foreign policy essay

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, ai and advanced technologies in the fight: combatant command and service collaboration, a new cold war: congressional rhetoric and regional reactions to the u.s.-china rivalry, what are the impacts of gps jamming and spoofing on civilians.

Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
Aerospace Security Project
Africa Program
Americas Program
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
Asia Program
Australia Chair
Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
China Power Project
Chinese Business and Economics
Defending Democratic Institutions
Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
Defense 360
Defense Budget Analysis
Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
Economics Program
Emeritus Chair in Strategy
Energy Security and Climate Change Program
Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
Freeman Chair in China Studies
Futures Lab
Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
Global Food and Water Security Program
Global Health Policy Center
Hess Center for New Frontiers
Human Rights Initiative
Humanitarian Agenda
Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
International Security Program
Japan Chair
Kissinger Chair
Korea Chair
Langone Chair in American Leadership
Middle East Program
Missile Defense Project
Project on Critical Minerals Security
Project on Fragility and Mobility
Project on Nuclear Issues
Project on Prosperity and Development
Project on Trade and Technology
Renewing American Innovation
Scholl Chair in International Business
Smart Women, Smart Power
Southeast Asia Program
Stephenson Ocean Security Project
Strategic Technologies Program
Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
All Regions
Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
Middle East
Russia and Eurasia

American Innovation

Civic education, climate change, cybersecurity, defense budget and acquisition, defense and security, energy and sustainability, food security, gender and international security, geopolitics, global health, human rights, humanitarian assistance, intelligence, international development, maritime issues and oceans, missile defense, nuclear issues, transnational threats, water security.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) examines research topics surrounding global studies, international relations, & foreign policy issues.

All Articles
Books & Reviews
Anthologies
Audio Content
Author Directory
This Day in History
War in Ukraine
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Artificial Intelligence
Climate Change
Biden Administration
Geopolitics
Benjamin Netanyahu
Vladimir Putin
Volodymyr Zelensky
Nationalism
Authoritarianism
Propaganda & Disinformation
West Africa
North Korea
Middle East
United States
View All Regions

Article Types

Capsule Reviews
Review Essays
Ask the Experts
Reading Lists
Newsletters
Customer Service
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscriber Resources
Group Subscriptions
Gift a Subscription

Foreign Policy

Jessica T. Mathews

Old world order.

The Real Origin of International Relations

Valerie Hansen

The sanctions on russia are working.

Slowly but Surely, They Are Weakening Putin

Vladimir Milov

How to build a better order.

Limiting Great Power Rivalry in an Anarchic World

Dani Rodrik and Stephen M. Walt

The global zeitenwende.

How to Avoid a New Cold War in a Multipolar Era

Olaf Scholz

The beginning of history.

Surviving the Era of Catastrophic Risk

William MacAskill

International Institutions
World Order
Globalization

Foreign Policy - List of Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Foreign policy consists of a country’s strategies and actions toward other nations to safeguard its national interests, enhance its security, and achieve its economic and political goals. Essays could discuss the principles guiding foreign policy, historical and contemporary foreign policy decisions, and the impact of foreign policy on international relations and global dynamics. A vast selection of complimentary essay illustrations pertaining to Foreign Policy you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Richard Nixon Foreign Policy and Cold War

The Cold War began to come to an end once President Richard Nixon stepped into office. He wanted to take a different approach to the international relations by using diplomacy instead of military action. In 1972, Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet premier, and Nixon signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. This treaty made both sides agree to halt all nuclear weapons manufacturing. This would then lead to a big step to ending the threat of nuclear war. Even though Nixon had […]

Change in America’s Role in Foreign Policy

America’s role in foreign affairs underwent significant changes from 1865-1920. Prior to this period, Americans were generally indifferent to and minimally involved in foreign affairs. America was primarily focused on domestic issues such as the Civil War, industrialization, and settlement of the west. However, this changed after 1865, the end of the Civil War, for many reasons. For one, industrial growth led to larger production quantities and a need for bigger markets and additional raw materials. In addition, the Spanish-American […]

Relationship between United States and Soviet Union during Cold War

United States and Soviet Union's tensions were increasing and on edge leading up to, during, and after the Cold War. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States has two very different sides, creating different ways to place responsibility. The Soviet and US conflict began before the Cold War and continued on throughout. At the end of the WWII, Germany was defeated and split up among the victors. Because of this division, in 1948, conflict arose in the […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Jimmy Carter’s Foreign Policy: a Beacon of Hope for Global Diplomacy

Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, during his tenure as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981, stands out as an exceptional chapter in American diplomacy. It represents a distinctive approach to international relations, one that placed human rights, diplomacy, and international cooperation at the forefront. Carter's foreign policy can be characterized as a "Humanitarian Diplomacy" approach, reflecting his unique perspective on navigating the complex web of global affairs. Carter's background as a peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia, […]

Richard Nixon’s Foreign Policy: Realpolitik and the Rebalancing of Global Power

Introduction Richard Nixon's tenure as the 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974 was a transformative period in American foreign policy. His administration faced the challenges of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and shifting global dynamics. Nixon's foreign policy, often characterized by the concept of "realpolitik," sought to reposition the United States as a global superpower while navigating a complex international landscape. This essay explores Nixon's unique approach to foreign policy and its impact on the […]

Effects of the Cold War

The Cold War was a time of hostility that went on between the Soviet Union and the US from 1945 to 1990. This rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union lasted decades and created a result in anti communist accusations and international problems that led up to the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear disaster. During World War II, the Soviet Union and United States fought together as allies against the axis powers. However, the two nations […]

Ending the Cold War

The Cold War, America's risk of starting a third world war with the U.S.S.R but also one of America's most profitable and popular wars. The cold war begun after the WWII, when the soviets took control of half of Germany and wanted to expand their control over Asia and surrounding countries. Russia wanted to expand communism through out the pacific and the U.S wanted to liberate it and make it a more democratic place. Before this became an arms race, […]

America’s Role in the World after the Civil War

As the civil war came to an end Americas southern territory was in a horrible economic place it was, looted burned, and destroyed by the unions strength to defeat the confederacy. America saw this as a time to reconstruct morally, socially, and economically. During post-war northern Americas industries soared with the help of tariffs passed during war time. It helped corporations like steel and oil to grow and create better technology and mechanics. The growth of industries in America made […]

Cold War in China, Cold War in Cuba, and Space Race

Today, I'm going to write a research paper about, Origins of the cold war, Cold War in China, Cold War in Cuba, and Space Race. These four topics are all related to the horrible tragedies that happened during the Cold War. A lot of families suffered during this war. A lot of the soldiers have died during this war. I will start off with my first topic, which is Origins of the Cold War. I hope you enjoy reading my […]

The History of American Imperialism

"American imperialism" refers to the economic, military and cultural impact of the United States on other countries. The beginning of Industrialization made American businessmen want to seek for new international markets where they could sell and receive goods. Following the Spanish American war in 1898 some argue that this was the beginning of American imperialism, but I believe that America has always been around in America, but it is know taking different forms. Westward expansion is a good example of […]

Cold War: Sanctions and Effects Diplomatic Relations

Today, modern rhetoric prevents improvement between the United States and Russia, especially during the Trump administration. In terms of sanctions, the Cold War has never ended. Sanctions range from financial, economic, diplomatic, personal, and corporate, and seem to follow one after the other like a game of retaliation. The consequences of the evolving sanctions and the predicted likelihood of more sanctions between the United States and Russia are returning us to Cold War levels of tension; different but potentially just […]

The Cold War and U.S Diplomacy

My take on President Kennedy's doctrine ""Respond flexibly to communist expansion, especially to guerrilla warfare from 1961 to 1963"". The doctrine by President John F. Kennedy. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States worked together in fighting Nazi of Germany. The coalition between the two parties was dissolved after the end of the war in Europe. During the Potsdam conference, the tension broke up on July when the two parties decided to share Germany. The […]

Realism as an Ideology

A realist believes in an anarchic world order with power and war at its centrality. Realism as an ideology is most prominently followed by India and Pakistan. They have tried to achieve temporary peace through treaties, CBMs and agreements. When Cold war ended it was believed that it will lead towards a peaceful South-Asia and peaceful relationship between India and Pakistan. In the post-Cold War era, the relationship achieved stability in a start-stop way. Proxy-war and bleed India through thousand […]

Russian Global Expansion

A general consensus has formed among the leaders of Western nations and among western-oriented international organizations like NATO and the European Union (EU). “Not only have spheres of influence returned in the twenty-first century, but they have come back because of Russia’s desire to disrupt the post-Cold War peace.”. Russia’s current policies have two distinct goals. First Russian seeks to reclaim its control over the post-Soviet space. Secondly its larger goal which has become increasingly evident in the period since […]

Geopolitics and the Cold War

Soon following World War II was the Cold War. The Cold War was a hapless and extreme time of discomfort caused by a great geopolitical tension between two areas(Prager U). The western bloc and the eastern bloc served great roles in this conflict. The western bloc contained countries allied with NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).Such as France, Norway, and Denmark. As for the term Eastern bloc referred to countries associated and run by the soviet union. These were countries like […]

The Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War

COLD WAR 1947 - 1991 The Cold War referred to the competition, the tensions and a series of confrontations between the United States and Soviet Union, backed by their respective allies. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the considered to be the high point of what came to be known as the Cold War because of the following reasons. 1) Worries of the USSR In April 1961, the leaders of the USSR were worried that the United States would invade the […]

The Three Main Causes of American Imperialism

American Imperialism took place in the 1850s. U.S. imperialism has many causes and effects, but not all were bad. There are three main causes of American Imperialism. The three main causes are economics, politics, and culture. The economic factors were supposed to find new markets for trade. American Imperialism is the economic, political, and cultural influence of the united states on other countries. Many of the political motives were based on the nation's desire to gain as much power as […]

Imperialism – 1850 to about 1910

During the period of 1850 to about 1910, American imperialism was motivated by four main factors: economic, political, geographic, and cultural. The economic factors were desires to find new markets for trade. By extending colonial power throughout the world, the United States would have new trading partners and markets. In addition, the U.S. would be closer to new markets; when the U.S. became a colonial power in the Philippines, it opened up trade with East Asia. In the political world, […]

The Truman Doctrine: a Catalyst for American Involvement in the Cold War

A reflection of broader geopolitical considerations that would shape American policy for many years to come as well as the nation's desire to contain communism President Harry S. Truman's 1947 announcement of the Truman Doctrine fundamentally altered US foreign policy and ultimately shaped the intellectual landscape of the Cold War. Although there was political unrest and the potential for Soviet influence over Greece and Turkey in particular the Truman Doctrine was announced at a time when Europe was still reeling […]

Foreign Policy in the Lens of Moral Diplomacy: Ethical Dimensions Explored

When we think of international relations, images of tough negotiations, strategic alliances, and often, hard-nosed realpolitik come to mind. But nestled within this complex web is a concept that takes a different path: moral diplomacy. It's an approach that, while not as widely spotlighted as its more pragmatic counterparts, holds a unique and significant place in the history and practice of global interactions. Moral diplomacy sprang from the idealistic vision of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States. […]

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

The Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issues

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Contentious Politics and Political Violence
Governance/Political Change
Groups and Identities
History and Politics
International Political Economy
Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
Political Anthropology
Political Behavior
Political Communication
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Philosophy
Political Psychology
Political Sociology
Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
Politics, Law, Judiciary
Post Modern/Critical Politics
Public Opinion
Qualitative Political Methodology
Quantitative Political Methodology
World Politics
Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Comparative foreign policy analysis.

