There is a substantive amount of literature on decision-making in public policy. Most of this is on decision-making in domestic settings and less so on decision-making in foreign policy. As the field continues to evolve, offering more disciplinary perspectives, from political science to neuroscience, there is increasing scholarly interest in how the science of decision has moved forward. Understanding the process of decision-making has pre-occupied thinkers for centuries. The complexity of pluralistic societies, multiplied by the additional layer of international interactions, characterise the complexity, as too the gravity, of the tasks for contemporary analyst. Through this literature analysis, the author demonstrates that the general principles in decision-making are ubiquitous regardless of the decisions. The role and influence of structure and agency have varied over time and lead to diverse predictive outcomes, and equally, the varying reflective analyses. The paper demonstrates that while division lines on inputs from the different disciplines and bodies of literature are blurred, the science of decision hinges on universal factors. These include context, the relationship between agency and structure in the system paradigm, choices, behaviours, cognitive abilities and constraints of individual decision-makers, and the possession and development of the capability to deliver on policy.
| Published in | Journal of Political Science and International Relations (Volume 4, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14 |
| Page(s) | 48-55 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Decision-Making, Foreign Policy, Agency, Structure, Rational Actor
| [1] | Sun Tzu (2013) The Art of War, Lionel Giles (tr.) Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. |
| [2] | Luca Pacioli is considered the father of modern-day accounting. He introduced the concept of double-entry bookkeeping. See Murphy Smith (2018) “Luca Pacioli: The Father of Accounting”. Rochester, NY. doi: 10. 2139/ssrn.2320658. S2CID 170867923. SSRN 2320658. This statistical problem has its roots in Arabia and first appears in Italian texts in 1380 and was passed on to Pascal in 1654. For Luca Pacioli’s other contribution, see. John J O’Connor and Edmund F Robertson (2018) A Napierian logarithm before Napier, Online https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Pacioli_logarithm. |
| [3] | Girolamo Cardano, (1968) The Great Art or the Rules of Algebra, T. Richard Witmer (tr.), MIT Press. Originally published in 1545 under the title Ars Magna (also, Artis Magnae, Sive de Regulis Algebraicis Liber Unus). For early thinkers and their contributions to mathematics, see Ronald Calinger, (1999), A contextual history of Mathematics, Prentice-Hall. |
| [4] | Mac Tutor, (n.d.) ‘Nicolo Tartaglia’ https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia/ Accessed 15 March 2021. Nicolo Tartaglia’s 1536 work on arithmetic was an influence on Gerolamo Caradano and was only published in Cardano’s Ars Magna [3]. |
| [5] | F. N. David (1962) Games, Gods, and Gambling, Griffin Press, p. 239. Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat 1654 work led to the development pf their Probability Theory, an essential component in decision and Game Theory. |
| [6] | Charles Lindblom, “The Science of Muddling Through”, Public Administration Review, 19 (2), (1959); David Braybrooke and Charles E. Linbdom (1963) A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press; Charles E. Lindblom (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press. |
| [7] | Graham Alison and Philip Zelikow (1999) Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crises (2nd edn). New York: Longman. |
| [8] | Amitai Etzioni (1967) “Mixed Scanning: Third Approach to Decision Making”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 27, No. 5. |
| [9] | Peter John (2017) “Theories of the policy change and variation reconsidered: a prospectus for the political economy of public policy”. Policy Sci, 51, 1–16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9297-x. |
| [10] | Z. S. Brown (2016) “How Democratic Was The Roman Republic? The Theory and Practice of an Archetypal Democracy”. Inquiries Journal [Online], 8. Available: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1492. |
| [11] | Philip Bobbitt (2002). The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-375-41292-1. |
| [12] | John Peterson (2018) “Structure, agency and transatlantic relations in the Trump era”. Journal of European Integration, 40: 5, 637-652, DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2018.1489801. |
| [13] | Jonathan Renshon and Stanley A. Renshon (2008) “The Theory and Practice of Foreign Policy Decision-Making”. Political Psychology, Volume 29, Issue 4 (2008), p. 509. |
| [14] | Herbert F. Barber (1992) “Developing Strategic Leadership: The US Army War College Experience”, Journal of Management Development, 11 (6), pp. 4-12. See also Harry R. Yarger (2006) Strategic Theory for the 21st Century. Virginia: National Defence University Press. |
| [15] | Jonathan Renshon and Stanley A. Renshon, “The Theory and Practice of Foreign Policy Decision-Making”. Political Psychology, Volume 29, Issue 4 (2008), p. 511. |
| [16] | Fred C. Lunenberg, (2010) “The Decision-Making Process”. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 27, 4. pp. 1-12. |
| [17] | J. S. McClelland (1996) A History of Western Political Thought. London: Routledge, pp. 204-208. On sovereign and its critique, see C. B. Macpherson (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 90-95. |
| [18] | Christian Simon, Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes, Routledge: Abingdon, New York, 2016, pp. 3-4. |
| [19] | J. S. McClelland (1996) A History of Western Political Thought. London: Routledge pp. 370-371, 394-5. |
| [20] | Kate Nash (2000) Contemporary Political Sociology. Globalisation. Politics and Power. Blackwell Publishers Inc., p. 12. |
| [21] | Christian Simon (2016) Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes. Abingdon: Routledge, p. 9. |
