aimed to build a strategic partnership with the Mediterranean and the Middle East; in this the EU emphasized its commitment to advancing its partnership with the Gulf countries. Yet, from the perspective of 2012 the results are bleak. Despite some signs of improvement in deepening the political, economic and security interactions with the region, there is still no concerted EU policy in the Gulf beyond the thriving bilateral activities of some EU member states. The events of the Arab Spring have increased the challenges even further. The EU, on the one hand, is trying to support forces of liberal and democratic reform in some neighbouring countries. On the other hand, it seeks close partnerships with authoritarian family dynasties in those Gulf countries in which a democratic opening is not around the corner. This article suggests an alternative explanation for this dichotomy. While there is an inherent tension between the EU's reformist agenda and its own interests, whether security or trade interests, this article argues that much of the EU's relationship with the Gulf countries can be explained through a misperception of the specific settings of government in the region. Despite a substantial agenda of interests on both sides in areas such as trade, energy, regional security, terrorism and irregular migration, the EU's foreign policy outputs remain rather limited.

Sub-state public diplomacy in Africa: The case of the Scottish government’s engagement with Malawi

This article explores the use of international development assistance as a form of public diplomacy, in the sense that projects should be interpreted as attempts at implicit communications by the source, designed to bring about desired behaviours from intended audiences. As such, that development assistance should be separated from other foreign policy outputs, as is often the case, is ultimately artificial because development assistance plays a fundamental role in driving the legitimacy of the source, both domestically and internationally. This research addressed these issues through the case study of Scotland’s development assistance to the small and impoverished country of Malawi. This case study is of interest because Scotland is a sub-state government currently pursuing a secessionist agenda. Thus, the performance of public diplomacy is deeply entrenched with the territory’s domestic and international priorities. The article therefore seeks to address three narratives: sub-state public diplomacy, development assistance as public diplomacy, and the domestic public as key public diplomacy audience.

The Decline of Arms Control: Media Coverage and Elite Opinion in the United States

Is arms control becoming irrelevant? This analysis offers a new way of testing the decline of arms control. Rather than focusing on foreign policy outputs and international outcomes, this analysis examines perceptions of security policy decision makers and opinion leaders through their references to arms control. Salience and framing analysis are used to evaluate the marginalization of arms control in political communication. Empirically, the article examines selected American media coverage, research institute publications, and the Congressional Record. This research confirms a dwindling number of references to the concept of arms control over the last two decades. This trend is not explained by the emergence of new technological issues, nor does it follow the chronological pattern of actual arms control successes and failures. Rather it hints at a more fundamental transformation of political thought.

The public opinion–foreign policy paradox in Germany: integrating domestic and international levels of analysis conditionally

Does public opinion influence foreign policy? International relations theory is divided on whether foreign policy outputs follow public opinion in advanced democratic countries. Using the case of cold war and post-cold war Germany, I offer an integrated realist theory of the effect of public opinion on foreign policy. I test the theory and the generalizability of the hypothesis of a public opinion–foreign policy nexus using process tracing as well as a time series analysis between the years 1973 and 2002. Using new measures, results here contradict literature on expected public opinion and policy outputs in the cold war period yet are supported after. I find that the predicted effect of public opinion on foreign policy outputs to be confounded by such factors as security threats.

Swords into ploughshares: The effect of pacifist public opinion on foreign policy in Western democracies

This analysis focuses on the effects of domestic public pacifist opinion and international security threats on foreign policy outputs. Much work has suggested that governments’ foreign policy outputs are responsive to public opinion in advanced democratic countries. Using the cases of several Western democracies, this article offers a theory of the effect of public pacifism on foreign policy. It employs a cross-sectional time-series analysis over a period of a quarter century to test the theory and the generalizability of the hypothesis of an opinion–foreign policy nexus using new measures and broader data. Results here contradict literature on expected public opinion and policy outputs in the Cold War period, yet are supported after. The findings indicate that the predicted effect of public opinion on foreign policy outputs to be conditional on the presence of security threats. Convergence between leaders and public opinion in post-Cold War Western democracies is likely to make hawkish foreign policy less tenable in the West.