Jeffrey S. Lantis Jeffrey S. Lantis Department of Political Science, The College of Wooster
, and Ryan Beasley Ryan Beasley School of International Relations, University of St Andrews
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.398
Published online: 24 May 2017

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day foreign interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). Scholars explore the causes of these behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision making in comparative perspective. In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons to government leaders.

This article surveys the evolution of CFP as a subfield over time, with special attention to its contributions to academic understanding and policymaking. It begins with a review of the characteristics and contributions of CFP, followed by acknowledgment of early works that helped establish this area of study. The next section of the article reviews major thematic focuses of CFP, including theories of international pressures and factors that may drive state foreign policy as well as strong foundations in studies of domestic politics. Key internal actors and conditions that can influence state foreign policies include individual leaders, institutions and legislatures, bureaucratic organizations and government agencies, and public opinion and nongovernmental organizations. Following this survey of actors and contemporary theories of their role in foreign policy decision-making, the article develops two illustrations of new directions in CFP studies focused on political party factions and role theory in comparative perspective.

comparative foreign policy
decision-making
international conflict and cooperation
domestic actors
international relations theory
factionalism
role theory

Introduction

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision-making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). In many ways, CFP offers theoretical frameworks that help to capture the “heartbeat” of global politics. Scholars explore key questions and problems over time, including the causes of state behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision-making in comparative perspective (Brummer & Hudson, 2015 ; Breuning, 2007 ). In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons for governance (Kaarbo, 2015 ; Houghton, 2007 ; Hudson, 2005 ).

This article proceeds as follows. First, it examines distinguishing characteristics of the development of the comparative foreign policy subfield, including its evolutionary focus and interdisciplinarity. It explores key actors engaged in foreign policy-making, from individual decision makers and small groups to states and international organizations. Second, the article examines contemporary areas of focus in the scholarship, including questions of links to international relations theories such as neorealism and constructivism, and agent-structure explorations of how domestic and individual-level factors may impact state foreign policy behaviors. Third, it surveys methodological approaches in the subfield, with special attention to the blend of richness and rigor in many studies. Finally, this article explores several promising avenues of current investigation—the applicability of social psychological models to explain majority-minority interactions in foreign policy-making and the potential for national role conceptions to influence state foreign policy in predictable patterns. Both examine critical questions of agency and structure and illustrate opportunities for advancement of middle-range theory in the subfield.

Studying Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

The development of the comparative foreign policy subfield reflects several key characteristics. First, even though CFP has deep roots, it is relatively young. The origins of this area of study date back to mid- 20th-century scholarship (Snyder, Bruck, & Sapin, 1954 ; Sprout & Sprout, 1957 ; Rosenau, 1966 ). Second, CFP is inherently interdisciplinary—drawing from theories and ideas in many related disciplines. Third, and perhaps surprisingly, CFP also is a rather cohesive subfield, populated by several generations of scholars who sought to advance theoretical understanding of foreign policy-making in comparative perspective. These qualities have enabled advancements in theory that represent fascinating potential contributions to broader international relations scholarship. Fourth, CFP is also a highly policy-relevant subfield, with insights about subjects, lessons of history, actors, factors, and conditions that can be incredibly useful for decision-makers. Each of these qualities of CFP is explored in further detail below.

CFP emerged as a variant of international relations and diplomacy studies in the mid- 20th century and quickly evolved original frameworks for policy analysis. It connects the study of international relations (the way states relate to each other in international politics) with the study of domestic politics (the functioning of governments and the relationships among individuals, groups, and institutions). Because theories of international relations are primarily concerned with state behavior, the study of international relations includes explanations of foreign policy. Traditional theories, however, tend to focus on the external environment as the primary or single explanation of why states do what they do in global affairs. Those who study foreign policy certainly draw on these theories, as will be discussed shortly, but they also look at theories of domestic politics focused inside the state for further explanation. Theories of domestic politics, found in the study of U.S. politics and in the study of comparative politics, share this attention to internal factors. These theories, however, tend to explain the functioning of the state or political system and the domestic policies that are chosen—they rarely comment about the effects of internal politics on a state’s foreign policies.

Up to the 20th century , scholar Deborah Gerner argues, “neither foreign policy nor international relations constituted a distinct field. Diplomatic history probably came the closest to what is now labeled as ‘foreign policy,’ and much of what we call international relations came under the rubric of international law, institutional analysis, or history” ( 1992 , p. 126). Driving much of nascent international relations theorizing at the time was realism, though it is important to note that the liberal (idealist) worldview did emerge as a way to study policymaking in the interwar years (Neack, Hey, & Haney, 1995 ). International relations assumed its contemporary form as an academic discipline after World War II. In some ways, this was in response to the rigidity of the realist framework as a search for powerful alternative theories.

Many of the founding works in the CFP subfield were interdisciplinary in nature. For example, Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin ( 1954 ) drew on insights from psychology to propose a systematic decision making framework for the study of international relations, in contrast to the virtual dismissal of human agency in realism. They championed a decision making focus of study, analyzing behaviors of “those acting in the name of the state” ( 1954 , p. 65). In essence, national interest does not represent an objective universal. Rather, foreign policy choices derive from multiple sources, including the backgrounds of individual decision makers and the organizational framework in which decisions are made. In a similar vein, Harold and Margaret Sprout’s article, “Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics” (Sprout & Sprout, 1957 ) called for greater attention to the “psycho milieu” of individuals and groups involved in foreign policy decisions. This focused on the international context as it is was perceived and interpreted by these decision makers. James Rosenau championed a more scientific study of foreign policy, linking domestic and international conditions in his classic article, “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy” ( 1966 ). He argued that comparative politics offered valuable insights on the “internal influences on external behavior” and that this study would bridge the fields of international and comparative politics. Critically, he called for the advancement of theory frameworks by proposing relationships between variables such as natural attributes and state behavior.

The foreign policy analysis subfield is rather cohesive. Several generations of scholarship have built on early foundations to explore the causes and implications of foreign policy decisions. Subjects of study also have proliferated (read: moving from traditional diplomatic studies of great power behaviors to developing countries, and from realist-infused structural frameworks to new and alternative paradigmatic perspectives such as dependency theory). In the behavioral era of the 1960s and 1970s, many CFP scholars appeared to “catch the fever” of Rosenau’s call for generalizeable theory and the search for a scientific study of foreign policy (McGowan & Shapiro, 1973 ). The inability of such approaches to generate substantial progress toward overarching theories of foreign policy led some to see CFP as having failed, but others argued that this ultimately resulted in a broader and more tolerant field (White, 1999 ). Indeed, subsequent generations of researchers have continued to build on and help shape the canon of CFP scholarship, and even as theory lenses have widened, comparative analysis has remained a key feature.

The CFP subfield is also policy-relevant. Drawing on insights from decades of inquiry, foreign policy analysis has made valuable contributions to theory development and policy prescriptions (Zambernardi, 2016 ). Early examples of applications of foreign policy frames include studies of wars over independence and decolonization (Goldstein & Keohane, 1993 ), attempts to manage the Arab-Israeli conflict (Aoun, 2003 ; Hinnebusch & Ehteshami, 2014 ), and studies of humanitarian intervention (Clarke & Herbst, 1997 ; Smillie & Minear, 2004 ). CFP scholars also played a prominent role in articulating and shaping the democratic peace thesis (Maoz & Russett, 1993 ; Doyle, 2011 ). CFP scholars have contributed a great deal to understanding transitions to democracy and the critical role that different forms of democracy can play in shaping foreign policy in the post-Cold War era (Blanton, 2005 ; Coleman & Lawson-Remer, 2013 ). Alexander George, one of the pioneers in the study of foreign policy, made explicit the call for scholars and practitioners to “bridge the gap” ( 1993 ) in the hopes of improving policy and policymaking.

The next section explores some of the key questions and problems that have motivated research on CFP over time. Several defining features have come to characterize much comparative foreign policy analysis research. First, it is agent-centered, taking seriously the importance of actors that are involved in making foreign policies. Second, both the international system and domestic political contexts are viewed as important influences on foreign policy and policymakers. Third, while objective material conditions are seen as important, the subjective understandings and interpretations of individuals are also viewed as a significant factor shaping foreign policy. Fourth, while generally committed to developing theories and trying to explain foreign policy through causal inferences, the field embraces a very wide variety of specific research methods, spanning both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Finally, CFP research can be usefully organized into different “levels of analysis” (see Singer, 1961 ) defined by the primary factors that are used to explain foreign policy, ranging from those external to states to those internal to the minds of foreign policy decision makers. This serves as an organizational platform for the discussion that follows, drawing attention to agency, contextualism, subjectivity, and different methodologies.

Contemporary Dimensions of Study in CFP

CFP analysis begins with theories that identify different factors, actors, and conditions that can influence state foreign policies. Scholars recognize that any such explanation typically involves multiple factors, or “variables,” that drive research in CFP. Levels of analysis offer a framework for categorizing the impact of these factors. First, international system dynamics may help to explain state foreign policy development—such as how the international system is organized, the characteristics of contemporary international relations, and the actions of others. Scholars posit that these factors can cause the state to react in certain ways. The second category points to internal factors such as characteristics of the domestic political system—institutions and groups—that can shape a state’s foreign policy. A third category explores the influence of individual leaders and offers agent-focused perspectives on foreign policy-making.

External Factors and Foreign Policy

States are situated within an international system that may constrain the latitude of their behaviors. In a comparative sense, the global distribution of economic wealth and military power allows some powerful states to pursue their preferred options in foreign policy, but disadvantages others. For example, the People’s Republic of China may have greater opportunity to influence regional politics than does the Philippines or Vietnam. Realism has been a dominant framework of explanation in international relations scholarship for nearly a century, and scholars have argued that states’ foreign policies are solely a product of the international system—merely a reaction to external conditions and other actors. Realism operates on the assumption of anarchy—the absence of an overarching government in the international system—as one of the most important external conditions that affect foreign policies. In an anarchic world, states must look out for their own interests. The result, realists argue, is distrust, competition, and conflict among states (Wohlforth, 2008 ; Lobell, Ripsman, & Taliaferro, 2009 ). These are reflected in challenges such as the difficulty of constructing security communities in the Asia-Pacific region or negotiating an end to tensions in the Middle East (Acharya, 2001 ).

Although various approaches to realism can capture important aspects influencing state foreign policies—the primacy of security interests and the drive for power among all states—they do have some noted limitations. Neorealism, or “structural” realism, for example, has been critiqued for focusing on structures and anarchy, which are relatively constant, while at the same time trying to account for variations in individual states’ foreign policy behaviors (Barkin, 2009 ). Indeed, it is not entirely clear whether Neorealism is a theory of foreign policy at all: Offensive realists, such as Mearsheimer clearly claim to explain the power-seeking propensities of states ( 2001 ), while defensive realists like Waltz explicitly deny this represents a theory of foreign policy (Waltz, 1979 ). Neo-Classical Realism (cf. Rose, 1998 ) focuses on foreign policy and has continued to give primacy to power as the driver of states’ behaviors while introducing various factors inside the state into their explanations.

Economic power, and not just economic wealth to purchase military capability, can give a state influence in international politics through programs such as sanctions or promises of an economically rewarding relationship. Indeed, because of changes in the international system, economic power may be more significant in an era of increasing interdependence and globalization (Wivel, 2005 ). Liberalism focuses on the emergence of interdependence in the international system (Keohane & Nye, 1997 ) that persuades states to find cooperation, rather than conflict, more in line with their interests (Doyle, 1997 ). Economic liberalism argues that all states will be better off if they cooperate in a worldwide division of labor, with each state capitalizing on its comparative advantage in production.

Theories of liberalism cast a wide net for explanations of foreign policy. A centerpiece is their attention to the importance of international organizations to help coordinate cooperative efforts by states. What autonomy may be sacrificed in the short term, liberals believe, is offset by the long-term benefits of stability, efficiency, and greater wealth (Keohane, 1984 ; Martin & Simmons, 1998 ). International governmental organizations have especially strong potential influence in the modern system, seen in the capacities of organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization to shape different states’ foreign policies. Liberalism also recognizes the growing power of non-state actors in a complex, interdependent system, and these actors increasingly influence the foreign policies of states. The rise of multinational corporations and their influence in a globalized system has changed international political dynamics. Globalization may connect more economies in worldwide financial and trading markets, but it has not done so evenly. Dynamics of regional economic integration illustrate contemporary opportunities and challenges in globalization. Both rich and poor states are engaging in agreements and dialogues to establish greater interdependence at the regional level. The European Union (EU) is the most successful effort, particularly with the establishment in 1999 of a common currency. There have been other recent attempts at regional integration in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America in response, in part, to globalization. Thus, regional integration provides another layer of external factors that may affect states’ foreign policies. Interestingly, however, EU states have persistently struggled to coordinate their non-economic foreign policies.

Constructivism offers valuable contributions to CFP and international relations. From a constructivist perspective, the international system is composed of the social interactions of states and shared understandings of them in international society (Kaarbo, 2015 ). For constructivism, anarchy and interests are not defined structural constraints; rather they are constituted of the actions of agents, such as states, and the meanings, or ideas, that agents attach to them (Onuf & Klink, 1989 ; Wendt, 1999 ). Norms of appropriate behavior, for example, become international structures that constrain states’ foreign policies (Kratochwil, 1989 ). Whether or not states should intervene for humanitarian reasons, trade slaves, or develop nuclear weapons are all examples of norms that have changed over time. States may contribute to the development of norms, such as actions by the Austrian government to promote a humanitarian norm related to banning nuclear weapons or the role of Canada in fostering international negotiations on banning land mines. Constructivists also argue that states often avoid violating norms, even if it is in their interest to do so, and when they do violate standards of appropriate behavior, other actors may sanction them or shame them, even if they lack traditional notions of power or if condemnation is not in line with their material interests (Keck & Sikkink, 1998 ). Although states do not always comply with international laws, the system does seem to carry some kind of moral, normative authority that states support (Lantis, 2016 ; Hurd, 2007 ; Ku & Diehl, 1998 ). In these ways, ideational, and not just material conditions, do shape foreign policies.

Neo-Marxist dependency theory offers an alternative set of explanations for foreign policy in comparative perspective (Wallerstein, 1974 ). For example, some studies of African foreign economic relations highlight the importance of their post-colonial drives for development and their relations with international organizations including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Callaghy, 2009 ). These relationships sometimes complicate questions of independence, however, as developing countries see domestic and even foreign policy decisions impacted by their need for strong relations with benefactors. Other studies highlight the dependent asymmetry of many ties between developing countries and international organizations (Shaw & Okolo, 1994 ; Nzomo & Nweke, 1982 ), which can translate through voting patterns in the United Nations or other initiatives (Moon, 1983 ; Holloway & Tomlinson, 1995 ). Related studies have examined dependency and foreign policy implications in Asia (Weinstein, 2006 ) sub-Saharan Africa (Ahiakpor, 1985 ), and Latin America and the Caribbean (Ferris & Lincoln, 1981 ; Mora & Hey, 2004 ; Braveboy-Wagner, 2008 ). And in recent work, Giacalone ( 2015 ) adapts a dependency lens to analyze Latin American foreign policies as hybrid extensions of realism (what she terms “peripheral neo-realism”) and idealist approaches (“peripheral neo-idealism”).

In summary, scholars have proposed a range of external factors that may impact states’ foreign policies. Realism proposes that states motivated by self-interests will seek military power and create alliances, and that weak states will often submit to more powerful actors. Liberalism suggests that an interdependent international system will result in more cooperative foreign policies, support for organizations that help coordinate activities, and submission of economically weak states to the forces of the international marketplace. Constructivist perspectives point to socially created meanings that develop into international norms which in turn guide actors’ behaviors. Proponents of each of these perspectives agree that foreign policies are a result of states’ rank, status, and links to other actors in the international system.

Internal Factors and Foreign Policy

CFP scholars have developed a substantial literature focused on internal sources of foreign policy. These works highlight the CFP focus on agents within domestic political contexts and examine the great diversity of political systems, cultures, and leaders that may result in different foreign policy decisions by states, even in the face of similar external pressures. These often challenge the parsimony of realism or the international institutional focus of liberalism to introduce greater complexity associated with the actors, factors, and conditions that may drive state behavior more directly. These works also showcase connections to comparative politics research on domestic political systems, by showing how these factors may alter states’ international behavior.

Government institutions represent a first set of domestic actors and conditions that can impact foreign policy decision making. The prevailing scholarship in CFP focuses on democratic systems where decision making authority is somewhat diffuse, while other work attends to authoritarian systems. The foreign policy process can be quite different for democracies—decision making authority tends to be diffused across democratic institutions, and thus more actors are involved. While leaders in authoritarian systems may prefer to make decisions by themselves, they too can face domestic constraints (Weeks, 2012 ) and may have to deal with divided institutional authority (Hagan, 1994 ). Democratic leaders, however, are directly accountable to political parties and the public and thus must often build a consensus for foreign policy.

Liberal theory argues that because of these differences in government organization, democracies will behave more peacefully than will authoritarian systems (Bausch, 2015 ; Maoz & Russett, 1993 ; Jakobsen, Jakobsen, & Ekevold, 2016 ). The difficulty of building a consensus among a larger set of actors and mobilizing them for conflict constrains the war-making abilities of democratic leaders. Furthermore, democratic institutions are built on and create a political culture that is likely to emphasize the value of peaceful resolution. However, despite these expectations, the proposition that democracies are generally more peaceful in their foreign policy is not supported by most evidence. Democracies and authoritarian governments, it seems, are both likely to be involved in and initiate conflict. Democracies, however, rarely fight other democracies (Rosenau, 1966 ). Other scholars (Calleros-Alarcón, 2009 ; Zakaria, 2003 ) focus on links between degrees of democracy and conflict, arguing that illiberal systems tend not to formulate foreign policies that promote global peace.

Second, bureaucratic structures and processes also affect foreign policy. State bureaucracies are charged with gathering information, developing proposals, offering advice, implementing policy, and, at times, making foreign policy decisions. Because of the complexities involved in dealing with the many issues of international politics, governments organize themselves bureaucratically, assigning responsibility for different areas or jurisdictions of policy to separate agencies or departments. Scholars have shown that this has serious implications for foreign policy (Kaarbo, 1998a , 1998b ; Allison, 1974 ; Hollis & Smith, 1986 ; Marsh, 2014 ). Bureaucratic conflict is a common problem, for example, in the process of making foreign policy in the United States and Japan. The conflict in viewpoints may create inconsistent foreign policy if departments are acting on their own, rather than in coordination. It may also result in compromises that are not necessarily in the best interests of the state (Ball, 1974 ). While many studies have focused on applications in a few select countries, scholars have begun to explore applicability of bureaucratic politics to other cases of foreign policy decision making in countries such as China (Qingmin, 2016 ), Argentina and Chile (Gertner, 2016 ), and Sweden and Finland (’t Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 1997 ).

Societal groups represent a third important set of actors that can impact foreign policy decision-making. Studies show that leaders may be more likely to pay attention to and react to the opinions of specific, organized societal groups than to the society at large, as they play the role of linking society to the state or of opposing and competing with the state. Interest groups articulate a particular societal sector’s position and mobilize that sector to pressure and persuade the government (Beyers, Eising, & Maloney, 2008 ; Kirk, 2008 ; Haney & Vanderbush, 1999 ). These groups are varied and may be based on a single issue, on ethnic identification, on religious affiliation, or on economics. Economic groups often have an interest in foreign relations as they seek to promote their foreign business adventures abroad or to protect markets from competitors at home (Krasner, 1978 ). For example, China’s foreign policy engagement in Africa has been heavily influenced by economic and business interests (Sun, 2014 ), and similar dynamics are at work in Australian commitments to India (Wesley & DeSilva-Ranasinghe, 2011 ). Watanabe ( 1984 ) argues policy-makers and interest groups may establish mutually supportive relationships to help achieve policy goals. He describes these “symbiotic relationships” as involving exchanges of influence and political advocacy for valuable resources such as information, votes, and campaign contributions. In this context, Congress becomes both a “target and ally” ( 1984 , p. 61). Ultimately, the impact of an interest group on foreign policy may depend on the particular issue, how organized the group is, its resources, and the relationship between the interest group and the government (Glastris et al., 1997 ; Haney & Vanderbush, 2005 ).

Political parties, although often part of the government, also play the role of linking societal opinion to political leadership (Hagan, 1993 ). In many ways, political parties function much like interest groups. In some countries, such as Iran, only one party exists or dominates the political system, and the party’s ideology can be important in setting the boundaries for debate over foreign policy decisions and in providing rhetoric for leaders’ speeches. In such cases, parties become less important than factions, which often develop within political parties. Factions are also important in political systems in which one party holds a majority in parliament and rules alone. In these countries too, factions may disagree over the direction of the country’s foreign policy, as have the pro- versus anti-European integration factions in the British Conservative Party (Benedetto & Hix, 2007 ; Rathbun, 2013 ). Party factions may seek to outmaneuver each other or they may be forced to compromise for the sake of party unity. Even if there is a consensus within the party, foreign policy might get captured by the intraparty fighting as factions compete with one another for party leadership. In some countries with multiparty systems, such as India, Germany, and Israel, the political scene is so fragmented that parties must enter into coalitions and share the power to make policy. In such cases, each foreign policy decision can be a struggle between coalition partners, who must get along to keep the coalition together (Ozkececi-Taner, 2006 ; Kaarbo & Beasley, 2008 ).

Public opinion and attitudes represent a fourth dimension of domestic factors that can impact foreign policy development. In democratic systems public opinion may, for example, be for or against their state intervening militarily in another country or signing a particular trade agreement. The public may agree on an issue or may be deeply divided. Scholars continue to debate the impact of public opinion on foreign policy, even in highly democratized states in which policy supposedly reflects “the will of the people.” Some argue that leaders drive public opinion through framing messages in line with their preferences or that they ignore the public altogether (Entman, 2004 ; Shapiro & Jacobs, 2000 ; Foyle, 2004 ; Chan & Safran, 2006 ). But this is challenged by other works asserting that public attitudes can and do impact foreign policy decision making at different stages (Jentleson, 1992 ; Knecht & Weatherford, 2006 ). Research argues that how leaders perceive and respond to public opinion can matter in select circumstances, and that public attitudes can be catalyzed by highly salient issues (Nacos, Shapiro, & Isernia, 2000 ). The media also play a role in this relationship as it too may influence public opinion on foreign policy. The information that the media provides the public may also be biased in favor of the government’s policies (Entman, 2004 ; Holsti, 1992 ).

Finally, core values and national identities are also connected to a society’s political culture—the values, norms, and traditions that are widely shared by its people and are relatively enduring over time. These enduring cultural features may also set parameters for foreign policy (Johnston, 1995 ; Katzenstein, 1996 ; Berger, 1998 ). A country’s culture may value, for example, individualism, collectivism, pragmatism, or moralism, and these culturally based values may affect foreign policy. Cultures that place a premium on morality over practicality, for example, may be more likely to pass moral judgment over the internal affairs and foreign policy behaviors of others. Culture may also affect the way foreign policy is made. Cultures in which consensual decision making is the norm, for example, may take longer to make policy, because the process of consultation with many people may be just as important as the final decision (Sampson, 1987 ). However, despite the general recognition that cultural particularities do affect foreign policy, such concepts can be difficult to operationalize and measure (whether quantitatively or qualitatively), and this has limited some assessments of culture and foreign policy (Lantis, 2015 ).

Individual Leaders and Foreign Policy

Leaders sit “at the top” of government. In many political systems, the head of state or head of government has substantial authority to allocate state resources and make foreign policy. CFP provides fertile ground for the development of substantial comparative work on leadership in foreign policy, in part because the potential influence of key individuals in power represents an important commonality across different political systems and regions (Kamrava, 2011 ; Korany, Hillal Dessouki, & Aḥmad, 2001 ). For example, fascinating studies have been developed on the role of leadership in the foreign policy of Arab states (Hinnebusch & Ehteshami, 2014 ), former President Dilma Rousseff’s influence on Brazilian foreign policy (De Jesus, 2014 ), and the impact of individual leaders on nuclear weapons programs in France, Australia, Argentina, and India (Hymans, 2006 ).

Studies show that individual characteristics of leaders matter in influencing foreign policy decisions (Hermann, 1980 ; Levy, 2003 ). Characteristics of leaders seem to be more important when the situation is ambiguous, uncertain, and complex, and when the leader is involved in the actual decision making rather than delegating his or her authority to advisers (Gallagher & Allen, 2014 ; Greenstein, 1975 ). Under such conditions a leader’s personality and beliefs may be especially influential in foreign policy, but determining whether or not leaders have influenced foreign policy can be challenging (Jervis, 2013 ).

CFP analysts also have explored the roots of individual leaders’ decisions in their personal history. Childhood or early political experiences, for example, may have taught policy-makers how certain values and ways of handling problems are important. Leaders’ cognitions and belief systems also influence foreign policy (Rosati, 2000 ). Human beings tend to prefer consistency in ordering the world around them and thus often ignore or distort information that contradicts what they already believe (Beasley, 2016 ). Studies show this is especially likely when we have strongly held “images” of other countries. Leaders who see another country as their enemy, for example, will often selectively attend to or perceive information about that country in a way that confirms their original belief. For this reason, images are extremely resistant to change, even if the “enemy” is making cooperative gestures (Holsti, 1976 ; Jervis, 1976 ; Vertzberger, 1990 ).

Political psychologists have made important contributions to understanding foreign policy decision making. Here, scholars argue that leaders can be categorized into types of personalities. Some leaders, for example, may be motivated by a need to dominate others and may thus be more conflictual in foreign policy, whereas others may be more concerned with being accepted and may therefore be more cooperative. Some leaders are more nationalistic, more distrustful, and believe that the world is a place of conflict that can only be solved through the use of force, whereas others see themselves and their state as part of the world community that can be trusted and believe that problems are best solved multilaterally (Dyson, 2006 ; Schafer & Walker, 2006 ; Hermann, 1980 ). Leaders’ decision making style or how they manage information and the people around them can also be important. Some leaders may choose to be quite active in foreign policy-making, whereas others champion isolationism. Some leaders are “crusaders” who come to office committed to a foreign policy goal; others are interested in keeping power or bridging conflicts. They tend to be sensitive to advice and are reluctant to make decisions without consultation and consensus (Goemans & Chiozza, 2011 ; Hermann, 1993 ; Kaarbo, 1997 ).

Methodologies

Given the breadth of issues that concern those who study foreign policy, it is perhaps not surprising that CFP researchers employ a wide variety of methods in their efforts to investigate factors influencing the behavior of states. This pluralism, however, is tempered by a somewhat more narrow epistemological commitment by most CFP work to developing generalizable explanations of foreign policy. In this sense, much CFP work stands in contrast to epistemological approaches emphasizing subjective “understanding” (Hollis & Smith, 1986 ) or any of a variety of other approaches that eschew explanation and generalizability as research goals (Tickner, 1997 ; White, 1999 ; Houghton, 2007 ). But consistent with its early focus on the interpretations of decision makers, a number of approaches take seriously the subjective experiences of individuals as they seek to understand the world.

CFP has deep roots in comparative politics and draws from the methods employed in that subfield. Lijphart’s ( 1971 ) seminal work closely examined the comparative method and the logic of comparative analysis with a small number of cases (“small-n” studies), contrasting it with experiments, statistical analysis, and single case studies. Subsequently, small-n analysis has been refined, and more sophisticated approaches to case selection and comparative case study design have emerged (Kaarbo & Beasley, 1999 ). In particular, “process tracing” has been put forward as an important contribution to case study methods (Beach & Pedersen, 2013 ; George & Bennett, 2005 ) as a technique for exploring the underlying causal mechanisms involved (Falleti & Lynch, 2009 ). The case study method is particularly attractive to CFP researchers who are interested in specific decisions, or who may be motivated to improve actual policymaking processes.

In contrast to comparative case study approaches, many CFP scholars have employed broad statistical comparisons using established data sets, such as the Correlates of War (Singer, 1961 ) data set and the Militarized Interstate Disputes (Ghosn, Palmer, & Bremer, 2004 ) data set. The development of large events-based data sets for the study of foreign policy—such as the Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB; Azar, 1980 ) and the Comparative Research on the Events of Nations (CREON; Hermann, East, Hermann, Salmore, & Salmore, 1973 ) data set—were driven by the desire to bridge traditional and more quantitative approaches (Schrodt, 1995 ). Indeed, events data offer a more nuanced and wide-ranging set of dependent variables than the more conflict-oriented data sets that focus more on conflict and war (Oktay & Beasley, 2016 ). Moving toward more event-based data sets, McClelland ( 1978 ), for example, created the World Event Interaction Survey (WEIS), data set which coded the discreet behaviors of countries around the world. Scholars such as Goldstein ( 1992 ) translated these categories into levels of conflict or cooperation, offering opportunities for more nuanced examinations beyond war and militarized disputes. This trend has continued, offering new sources for the statistical study of foreign policy (Gerner & Schrodt, 1994 ; Merritt, 1994 ).

Scholars of CFP who seek explanations that lie with individuals and small groups of decision makers can have difficulty accessing relevant data, often relying on archival analysis of decision making and detailed historical case studies. Content analysis and “at-a-distance” techniques, however, have offered ways to study decision makers and infer individual-level characteristics. These studies rely primarily on analyzing speeches and writings, often using computer software, and large data sets have been constructed that include measures of world leaders’ beliefs and personality traits (Young & Schafer, 1998 ). Such data collection techniques are not without problems, but they have allowed scholars to link individual-level characteristics with foreign policy decisions, giving greater access to subjective qualities of actors and their impact on foreign policy outcomes. Finally, concern with the micro-processes of individual and group decision making has led scholars to employ laboratory experiments as a way of testing specific psychological dynamics in a controlled environment (Geva, Mayhar, & Skorick, 2000 ; McDermott, 2011 ).

Foreign Policy Theories in Action

This section briefly explores pathways that link theory and practice in foreign policy development. This work underlines the important contributions of the subfield to date and offers examples of avenues for future advancement of the subfield.

Social Psychology and Minority Influence in Foreign Policy

Among the many fertile areas for further research on foreign policy in comparative perspective is the study of the relationship between factionalism and foreign policy. Factions can be defined as “any intra-party combination, clique, or grouping whose members share common identity or purpose, and are organized to act collectively—as a distinct bloc within a party—to achieve their goals” (Zariski, 1960 , p. 33). In studies of factionalism in Britain, Canada, Italy, and Japan, Francoise Boucek observes, “Political parties are not monolithic structures but collective entities in which competition, divided opinions and dissent create internal pressure” ( 2009 , p. 455; 2012 ). Additional studies in comparative politics examine typologies of intra-party groups with different attributes, including organization, function, and role, and they discuss projected impacts on political outcomes (Boucek, 2009 , p. 456; Belloni & Beller, 1978 ). Other work identifies links between factionalism, party government, and cabinet durability in parliamentary regimes (Köllner & Basedau, 2005 ).

Emerging studies recognizing factions as agents of change open exciting new avenues for foreign policy analysis in comparative perspective (Koger, Masket, & Noel, 2010 ; Barrett & Eshbaugh-Soha, 2007 ). For example, Peake ( 2002 ) studies links between intraparty factionalism and U.S. foreign policy outcomes. He explores conditions that contribute to foreign policy challenges, as well as factors that might lead to greater opportunity for presidential coalition-building and advancement of their foreign policy agendas (Peake, 2002 ; Peake, Krutz, & Hughes, 2012 ). Gvosdev and Marsh ( 2013 ) also examine how different interests and factions have influenced Russian foreign policy in the Putin-Medvedev eras.

Contemporary research in social psychology also offers promising insights on how intraparty factionalism, or majority-minority differences, may influence the political process. For much of the 20th century , the traditional “conformity thesis” held that dissident voices in groups tend to yield to the majority position even when it is incorrect (Allen, 1965 ; Sherif, 1935 ; Maass & Clark, 1984 ; Milgram, 1963 ). However, Moscovici and others (Moscovici, Lage, & Naffrechoux, 1969 ; Moscovici & Faucheux, 1972 ) successfully challenge traditional assumptions by showing how group members may exhibit deviance or nonconformity by attempting to persuade others to endorse alternative decisions. Minority views must be consistent in presentation and support for policy change. Over time, numerous studies (Maass & Clark, 1984 ) have reinforced the central premise of minority influence theory: consistent behavior by minorities will exert influence, whereas inconsistent behavior is likely to fail to bring about any change of the majority’s attitudes and perceptions (Tanford & Penrod, 1984 ). Related studies find minority influence to be most effective if alternative voices have enough time to present their position (Wachtler, 1977 ), argue in a firm but flexible manner (Mugny, 1975 ), and share the same social category as the majority (Maass, Clark, & Haberkorn, 1982 ). Hagan, Everts, Fukui, and Stempel ( 2001 ) also have argued that the interactions between minority and majority positions, or between government and opposition, can produce alternative outcomes including deadlock, compromise, and more serious policy inconsistencies. Kaarbo ( 2008 , p. 57) asserts, “The psychological processes involved in group polarization, persuasion, and other influence strategies” play critical roles in shaping outcomes.

Social psychological studies of factionalism offer potential for further comparative analysis of foreign policies. These themes are ripe for application to the study of phenomena such as centrifugal forces in the European Union (with the 2016 “Brexit” referendum and dynamic tensions over issues such as debt relief and Syria policy), efforts to consolidate democracy in post-war Iraq, or how the factionalism in major political parties in the United States during the 2016 presidential election threatened major foreign policy changes. This frame provides a conceptual bridge between individual and domestic levels of analysis and offers a rich avenue for future research on foreign policy in comparative perspective.

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

Role theory has burgeoned recently as an approach to comparative foreign policy analysis. In contrast to the work on party factionalism, role theory focuses more centrally on the interplay between the international system and the way in which states situate themselves within that system through their foreign policies. Role theory originates from a sociological perspective that views roles as social positions within groups, which provide cues for behavior. Roles themselves are socially constructed through the interactions of individuals within a given social system, and they provide more or less clear guidelines that direct behaviors and set expectations. CFP scholars adapt role theory to the international system by viewing it as a society of states, each of whom can take on specific roles. In this way role theorists manage to bridge material and ideational factors, domestic and international dimensions, and agents and structures (e.g., Barnett, 1993 ; Harnisch, 2011 ; Breuning, 2011 ).

Holsti ( 1970 ) is credited with bringing role theory to the study of foreign policy. His work was situated in the Cold War period, and he drew attention to the ways in which classes of states were conceived of within the international system according to the roles that they played, such as “regional leader” or “faithful ally.” He explicitly connected the domestic context to the national role conception of any given state but recognized the importance of other actors and international institutions as shaping role conceptions as well. Subsequently, role theorists have unpacked various dimensions associated with roles within the international system and sought to understand the processes through which roles are developed, enacted, resisted, contested, and changed (cf. Cantir & Kaarbo, 2016 ; Harnisch, 2012 ; McCourt, 2012 ; Walker, 1987 ).

While there are many concepts associated with role theory generally, some have been more frequently applied by foreign policy scholars (Thies, 2010 ). For example, scholars often label actors pursuing a role as “Ego,” and others within the international system who respond as “Alter(s).” Roles are social categories involving a role conception by Ego about what the role it is pursuing involves, as well as role expectations by Alter(s) about appropriate and inappropriate role behaviors. Role enactment is the foreign policy behavior of Ego, and attempts to change Ego’s role involve alter-casting Ego into a different role by providing cues or sanctions. This interplay between Ego and Alter(s) is the process of role socialization, which usually involves a dominant or primary socializer. A state needs to have both the material resources and social status to effectively assume a role within the international system, that is, its master status must be consistent with the role it is taking (Thies, 2013 ).

Role theory illustrates several key dimensions associated with CFP research. Role theory research is interested in the interaction of both domestic and international factors, as states and their leaders seek to enact roles consistent with their domestic context and expectations, while international actors may sanction role-inappropriate behavior and alter-cast states into different roles. Role theory also embraces subjectivism, as roles must be understood and socially constructed through interactive processes between social agents who are interpreting cues, demands, and expectations. Role theory is also sensitive to contexts, as different international systems allow for different roles, and states seek to enact particular roles in the face of situational demands and the specific cues and expectations of key players. Roles have also been studied at different levels of analysis, ranging from the beliefs of leaders (cf. Holsti, 1970 ) to national culture, to multi-level analyses (Walker, 1979 ), and this variety has been noted as both a strength of and challenge for role theory.

A number of contemporary role theory studies have examined European actors, such as the Czech Republic, Germany, and the EU (Beneš & Harnisch, 2015 ), Denmark and the Netherlands (Kaarbo & Cantir, 2013 ), and European foreign policy more generally (Aggestam, 2006 ). Other applications have examined role theory in non-European regional contexts such as the Middle East (Barnett, 1993 ; Ovah, 2013 ), former Soviet republics (Chafetz, Abramson, & Grillot, 1996 ), and Latin America (Wehner, 2015 ). Individual country studies such as those on Indian foreign policy (Hansel & Möller, 2015 ), British foreign policy (McCourt, 2011 ), Chinese foreign policy (Harnisch, Bersick, & Gottwald, 2016 ) and Moldovan foreign policy (Cantir & Kennedy, 2015 ) have also illustrated the value of role theory in helping to account for state behavior.

Role theory offers several avenues for future research. A key issue involves the degree to which both material and ideational factors can be integrated within role theory accounts of states’ behaviors. This could potentially bridge foreign policy approaches with broader international relations theories. Some recent work (Beasley & Kaarbo, 2017 ) has sought to explore the nature of sovereignty within the international system as it conditions the types of roles available to states and the way states socialize one another into or out of particular roles. The relationship between sovereignty and roles, however, is not entirely clear and would benefit from examinations that consider regional differences in sovereignty. Regional transformations of sovereignty associated with the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, for example, would undoubtedly benefit from an examination of the changing roles of key actors. Similarly, recent work on China’s role in the international system (Harnisch, Bersick, & Gottwald, 2016 ) could be extended to consider the different ways in which sovereignty and roles are transformed with the changing security dynamics in the East Asian region. Such efforts might serve to better connect the comparative foreign policy approach to role theory with broader theories of international relations.

This article has explored a number of key questions and themes that have motivated CFP research over time. It has examined some of the major theoretical frameworks and variables that have driven research, as well as offered samples of the types of work that link factors to foreign policy outcomes in comparative perspective. The article also illustrates characteristics of the development of the CFP subfield over time, including its relative “youth,” interdisciplinarity, and scholarly commitment to cohesion. Most CFP scholarship devotes attention to agency within the broader international system and domestic political contexts, and it embraces a wide variety of specific research methods, spanning both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The subfield also draws in critical observations from related disciplines regarding subjective understandings of the foreign policy context. Along with a commitment to cohesion and cumulation of knowledge (especially of middle-range theory), these qualities have enabled advancements in scholarship in a relatively short period of time. Finally, this article outlines important avenues for future progress in CFP analysis. The subfield is well positioned to continue to support rich and diverse studies—with great relevance for understanding and making policy in the 21st century .

Foreign Policy and Politics Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Foreign policy is as a result of the enforcement of international relations. Over the years, the concept of foreign policy has evolved and different models have even come up in order to conform it to current issues.

The kind of foreign policy adopted by different countries depends on the kind of relationship that exists among the countries in question. Foreign policy provides a common ground on which countries interact with each other. The decision-making process of foreign policy can be viewed as being very complicated when various factors come into play.

One thing is very pronounced though: the leaders or executives of a country do not make these decisions on their own. They have enlisted the help of specialists, who in this paper will be referred to as bureaucrats or actors or agents. These specialists and the organisations for which they work for are the contributing factors.

This paper will look at the brief background of foreign policy and how it is closely related to international relations. The Bureaucratic Politics Model (BPM) will also be discussed in order to give a background on bureaucratic politics and illustrations with the use of two case studies both involving foreign policy of the US will be used to argue the distortions brought about by bureaucratic politics.

It will be shown from the model and the case studies that bureaucratic politics does indeed introduce distortions and though it has positive aspects to it, the distortions far outweigh the positives when it comes to decision making on foreign policy.

The disadvantages associated with the BPM will be shown from the above two case studies and general disadvantages will also be listed. A suitable way forward in dealing with the BPM will finally be highlighted.

Foreign policy as defined by Hill is “the sum of external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually a state) in international relations” (2002, p. 3). It is necessitated by the fact that different states all have to converge and put their differences aside in order to relate with one another. With such diversity it is evidently hard to have a common ‘theory’ that is able to define the different behaviours of different nations.

As Newmann (n.d. p.1) put it, these theories are then able to explain the foreign policy and international relations phenomenon. Different authors have come up with different theories; one thing they agree on is that there are distinct “levels of analysis” and that “theories of state behaviour” (Newmann, n.d. p.1). The two are discussed below.

The levels of analysis include:

the system level – in which a particular state is almost defined by the international system, for instance, when the US and USSR were the most powerful states, other state behaviours were defined by them and currently the US is considered as the lone superpower and by default it intervenes in the affairs of other states;
the state level – where a state determines its own behaviour considering its past, culture, its economy, religion or its geography;
the organizational level – the organizations within a state have a major input in foreign policy making, for instance the US-Iraq example, the organizations that may have had some significant input are the department of defence of the central intelligence agency;
lastly the individual level – where the state leaders are considered to have a heavy influence in policy making (Newmann, n.d., p.1).

The theories that are covered in various ways by different authors include:

Classic realism -where obtaining power is the focus of most states; neo-realism- which tries to explain that states seek power because there is no “world government”;
neo-classical realism -which combines the previous theories; liberalism- which promotes cooperation and tries to “enforce international law”;
neo-liberalism – emphasises on the creation of international constitution; cognitive theories- which incorporate some of the already listed theories;
and finally constructivism – which dwells on the nature of a state (Newmann, n.d., p.1).

However, there are those who do not see the importance of the above theories as being useful in policy making (Walt, 2000, p.1). Walt (2000, p.1) differed with this opinion by stating the importance of theories. Consequently, other literatures have formulated models, which are in part almost like theories, in order to describe what influences decision making (Chapter4, n.d., p.1).

Some are discussed by Damerow (2010): the rational actor decision making model, the bureaucratic decision making model and history-making individuals model.

Walt (2000) also emphasized on the “complexities of the contemporary world politics” (Walt, 2000, p.1) and stated that no one model is complete on its own, but that all of them bring necessary competition so that better policies are made. One thing is very clear though, these models and theories are put in place with the aim of enhancing the decision making process but they fall short in various ways thus creating distortions.

Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is a concept that “involves goals, strategies, measures, methods, guidelines, directives, understandings etc” (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007, p. 223). Foreign policy making can be noted to have evolved from what it was in the previous times especially after the end of the “Cold War” (Walt, 2000, p. 2).

The influence bureaucratic politics has on this dynamic issue has been neglected since it can go to the extent of “distorting the formation of state preferences and lead to suboptimal international behaviour” (Walt, 2000, p. 4).

To understand how the foreign policy works, Graseck (1993, p. 1) outlined a number of themes that are worth considering in depth (though her work was directed for the US students, it can be applied by anyone who wishes to study this subject): Having an in depth comprehension of the international systems which constitute:

“state sovereignty, alliances and balances of power, diplomacy” etc;
“Responses to international conflict”;
“Non-State and Transnational Actors”;

A historical view of foreign policies in order to appreciate the current ones; “Linking foreign and domestic politics”; “Success in the international system”. (Walt, 2000, p. 4)

Other than the above themes, there are certain factors that generously influence foreign policy making: “environmental factors, psychological factors, international factors and domestic influences” (DeRouen & Mintz, 2010, p. 2).

As earlier mentioned, there are different models and theories that many have formulated, however, the rational actor model and the BPM seemed to have gained more popularity. The two are almost similar in their approaches. With that in mind, the rational actor model will be discussed in brief in the next section before the BPM model is tackled. Both of these models, however, factor in the above mentioned factors in their approach.

The Rational Actor Model

This model views the decision makers as being able to make decisions with the belief that their choices “will lead to the best feasible outcomes for them as defined by their personal values or preferences” (Mesquita, n.d. p. 2). These values may be in favour of the national interest or otherwise (Mesquita, n.d. p. 2).

What seems to be a positive side to this model is that the actors often put in consideration the obstacles that can hinder them from achieving their purpose and will adapt themselves accordingly (Mesquita, n.d. p.2); this- as will be shown later, has similarities to the Poliheuristic theory.

Damerow (2010, p.1) lists the limitations to this model as:

“bounded rationality”- actors are not always right; “cognitive dissonance”- actors settle for familiar beliefs; “overloaded policy agendas”; “making satisficing decisions rather than optimising ones”; “prospect theory”- being unwilling to have losses; “two level games”- inclusion of domestic politics in the whole decision making process. (Damerow, 2010, p. 1)

Others consider this model to be superior compared to other models, except for the limitations of course, and have used it from time to time. The BPM does not differ much from this model and will be discussed in the next section.

Bureaucratic Politics

Every state has its own form of bureaucratic organizations that will help implement the foreign policies (Donovan, 1993, p.195). Bureaucratic politics can be seen as currently holding all the power that a specific state needs in order to make some very fundamental decisions.

Bureaucratic organizations are often recognized because of their “formalized rules and regulations, systematic record-keeping” among others (Carpenter, 2010, p.1). They also explain how some decisions were arrived upon by the bureaucrats and how they seek to “promote their own agency’s special interests as a major motivating factor in shaping the timing and the content of government decisions” (Johnson, 2005, p.1).

Those implored with this task are always in competition with each other since different sections of government will seek advice from different bureaus (Johnson, 2005, p.1). This then raises the question, the bureaucrats that are supposed to effectively fulfil their duties, are they then compromising the decision making process? Or are they helping?

DeRouen and Mintz (2010, p.6), stated that “the executive relies on bureaucrats to provide information for the decision process” (DeRouen and Mintz, 2010, p.6). If this is the case, what basis are the bureaucrats using to make such fundamental decisions that will affect policies not just in a particular state, but globally? Hill (2002, p.72) noted that bureaucracy has extended from just foreign affairs to local “governmental department”.

The Bureaucratic Politics Model, BPM

Graham Allison, Morton Halperin, Robert Gallucci are some of the names that are behind the formulation of the theory concerning bureaucratic politics (Hill, 2002, p.85).

The BPM can be summarised as: “Focusing on bargaining processes between the bureaucratic actors and the government, actors are driven by interests of their organizations and decisions result from interaction of the actors’ competing policy preferences” (Brummer, 2009, p.2). In an article by Brummer, three propositions characterize the BPM, and they are discussed in detail below.

The first proposition as presented by the BISA article is simply put as “where you stand depends on where you sit” (Brummer, 2009, p.2). What this simply implies is that the one, who has been entrusted with the responsibility of making weighty policy decisions, is heavily influenced by his “bureaucratic position” (Brummer, 2009, p.2).

This position will often come as a result of the person as a whole i.e. “their sensitivities to certain issues, commitment to various projects and personal standing with and debts to groups in society” (Brummer, 2009, p.3).

What this first proposition does is that it reveals to us that there is definitely an interaction between the “bureaucratic process and individual factors” (Brummer, 2009, p.3). This in itself proves to be a ground for distortion in making the foreign policy decision.

The second proposition on the other hand is that “the competing preferences of bureaucratic actors clash in political bargaining processes” (Brummer, 2009, p.3). Different actors representing different organizations will differ in their thoughts concerning the foreign policy that is being discussed since the actors all represent various interests.

What makes it worse is that all these actors are at different positional levels with others having more power; this power has an influence on the bargaining process by either acting as a “privilege or a discriminator” among the actors (Brummer, 2009, p.3). If this is the case, then it surely follow that the decision making is almost not ‘fair’ considering all the vast interests being represented.

The third proposition “concerns the nature of the outcomes of the bargaining processes among bureaucratic actors” (Brummer, 2009, p.4). What results therefore has been described as “unintended compromise solutions” which no one had initially anticipated and this is majorly due to the bargaining that took place that finally made the actors to settle on a result that is suitable for everyone (Brummer, 2009, p.4).

Bringing together different actors who represent various interests means that “the decisions of a government are not the result of rational decision-making process but of compromise, conflict and confusion” (Brummer, 2009, p.4). Such a ‘compromised’ outcome means that bureaucratic politics in a way reduce the standards of outcomes of foreign policy decisions that are made.

Two American Case Studies

Two case studies as elaborated by different authors will be discussed in detail to show the case of bureaucratic politics and how they compromise and heavily influence the decision making process. The first to be considered is the “US Arm sales to Taiwan” (Qingmin, n.d. p.1). This case considered by Qingmin (n.d., p.3) largely involves the three US administrations of Carter, Reagan and G.H. Bush and the sale of “FX fighters to Taiwan”.

Statements made by different people considered this relation to be very secretive and one that needed no divulging of other information, makes it a bureaucratic process (Qingmin, n.d. p.2). As such it is considered as very hard to determine the ‘fairness’ that was used in order to make some of the decisions.

An interesting concept however is that before US and China had established any formal diplomatic relations, no one considered it as a problem for the US to sell the FX fighters to Taiwan especially in Carters regime (Qingmin, n.d., p.3). However, once the diplomatic relations were established, China requested the termination of these sales.

During the Reagan time, the US-Taiwan sell did not continue since it was noted to create tension between US and China. However, when G.H. Bush came to power, advanced fighters, “F-16s” were sold; which brought up questions concerning the decisions made about this delicate matter (Qingmin, n.d., p.4). how these decisions were reached upon will not be known since as earlier indicated, the US-Taiwan relations were very secretive.

Qingmin (n.d.) drew the following conclusion when addressing the three regimes and the different factors that were factored in during the decision as to whether to sell the fighters or not:

using the “where you stand depends on where you sit” analogy, different departments were in conflict about the whole issue, others feared the estrangement of the US-China relations while others were seeing it as a “US global strategy” (p.20)- this is the first case of distortion associated with the process;

the policy making process was also affected on the basis that in Reagan’s time, the conflicts were serious and during Bush’s time, the conflicts could not even be perceived (p.22)- with such a parity in the two regimes, it is evident that bureaucratic politics had some influence;

finally, there was also notable “influence on presidential leadership and decision-making capacity on bureaucratic conflict” (Qingmin, n.d., p.23)- since the president is mostly charged with the task of policy-making, his personality or even his policy making style will determine whether there is bureaucratic conflict or not (p.23).

Qingmin concluded by saying harmony should characterize the different departments in charge of policy making to ensure good future relations (n.d. p.25). Since if this is not the case, and conflicts are more pronounced, decision making will be interfered with.

A second case study still involving the US is one touching on the Palestine state (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1). Rubenberg (n.d.) summarized the US policy from a “global and historical perspective” (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1) i.e. she showed that although times had changed and the ideology of policies seemed to be evolving, the Palestinians still seemed to be under the US’s bondage.

The regimes had changed, the bureaucrats involved in the policy decision making had also changed but what seemed constant is that whatever policies that were proposed seemed to be against the freedom of Palestine; this raises the question concerning the bureaucratic process and politics- why is it that even with changing times, the end result of the policy making seems to be the same?

Three reasons for the above question are highlighted by Rubenberg. First of all, the US system is structured in such a way to oppose all movements and especially the one from Palestine.

This is the case because since the US is considered as a world power, then “the markets and resources required for its economic supremacy and military superiority” (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1) are found in third world countries such as Palestine and hence the US will do all it can to ensure the political stability of Palestine (Rubenberg, n.d. p.1).

This type of structure will stand the test of time and all those involved in the policy making decisions will have this specific goal in mind. This for sure highlights the biasness of bureaucratic politics.

Secondly, almost similar to the first, the US policy makers have their allegiance to their country only and do not care much that the people in Palestine are being estranged (Rubenberg, n.d., p.1).

As such, the US has even gone to the extent of creating other alliances with the neighboring states, for example, Saudi Arabia, so that they have local support (Rubenberg, n.d., p.1). Thirdly, the US-Israel relations were purely based on “institutionalization of beliefs about Israel’s strategic utility to American interests” (Rubenberg, n.d., p.1).

The above two case studies were used for purposes of illustration of how bureaucratic politics in some ways distort the whole process of decision making on foreign policy. In the next section, the negative aspects of bureaucratic politics will be highlighted.

Negative aspects of bureaucratic politics

Two consequences are mentioned by Hill (2002, p.86) which come about as a result of bureaucratic politics i.e. it shields the domestic politics approach from “scepticism of realism, neo-realism and some form of historicism” (Hill, 2002, p.86) and it also presents “foul-ups” in decision-making instead of “rationality or inevitability” (Hill, 2002, p.86).

Meaning that, the domestic politics almost have no other choice other than to be involved with the international matters (Hill, 2002, p.86).

There is some form of compromise when it comes to decision making especially since not at all times do the bureaucrats act in “intelligently or in the public interest” (Newell, n.d., p.12).

Another concern as illustrated by Johnson (2005, p.1) which emphasized on this compromise was that; “the policies and policy recommendations…are often the by-product of bureaucratic turf-battles and expedient compromises between bureaucratic chieftains rather that the product of reasoned analysis of how most effectively and efficiently to carry out the policy commitment…” Johnson, 2005, p.1).

Another challenge posed can be the “principal-agent” problems (Waterman, Rouse and Wright, 2004, p.32). The principal in this case is either the executive authority or the president who is delegating the decision making process. The problem is narrowed down to knowledge and monitoring (Caughey, Chatfield & Cohon, 2009, p.4).

The actors who are often known as the specialists, as earlier mentioned, hence the actors may seemingly have an upper-hand when it comes to the policy decisions since they are considered more knowledgeable (PSC, 2009, p.2).

The other issue is the monitoring of the actors by the ‘principals’ (PSC, 2009, p.2). The principal may not always have the time and foreknowledge to ensure that the actors are working in line with the principal’s preference (PSC, 2009, p.2).

The structures that confine bureaucratic policies also present the following “dysfunctions”: one is that very limited alternatives make their way to the top most executive (Renshon and Renshon, 2008, p.10) – and this is for the simple fact that the actors involved will so often debate among themselves and the ones with more influence will proceed to share their opinions with the executive.

This in itself shows that there is a flaw since the executive will not be consulted with the other alternatives that were presented. Secondly; the biasness of the actors may portray itself in their search for information (Renshon et al ., 2008, p.10).

Their search will be confined to their preferences and preferred solution (Renshon et al ., 2008, p.10). This definitely creates a flaw in the whole decision making process since there could be a vital piece of information that was not considered yet it is necessary for the policy.

Hataley (n.d. p.8) brought to light various aspect of the negativity of bureaucratic politics: he stated that the BPM validity is questionable when applying it to Canada- which also begs the question; where else will this model have a problem?

The secrecy associated with bureaucratic politics means that the public do not have a say and cannot contribute to whatever debates that go on (Hataley, n.d., p.8). If the public was able to vet the process then transparency would be achieved and this might on the other hand bring other complexities if larger groups of people are involved (Kegley, 2008, p.66).

Positive aspects of Bureaucratic Politics

The negativity may seem to outdo the positive elements, but as a matter of fact, despite all the negative media bureaucratic politics has been given, it has to some extent worked and accomplished its goals.

The following are resources which seem to favour bureaucracy:

“information and expertise”- in as much as opposition is made about the bureaucrats, it is their knowledge that has placed them in that position hence, it cannot be overemphasized that they are intelligent;
“power of decision”- those who are charged with bureaucratic duties are not under the same rules as “legislatures” hence their independence works to their advantage and are able to efficiently deliver their duties;
thirdly, the bureaucratic organizations have massive “supporters”- i.e. the ones who have placed them there and those who hope to benefit from it;
fourthly, the bureaucrats are “divorced from partisan politics”- hence they do not have to pledge their allegiance to any “constituents” especially when decision-making is involved;
fifthly, “agency ideology” is developed- which in fact means that there are some “operational objectives” that are set up of which act as guidelines; lastly, “permanence and stability” the bureaucrats are able to perform their duties with a long term focus (Hataley, 2009, pp.5-6).

Raman with reference to the South Asian community has indicated that the expertise from local area are good but those who can even be better are the “non-state expertise” (Raman, n.d., p.1). Similar to the above example, the non-state expertise “do not have to be politically correct and acceptable” (Raman, n.d., p.1), their duties are executed on a very professional basis.

Another advantage associated with this group is the fact that they are able to criticize each other constructively without any “inhibitions or mental blocks” (Raman, n.d., p.1). This may lead the particular government to enlist help from outside if it is proving to be beneficial.

Way Forward

With all the negativities surrounding the bureaucratic politics, the question is how can it be changed so that it becomes a suitable alternative to both the bureaucrats and all those to whom the policy will affect? In an article by Brummer (2009, p.6), there are two ‘solutions’ as to understanding the “influence of bureaucratic structures on actors” Brummer, 2009, p.6).

The first –simplification- stated that a lot of emphasis should be placed on agents/the actors since they are the ones who will finally make a decision. One setback with this, however, is that it downplays the importance of structures which should not be the case.

The second ‘solution’ aims to seek a connection between bureaucratic structures and the agent (Brummer, 2009, p.7). It focuses on strengthening the “persons and personality” such that all the other factors that contribute to a person’s well being are factored in (Brummer, 2009, p.7).

The Poliheuristic theory has been suggested to be incorporated with the BPM in order to address some of its shortcomings (Brummer, 2009, p.7). This theory is summarized as a two-step process that combines “cognitive and rational factors” (Brummer, 2009, p.8).

The first stage involves “rejecting alternatives that are unacceptable to the policy maker on a critical dimension or dimension” (Mintz, 2004, pp.4-5) and the second one involves “selecting an alternative from the subset of remaining alternatives while maximizing benefits and minimizing risks” (Mintz, 2004, pp.4-5).

This theory seems effective in trying to eliminate the personal factors of the bureaucrats or the leaders by insisting that the decisions be done very analytically (Smith & Dunne, 2008, p.18).

Another way of ensuring that the decision making process becomes fast and efficient, devoid of politics, is to have “Standard Operating Procedures, SOPs” (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2007, p.362). This will also help in times of crisis and when decisions need to be made fast.

They will also avoid putting pressure on the actors and hence making SOPs very lucrative. In the article by Renshon et al ., “multiple advocacy and the devil’s advocate” have been proposed as amicable solutions in quest for better judgment (2008, p.18).

Multiple advocacies have their focus on reducing conflict arising in the decision making process as depicted by the BPM and use it to “improve the quality of the whole process” (Renshon et al ., 2008, p.18).

Devil’s advocate on the other hand, helps to air the view of the opposing side of the presented arguments concerning a policy (Renshon et al ., 2008, p.19). In the US for instance, the bureaucratic organizations are accountable to the president, congress and to the judiciary, a concept that can be adapted by various states (PSCI, n.d. pp21-3).

The concept of foreign policy is very broad and as such it draws various sentiments from different authors. What has been established so far is that US is the leading state with various bureaucratic organizations that govern its policy making.

Bureaucratic policy on first viewing can seem very efficient but on scrutiny brings about a lot of criticism. It has advantages and disadvantages that are associated with it and as such one can argue for or against it.

Brummer, K. (2009) The Bureaucratic Politics Model and Poliheuristic Theory . University of Erlangen: Germany.

Carpenter, D. (2010) Bureaucratic Politics: Military, Government, Economic and Social Organizations. Web.

Caughey, D., Chatfield, S. & Cohon, A. (2009) Defining, Mapping and Measuring Bureaucratic Autonomy . Web.

Chapter4. Foreign Policy . Web.

Damerow, H. (2010) Foreign Policy Decision Making Models . Web.

DeRouen, J. and Mintz, A. (2010) Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making . Web.

Donovan, J. C. (1993) People, Power and Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Graseck, S. (1993) Teaching Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era . Web.

Hataley, T. (2009) Bureaucratic Politics and the Department of National Defence . Web.

Hill, C. (2002) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson, R. H. & Sorensen, G. (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, P. M. (2005) A Glossary of Political Economic Term s. Web.

Kegley, C. W. (2008) World Politics: Trend and Transformation . London, UK: Cengage Learning.

Mansbach, R. & Rafferty, K. L. (2007) Introduction to Global Politics . London, UK: Routledge.

Mesquita, B. B. Foreign Policy Analysis and Rational Choice Models . Web.

Mintz, A. (2004) How Do Leaders Make Decisions? Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 48, No. 1. Web.

Newmann, B. A Brief Introduction to Theories on International Relations and Foreign Policy . Web.

Newell, C. Bureaucratic Politics: Wither Goest Democracy? North Texas State University. Web.

PSC. (2009) Introducing Bureaucratic Politics Model . Web.

PSCI. Federal Bureaucracy. Web.

Qingmin, Z. The Bureaucratic Politics of US Arms Sales to Taiwan . Web.

Raman, B. Decision-making in foreign policy . Web.

Renshon, J. & Renshon, S. (2008) The Theory and Practice of Foreign Policy Decision Making [Online] Blackwell Publishing. Web.

Rubenberg, C. A. American Foreign Policy: A Case Study- The Question of Palestine . Web.

Smith, S. & Dunne, T. (2008) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Walt, S. (1998) International relations: One world, many theories . Web.

Waterman, R., Rouse, A. A. & Wright, R. L. (2004) Bureaucrats, Politics and the Environment. University of Pittsburgh: Germany.

National Interest is more Significant than Ideology in Shaping Foreign Policy
Turkey’s Bid for EU Membership
Foundations of Bureaucratic Ethics
Hospitals Business Process Management: Bureaucratic Aspect of the Work
Business Process Management at the Agility Logistics
The UN and Global Security: Is It Able To Tackle New Threats?
The Real Cause of Terrorism in Palestine
The Truman Doctrine
Instabilities in Arab States and Its Effect on the United States
Fareed Zakaria: The Post-American World
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 21). Foreign Policy and Politics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/foreign-policy-and-politics-essay/

"Foreign Policy and Politics." IvyPanda , 21 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/foreign-policy-and-politics-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Foreign Policy and Politics'. 21 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Foreign Policy and Politics." May 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/foreign-policy-and-politics-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Foreign Policy and Politics." May 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/foreign-policy-and-politics-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Foreign Policy and Politics." May 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/foreign-policy-and-politics-essay/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

Basic site functions
Ensuring secure, safe transactions
Secure account login
Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
Remembering privacy and security settings
Analyzing site traffic and usage
Personalized search, content, and recommendations
Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

Remembering general and regional preferences
Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Essay Topic Generator
Summary Generator
Thesis Maker Academic
Sentence Rephraser
Read My Paper
Hypothesis Generator
Cover Page Generator
Text Compactor
Essay Scrambler
Essay Plagiarism Checker
Hook Generator
AI Writing Checker
Notes Maker
Overnight Essay Writing
Topic Ideas
Writing Tips
Essay Writing (by Genre)
Essay Writing (by Topic)

Foreign Policy Essays: How to Write a Powerful Paper

If Political science is your major in college or you take a government class in school, you will definitely be asked to talk about foreign policy and write papers on this topic.

What should you get ready for when it comes to writing papers on foreign policy? First of all, you should have solid background knowledge, and it refers not only to some current events in foreign policy, but also to some historical issues.

Second, to write a good foreign policy essay, it is important to have own position on various foreign policy-related questions.

Unfortunately, we cannot help you with background knowledge, but we can explain what main steps you need to take to prepare a good foreign policy essay.

Step 1: Choose and Narrow Down a Topic

Foreign policy is an extremely broad and complex field. This is why it so important to be careful with the topic of your foreign policy essay and not to hurry when making a choice. We advise you to do the following to decide on a good topic idea:

think about two countries whose relations you would like to investigate, e.g. United States and China;
think about very specific aspects in their relations, e.g. trade.

Step 2: Develop Your Standpoint

The purposes of writing foreign policy essays can be different. You may wish just to inform the reader on something, or analyze, or argue. Yet, no matter what, your personal position is what a teacher will appreciate in the foreign policy essay the most.

Step 3: Do Research

You have to be an expert on the topic – this is how the research stage can be described in a few words. Collect information for your foreign policy essay from various sources, both printed and electronic. Make sure that you use not only textbooks, but also official documents, some laws, etc.

If you want to focus on the 1950’s in your foreign policy essay, you may start with checking our ideas for 1950’s essays or read about a US government essay .

Foreign Policy Essay Topics

Looking for ideas for your foreign policy essay? In this section, we have collected some awesome topics for your inspiration:

Cotemporary US foreign policy: Realism, idealism or something else?
The effect of the pandemic on the US foreign policy related to China.
Korean War: Impact on the economy and foreign politics.
The US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Climate and energy as foreign policy priorities.
The separation of foreign policy powers.
W. R. Mead: American foreign policy is Hamiltonian.
Russia’s influence on the development of the US cybersecurity policies.
Counterterrorism policies and strategies.
The major foreign policy challenge of the US.
American foreign policies related to providing humanitarian aid.
US foreign policy in the world economy and politics.
American foreign policy after the Vietnam War.
Obama and Trump: Differences in foreign policies concerned with immigration.
Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of foreign policy biases.
The United States foreign policy.
Evaluation of the impact of Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East.
Philippine-American war issue in US foreign policy.
The US foreign policy: Obama and Trump administrations comparison.
North Korea as the US foreign policy challenge.
Neoconservative ideology and US foreign policy under George Bush.
The United Arab Emirates and Israel foreign policy.
US foreign policy: A response to Russia-Ukraine conflict.
New York and Texas: Diplomatic and foreign policies.
The UAE and Iran: A foreign policy for a brighter future.
American foreign policy in relation to global trade.
United States setting national security policies.
US foreign policy and its impact on the world economy.
Humanitarian crisis in Venezuela: A response from US foreign policy.
Presidential leadership in foreign policy-making: Obama’s decisions.
The United States post-9-11 foreign policies.
The economic and political effects of US refugee policy.
Policy memo: China-US relations.
How did the US meet post-Cold War threats to nuclear security?
US foreign policy to control international drug trafficking.
Hegemony in international politics.
International relations: The realist theories variety.
American anti-corruption foreign policy: Benefits for US businesses.
International relations between Australia and China.
American policy changes toward Canada from the 1 st World War to 1950s.
Arms control foreign policy as a means to maintain international order.
US military in Okinawa: Public interest vs. rights.
The responsibility to protect in the Syrian situation.
Has American counterterrorism foreign policy been successful?
Definition of national security policies in the US.
United States immigration policy.
US foreign policy focused on promoting democracy and human rights.
Ethical obligation to reform immigration policy.
What are the pressures for and against a common EU immigration policy?
Drinking water shortage as a foreign policy issue.
Is a science of international politics possible?
Qatar: The role of small countries in international politics.
Foreign policies aiming to fight maritime piracy.
The conflict in Syria: The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine.
International relationship: United States and Iran.
American foreign policy ensuring maritime security.
The policy of a world without nuclear weapons.
Origins of Cold War and the containment policy.
The role of technology and science in foreign policy.
The implementation of the US international policy in Afghanistan.
Immigration policies affecting the success of immigrants in United States and Canada.
Key international agreements affecting modern US foreign policy.
A country’s foreign and public policy analysis.
The current US – Mexican border policy failures.
National security policy issues.