| [22] | For example, Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm provides a helpful literature review on the subject matter. See Rahime Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm (2020) “The Sociology of Diplomats and Foreign Policy Sector: The Role of Cliques on the Policy-Making Process”, Political Studies Review, 1-16, DOI: 10.177/147892920901954. |
| [23] | Robert A. Dahl (1984) Modern Political Analysis (4th edn). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. pp. 1-4. |
| [24] | On citizens’ political behaviour, see Edward G. Carmines and Robert Huckfeldt (1998) “Political Behavior: and Overview”, in A New Handbook of Political Science, Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 223-254. Carmines and Huckfeldt discuss a model of a citizen as a cost-conscious consumer and the process of political information. They, while taking duties seriously, reduced the impulse to be consumed by politics and political affairs. |
| [25] | Robert D. Putnam (1988) “Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games”, International Organisations, 42: 3, pp. 427-460, this p. 427. |
| [26] | Glenn H. Snyder and Paul Diesing (1977) Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 510-25. |
| [27] | Morton H. Halperin and Arnold Kanter (1973) Readings in American Foreign Policy: A Bureaucratic Perspective. Little Brown & Co. p. 3. |
| [28] | Glenn H. Snyder and Paul Diesing (1977) Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton: Princeton University Press pp. 516, 522-23. |
| [29] | Robert D. Putnam (1988) “Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games”, International Organisations, 42: 3, pp. 427-460, this p. 432. |
| [30] | Daniel Druckman (1978) “Boundary Role Conflict: Negotiation as Dual Responsiveness,” in I. William Zartman, ed., The Negotiation Process: Theories and Applications. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 100-101, this p. 109. For a review of the social-psychological literature on bargainers as representatives, see Dean G. Pruitt (1981) Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press, pp. 42-43. |
| [31] | For example, see Jeffry Friend and Lisa L. Martin (2002) “International Political Economy: Global and Domestic Interactions, in Katznelson, I. and Milner, H. V. (eds.) Political Science. State of the Discipline. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 118-146. |
| [32] | Isaiah Berlin (1953) The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson. |
| [33] | Philip E. Tetlock (2005) Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
| [34] | Carl Von Clausewitz (1979) On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret (tr.), London: Princeton. |
| [35] | Robert A. Dahl (1984) Modern Political Analysis (4th edn). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 138. |
| [36] | Hadley Arkes; James Child; Charles W. Kegley and Terry Nardin (1977) “Perspectives on Values, Ethics, and National Security”, in Richard H. Shultz, Jr., Roy Godson and George H. Quester (eds) Security Studies for the 21st Century. London: Brassey’s Inc. This contradicts George Kennan and other post-WWII thinkers’ beliefs that bringing morality in international politics can be dangerous and wrong. Nations are in a ‘state of nature’ toward each other; hence no morality or justice is required. See also Mary Maxwell (1990) Morality Among Nations, Albany: State University of New York Press. |
| [37] | Robert A. Dahl (1984) Modern Political Analysis (4th edn). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. pp. 138-142. |
| [38] | See also Derek Beach (2012) Analysing Foreign Policy. Palgrave McMillan. |
| [39] | Robert A. Dahl (1984) Modern Political Analysis (4th edn). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 143. |
| [40] | Christian Simon (2016) Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1-2. |
| [41] | Jonathan Renshon and Stanley A. Renshon (2008) “The Theory and Practice of Foreign Policy Decision Making”. Political Psychology, 29, 4. pp. 509-536, this p. 509. On uncertainty and complexity of decision-making see also Robert Huckfeldt (1998) “Political Behavior: and Overview”, in A New Handbook of Political Science, Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 223-254, this pp. 245-248. |
| [42] | Jonathan Renshon and Stanley A. Renshon (2008) “The Theory and Practice of Foreign Policy Decision Making”. Political Psychology, 29, 4. pp. 509-536, this p. 511. |
| [43] | Thomas Schelling (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 4. |
| [44] | Janice Gross Stein (2009) “Foreign policy decision making” in S. Smith, A. Hadfield, A. Dunne A (eds.). Foreign: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [45] | For further critique of the model see for example, Alexander Grashow, Ronald Heifitz and Marty Lynsky (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business Press; Jonathan Bendor and Thomas H. Hammond (1992) “Rethinking Allison’s Models” in American Political Science Review, 86, 2; see also [7, 9]. |
| [46] | John Spanier, (1984) Games Nations Paly: Analysing International Politics (5th edn,). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p. 409. |
| [47] | Robert Jervis (1976) Perceptions and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press p. 319. On perception, see also [55] pp. 111-115. |
| [48] | Herbert Simon (1985) ‘Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science’, American Political Science Review 79 294-304. Also Herbert Simon (1982) Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press. |
| [49] | Jarvis devoted a lot of attention to the role of perceptions in international relations. On values in public policy see Christian Simon (2016) Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 37-50. |
| [50] | For a critique of Lindblom’s Incremental model, see, for example, Y. Dror (1964) “Muddling Through – “science” or inertia?”, Public Administration Review, 24 (3); Amitai Etzioni (1968) The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes. New York: Free Press; and Christian Simon (2016) Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes. Abingdon: Routledge. |