Medvedev's Russia, a ‘revisionist power’ or an ‘architect of a new world order’? The evolution of ideational factors and its cases

Abstract This article explores the impact of ideational factors on Russian foreign policy outputs. “Collective ideas,” defined by Thorun as “shared expectations of behavior by the Russian leadership about the nature of international relations and ideas about the state,” characterizes the Russian leadership's perception of external challenges and its definition of national interests that crucially affect the leadership's choice of the most effective means for maximizing the national interests. To assess the influence of such ideational factors on the outputs of Russian foreign policy, analyzed in this research are major foreign policy speeches, statements, and interviews of the Russian leadership. This research analyzes the discourse to explore the perception of the Russian leadership and the Medvedev government on the nature of international relations, the identity of Russia, Russia's status and role in the international community, strategic national priorities, and strategic options for achieving its int...

Presidentialization, Pluralization, and the Rollback of Itamaraty: Explaining Change in Brazilian Foreign Policy Making in the Cardoso-Lula Era

Since the 1990s Brazilian foreign policy has become increasingly central to Latin American integration, to South—South relations, and to global governance, especially under the leadership of presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995—2002) and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003 to the present). This article argues that the making of Brazilian foreign policy since the mid-1990s has been marked by two major trends: pluralization of actors and the rise of presidentially led diplomacy. These two trends have promoted a gradual erosion of the influence of the highly professionalized and traditionally autonomous Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty). The article analyzes the role of global, regional, and domestic political factors in promoting this transformation, and examines the consequences for Brazil's foreign policy outputs.

Foreign Policy Analysis and Globalization: Public Opinion, World Opinion, and the Individual by Foyle1

Scholars engaged in foreign policy analysis (FPA) have forged new paths of inquiry essential to opening the black box of domestic politics and policymaking in an effort to understand actors' choices in global politics. It is now broadly accepted that different levels of analysis—individual factors, inputs into the decision process, and institutional as well as cultural and societal factors—converge to shape foreign policy outputs. The seminal works of Richard Snyder, James Rosenau, Alexander George, Graham Allison, and Irving Janis among others have suggested the relevance of learning about the stories behind foreign policy decisions and have encouraged recent generations to create a new set of “lenses” that bring some focus to the complex picture that emerges. Through these efforts, foreign policy analysts have made the case for middle-range theorizing that pushes beyond the confines of the assumptions of general international relations theories. After reflecting on the past and current state of affairs in FPA, the challenge posed in this set of essays is to suggest a set of concepts that will take the field beyond the boundaries of current analysis. This symposium evaluates …

Foreign policy decision-making in Nigeria

This book examines Nigeria's foreign policy decision-making system, together with the other factors that shape and determine foreign policy. It gives the reader an understanding of the foreign-policy structures, processes, dynamics, and outputs in Nigeria. The reader also gains an understanding of how foreign-policy decision-making system impact on foreign-policy outputs in medium-sized countries.

How are These Pictures Different? A Quantitative Comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports, 1976-1995

Human Rights Quarterly 23.3 (2001) 650-677 [Access article in PDF] How are These Pictures Different? A Quantitative Comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports, 1976-1995 Steven C. Poe Sabine C. Carey Tanya C. Vazquez [Figures] [Tables] I. Introduction The US State Department's annual publication, the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, has been a continuing source of controversy since it was first issued in the mid-1970s. 1 These reports, which assess the degree to which human rights standards are respected in countries around the world, have been examined carefully by policymakers and academics alike. [End Page 650] Particularly in the 1980s, critics frequently charged the State Department with biased reporting. The State Department has been accused of unfairly painting with the tar of repression countries ideologically opposed to the United States, while unjustly favoring countries where the US has had a compelling interest. 2 Commentary on the Country Reports has not all been negative, however. Interviews conducted by Innes 3 and the results of careful, critical examinations over the years (e.g., Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Reports for 1982, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996), tend to agree that the annual State Department Reports are an invaluable resource that accurately reports on the conditions of most of the countries most of the time. Though critical of reports on particular countries, they also have suggested that the reports have substantially improved over the years. In this study we present the results of our systematic, quantitative examination of the State Department Reports (1977-1996), comparing them with the reports issued by Amnesty International (1977-1996) 4 , to find if existing evidence is consistent with allegations of bias. In conducting this examination we will fill a lacuna in the fast-developing quantitative research on human rights for in spite of the great public and scholarly scrutiny of these allegations, no statistical investigation of them has ever been conducted. We will also examine the historical record to find if evidence does indeed indicate that the reports have improved over time. II. Why is this Endeavor Important? Since the mid-1980s researchers have increasingly turned their attention to human rights issues. Most of the quantitative research conducted under the human rights rubric thus far has investigated violations that pertain to [End Page 651] personal (or physical) integrity: the right not to be imprisoned, tortured, disappeared, or executed, either arbitrarily or for one's political views. 5 One vein of human rights research has attempted to isolate the impact of human rights considerations on foreign policy outputs, such as foreign aid and immigration policies of the United States government. 6 Another fast-growing line of research seeks a theoretical understanding of why these human rights are violated. Beginning in the 1970s, numerous empirical studies addressed the problem of explaining cross-national variations in the respect for personal integrity rights. 7 In the last two decades, many studies from both of these veins have been based on statistical analysis conducted either wholly or in part with data gathered from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports. 8 Given the large and growing amount of empirical [End Page 652] research based on these reports and those of Amnesty International, a systematic comparison of the two is long overdue. This study should also be of interest to international relations and foreign policy scholars with a more general orientation. Statements of policymakers made in the introduction of the Country Reports (e.g., 1982) and statements by political appointees 9 suggest that particular presidents' ideological orientations are reflected in the reports. Still, the career officers who are often responsible for compiling the Country Reports may not always be malleable to presidential preferences. Our analysis will also provide a means of assessing whether presidents have successfully reached through the layers of bureaucracy to affect the State Department's evaluations of human rights. And they will also provide us with some indication of whether the...

Rereading the Public: Isolationism and Internationalism Revisited

This is the first installment in what we hope will be a recurring series of Forums in ISP. In each segment we intend to provide an outlet for peer-reviewed dialogue and debate on important topics in the field and to allow our readers to discuss material previously printed in the pages of ISP. Below are two comments on “Challenging U.S. Policymakers' Image of an Isolationist Public” by Steven Kull and Clay Ramsay published in ISP 1:1. Both comments raise a number of important issues pertaining to the relationship of public opinion and foreign policy, and also address more general questions of domestic impact on foreign policy outputs and several significant methodological questions about approaches to polling. The Forum begins first with comments by Richard Clark and Kenneth Dautrich, is followed by comments from Shoon Murray, and concludes with a response from Kull and Ramsay.

The Policy Arguer: The Architecture of an Expert System

The Policy Arguer ( POLI) is a working expert system model of U.S. foreign policy belief systems toward Asia. Expert systems—computer programs that imitate the behavior of human experts in constrained domains—have become a useful mode of inquiry for research problems in a number of the social sciences. POLI reproduces U.S. foreign policy outputs and the underlying debates and arguments. Foreign policy is explained in terms of the process that converts beliefs into arguments and policies. This paper describes the model in some detail, including its structure and program flow as well as the extraction of its knowledge bases. Keywords: belief systems, computational modeling, expert systems, decision making, fuzzy logic, international relations, U.S. foreign policy.

POLI: An Expert System Model of U.S. Foreign Policy Belief Systems

One of the more fruitful systematic approaches to the study of foreign policy views nations as information processors and explains foreign policy as a function of information and processing thereon. Much of such processing depends on the prior beliefs of decision makers, but for a variety of reasons these systems of prior beliefs are very difficult to analyze using “standard” empirical and modeling techniques. Computational modeling, including expert system technology, provides an alternative methodology that allows such analysis. I present Policy Arguer (POLI), an expert system model of U.S. foreign policy making in Asia. Poli has been very successful in reproducing actual U.S. responses to events in Asia from the 1950s. More important, POLI recreates policy debate in the form of the arguments and counterarguments used to justify policy alternatives. The model explains foreign policy outputs in terms of a complete process from foreign policy beliefs, through debate, to choice.

The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) Project

As students of politics and political science, we should and we do care about the events which lead to war, instability, and international tension as well as about events which lead to equitable interdependence, integration, peace, improvement of quality of life, reduction of colonialism, and so on. Because we care about these matters, we try to advance procedures and theories about systematizing our observations and improving our skills of analysis. Recent developments in international relations have tended to (a) emphasize the exploration of more specific problems and testing of hypotheses with quantified data and (b) deemphasized the search for general theories of internation behavior. This trend appears to be undergoing slight modification for many reasons. Events contain useful information which permit a student of foreign policy to use events singularly or in the aggregate to study foreign policy outputs and inputs. A student of international systems uses events singularly or in the aggregate to study patterns, structures, and transformation. This research calls for continuously developing models and operational procedures which analyze these phenomena with faster and better numerical precision. The Conflict and Peace Data Bank Project is the contribution of myself, my students, and my colleagues to this effort.