Foreign Policy
Permissions and Policies
Contact Foreign Policy

Submit an essay

Foreign Policy accepts essays for publication on our website. Please click here for instructions and best practices related to submitting an essay to Foreign Policy.

You are using an internet browser that is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this website correctly. Learn more

Policy Papers

Identifying the Next TikTok: Which Apps Could Washington Target Next?

Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the Act). The Act specifically mentions ByteDance and TikTok, which means that they and their subsidiaries are required to divest. However, the law's scope is not limited to just TikTok and ByteDance. The Act broadly applies foreign ownership restrictions to apps operating within the United States. Specific attention is given in this paper to WeChat and Temu.

Ditching Political Ambiguity: Clarifying the Contradictions of America’s Taiwan Policy

The United States may be running out of time to deter Beijing from subsuming Taiwan. The sooner U.S. policymakers recognize this danger, the better chance America has of forestalling Beijing’s aggression. Doing so will require Washington to clarify the importance of its political relationship with Taipei.

The Road to Taiwan’s 2024 Presidential Election

On January 13, 2024, the Republic of China, also known as “Nationalist China” and Taiwan, will hold its next presidential election. This will be the eighth direct election of a president in Taiwan, the first having been held in 1996. It will also be a contest that showcases the island’s changing identity politics, shifting political preferences, and potential security challenges.

AFPC Iran Strategy Brief no. 14: How Israel Thinks About Iran’s Future

For Israel, the Islamic Republic of Iran represents both a cardinal security challenge and an existential danger. The country’s current clerical regime is estimated to be connected to some “80 percent” of the contemporary security problems confronting the Jewish state.[1] These include not only Iran’s increasingly mature nuclear program, but also its extensive sponsorship of extremist proxies throughout the Mideast, as well as the radical expansionist ideology that continues to animate the regime in Tehran.

The Imperative for United States Engagement in a Global Space Debris Cleanup Program

The United States should proactively engage with other nations and initiate a comprehensive program to clean up the space debris problem.

International
Education Jobs
Schools directory
Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Leaving Cert History Essay plan: US Foreign policy in Berlin, Korea, Cuba

Subject: History

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

10 September 2024

Share through email
Share through twitter
Share through linkedin
Share through facebook
Share through pinterest

An essay plan with success criteria for the essay: During the period 1945-1989, what was the importance for US foreign policy of one or more of the following: Berlin; Korea; Cuba?

Creative Commons "Sharealike"

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have downloaded this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

COMMENTS

U.S. Foreign Policy
Explore Foreign Affairs' coverage of the evolution of Washington's approach to foreign policy and the United States' role in the world. U.S. Foreign Policy news and analysis. In depth essays and commentary delivered by foremost experts on the theory and practice of U.S. Foreign Policy
2023's Best Foreign-Policy Long-Form Essays
Roundup. Our Best Long Reads From 2023. Foreign Policy's best deep dives of the year. By Chloe Hadavas, a senior editor at Foreign Policy. An illustration of a person holding a monarchical crown ...
Essay
Preparing for a Less Arrogant America. A close reading of two books by authors who advise Kamala Harris reveals a vision for a humbler approach to foreign policy. Essay.
Foreign Policy Essay
Understanding the State Department's Latest Far-Right Terrorist Designation. Jason M. Blazakis. Jun 30, 2024. The Nordic Resistance Movement has been listed as a foreign terrorist organization. Other groups should follow, but probably won't.
Foreign policy
foreign policy, general objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states. The development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs. Leopold von Ranke emphasized the primacy of ...
Topics on International Relations & Foreign Policy
H. Andrew Schwartz. Chief Communications Officer. 202.775.3242. [email protected]. Samuel Cestari. Media Relations Coordinator, External Relations. 202.775.7317. [email protected]. The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) examines research topics surrounding global studies, international relations, & foreign policy issues.
Browse Essays
Foreign Affairs — The leading magazine for analysis and debate of foreign policy, economics and global affairs.
PDF Writing on Foreign Policy
Useful solutions: - Bring your passion. - Be personal. - Find a third side. Add your voice. Writing about foreign policy is about entering into the debate: Learning about the debate: Useful tools to familiarize yourself with the debate: -Twitter - for news gathering, reports, studies, following relevant experts, access to the debate.
Foreign Policy
Capitalism's Green Revolution. Snapshot. Stay up to date on the latest news, analysis, and commentary on Foreign Policy. Browse our archives of magazine articles, interviews, and in-depth essays from experts on Foreign Policy.
Foreign Policy Analysis
Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. An official journal of the International Studies Association. Publishes research on the processes, outcomes, and theories of foreign ...
United States Foreign Policy
USA Foreign Policy during (1815-1941) America came up with the policy of "isolation" after the end of its revolutionary war. According to this policy, US did not engage in conflict resolution programs and it always remained impartial whenever some European countries had a conflict with each other (Carter 101). For example, this was ...
Foreign Policy Essay
The American foreign policy goal as stated in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." [1] The mission. Free Essays from Bartleby | and complex foreign policy issues in the world," was ...
Methods of Foreign Policy Analysis
In the lead essay of the first issue of Foreign Policy Analysis, Valerie Hudson convincingly makes the case that FPA has the potential to reshape the entire discipline of international relations by focusing attention on the workings of the fundamental unit of analysis - the political decision maker. However, despite the call to arms, more ...
Foreign Policy Decision Making: Evolution, Models, and Methods
Foreign policy decision-making, an approach to international relations, is aimed at studying such decisions. The rational choice model is widely considered to be the paradigmatic approach to the study of international relations and foreign policy. ... This essay illustrates the evolution of the foreign policy decision-making approach and offers ...
PDF Introduction: Th inking about History and Foreign Policy
foreign policy; misrepre sen ta tions, misunderstandings, and oversimpli-fi cations of the past are legion. Indeed, some of the most frequently used ... In the essays that follow, the contributors ...
Foreign Policy
20 essay samples found. Foreign policy consists of a country's strategies and actions toward other nations to safeguard its national interests, enhance its security, and achieve its economic and political goals. Essays could discuss the principles guiding foreign policy, historical and contemporary foreign policy decisions, and the impact of ...
The Most Pressing
The Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issues President-Elect Joe Biden will face a suite of challenges on the global stage, from nuclear tensions with North Korea to coordinating a response to the ...
Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis
Introduction. Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision-making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations).
Contest
Winning Essay for the 2019 Foreign Policy and Carnegie Corporation Essay Contest. Contest | Skye Thrash. article-Carnegie-FP-essay. The United States and Russia Must Work Together on Nuclear.
Foreign Policy and Politics
Foreign policy is a concept that "involves goals, strategies, measures, methods, guidelines, directives, understandings etc" (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007, p. 223). Foreign policy making can be noted to have evolved from what it was in the previous times especially after the end of the "Cold War" (Walt, 2000, p. 2).
Foreign Policy Essays: How to Write a Powerful Paper
Collect information for your foreign policy essay from various sources, both printed and electronic. Make sure that you use not only textbooks, but also official documents, some laws, etc. If you want to focus on the 1950's in your foreign policy essay, you may start with checking our ideas for 1950's essays or read about a US government ...
Submit an essay
Foreign Policy accepts essays for publication on our website. Please click here for instructions and best practices related to submitting an essay to Foreign Policy. Articles in this section Report a correction Submit an essay Foreign Policy mailing address ...
Policy Papers
June 18, 2024 Michael Sobolik, Elizabeth Oakes American Foreign Policy Council. The United States may be running out of time to deter Beijing from subsuming Taiwan. The sooner U.S. policymakers recognize this danger, the better chance America has of forestalling Beijing's aggression. Doing so will require Washington to clarify the importance ...
Isolationism Doesn't Protect
Small headshots inside red circles of 11 of Donald Trumps foreign-policy advisors. Trump's Foreign-Policy Influencers Meet the 11 men whose worldviews are shaping the 2024 Republican ticket.
Leaving Cert History Essay plan: US Foreign policy in Berlin, Korea
An essay plan with success criteria for the essay: During the period 1945-1989, what was the importance for US foreign policy of one or more of the following: Berlin International Resources

Programs submenu

American Innovation

Article Types

Foreign Policy

Jessica T. Mathews

Valerie Hansen

Vladimir Milov

Dani Rodrik and Stephen M. Walt

Olaf Scholz

William MacAskill

Foreign Policy - List of Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Richard Nixon Foreign Policy and Cold War

Change in America’s Role in Foreign Policy

Relationship between United States and Soviet Union during Cold War

Jimmy Carter’s Foreign Policy: a Beacon of Hope for Global Diplomacy

Richard Nixon’s Foreign Policy: Realpolitik and the Rebalancing of Global Power

Effects of the Cold War

Ending the Cold War

America’s Role in the World after the Civil War

Cold War in China, Cold War in Cuba, and Space Race

The History of American Imperialism

Cold War: Sanctions and Effects Diplomatic Relations

The Cold War and U.S Diplomacy

Realism as an Ideology

Russian Global Expansion

Geopolitics and the Cold War

The Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War

The Three Main Causes of American Imperialism

Imperialism – 1850 to about 1910

The Truman Doctrine: a Catalyst for American Involvement in the Cold War

Foreign Policy in the Lens of Moral Diplomacy: Ethical Dimensions Explored

The Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issues

Article contents

Introduction

Studying Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

Contemporary Dimensions of Study in CFP

External Factors and Foreign Policy

Internal Factors and Foreign Policy

Individual Leaders and Foreign Policy

Methodologies

Foreign Policy Theories in Action

Social Psychology and Minority Influence in Foreign Policy

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

Further Reading

Related Articles

Foreign Policy and Politics Essay

Introduction

Foreign Policy

The Rational Actor Model

Bureaucratic Politics

The Bureaucratic Politics Model, BPM

Two American Case Studies

Negative aspects of bureaucratic politics

Positive aspects of Bureaucratic Politics

Way Forward

Foreign Policy Essays: How to Write a Powerful Paper

Step 1: Choose and Narrow Down a Topic

Step 2: Develop Your Standpoint

Step 3: Do Research

Foreign Policy Essay Topics

Submit an essay

Policy Papers

Identifying the Next TikTok: Which Apps Could Washington Target Next?

Ditching Political Ambiguity: Clarifying the Contradictions of America’s Taiwan Policy

The Road to Taiwan’s 2024 Presidential Election

AFPC Iran Strategy Brief no. 14: How Israel Thinks About Iran’s Future

The Imperative for United States Engagement in a Global Space Debris Cleanup Program

Leaving Cert History Essay plan: US Foreign policy in Berlin, Korea, Cuba

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

COMMENTS