| [51] | Robert Jervis (1976) Perceptions and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Pres, p. 77. |
| [52] | John Spanier, (1984) Games Nations Paly: Analysing International Politics (5th edn,). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. pp. 419-420. |
| [53] | Richard Snyder, Henry W. Bruck, Burtin Sapin (1954) Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
| [54] | Derek Beach (2012) Analysing Foreign Policy. Palgrave McMillan. p. 99. |
| [55] | Shafritz, Layne and Botick (2005) Classics in Public Policy, New York: Longman, pp. 23-24. |
| [56] | Kenneth A. Shepsle and Mark S. Bonchek (1997) Analysing Politics. Rationality, Behaviour, and Institutions. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 15-36. |
| [57] | Janice Gross Stein, (2016) “Foreign policy decision making” in Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (3rd edn). S. Smith, A. Hadfield, A. Dunne (eds.), Oxford University Press. pp. 130-146, this p. 133. |
| [58] | Susan T. Fiske and Shelley, E. Taylor (1984) Social Cognition: From brains to culture. Sage Publishing. pp. 72-99. |
| [59] | S. A. McLeod (2014) Cognitive dissonance. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html, accessed on 6 January 2018. |
| [60] | Janice Gross Stein, “Foreign policy decision making” in Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, S. Smith, A. Hadfield, A. Dunne (eds.), Oxford University Press, p. 140. |
| [61] | Jean-Frederic Morin and Jonathan Paquin (2018) Foreign Policy Analysis. A Toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 71-72. |
APA Style
Kristine Zaidi. (2021). Approaches to Decision Making in Foreign Policy: Literature Review. Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 4(2), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14
ACS Style
Kristine Zaidi. Approaches to Decision Making in Foreign Policy: Literature Review. J. Polit. Sci. Int. Relat. 2021, 4(2), 48-55. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14
AMA Style
Kristine Zaidi. Approaches to Decision Making in Foreign Policy: Literature Review. J Polit Sci Int Relat. 2021;4(2):48-55. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14,
author = {Kristine Zaidi},
title = {Approaches to Decision Making in Foreign Policy: Literature Review},
journal = {Journal of Political Science and International Relations},
volume = {4},
number = {2},
pages = {48-55},
doi = {10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jpsir.20210402.14},
abstract = {There is a substantive amount of literature on decision-making in public policy. Most of this is on decision-making in domestic settings and less so on decision-making in foreign policy. As the field continues to evolve, offering more disciplinary perspectives, from political science to neuroscience, there is increasing scholarly interest in how the science of decision has moved forward. Understanding the process of decision-making has pre-occupied thinkers for centuries. The complexity of pluralistic societies, multiplied by the additional layer of international interactions, characterise the complexity, as too the gravity, of the tasks for contemporary analyst. Through this literature analysis, the author demonstrates that the general principles in decision-making are ubiquitous regardless of the decisions. The role and influence of structure and agency have varied over time and lead to diverse predictive outcomes, and equally, the varying reflective analyses. The paper demonstrates that while division lines on inputs from the different disciplines and bodies of literature are blurred, the science of decision hinges on universal factors. These include context, the relationship between agency and structure in the system paradigm, choices, behaviours, cognitive abilities and constraints of individual decision-makers, and the possession and development of the capability to deliver on policy.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Approaches to Decision Making in Foreign Policy: Literature Review AU - Kristine Zaidi Y1 - 2021/05/26 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14 DO - 10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14 T2 - Journal of Political Science and International Relations JF - Journal of Political Science and International Relations JO - Journal of Political Science and International Relations SP - 48 EP - 55 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-2785 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20210402.14 AB - There is a substantive amount of literature on decision-making in public policy. Most of this is on decision-making in domestic settings and less so on decision-making in foreign policy. As the field continues to evolve, offering more disciplinary perspectives, from political science to neuroscience, there is increasing scholarly interest in how the science of decision has moved forward. Understanding the process of decision-making has pre-occupied thinkers for centuries. The complexity of pluralistic societies, multiplied by the additional layer of international interactions, characterise the complexity, as too the gravity, of the tasks for contemporary analyst. Through this literature analysis, the author demonstrates that the general principles in decision-making are ubiquitous regardless of the decisions. The role and influence of structure and agency have varied over time and lead to diverse predictive outcomes, and equally, the varying reflective analyses. The paper demonstrates that while division lines on inputs from the different disciplines and bodies of literature are blurred, the science of decision hinges on universal factors. These include context, the relationship between agency and structure in the system paradigm, choices, behaviours, cognitive abilities and constraints of individual decision-makers, and the possession and development of the capability to deliver on policy. VL - 4 IS - 2 ER -
Email: