The Pathology of Foreign Policy: Theoretical Framework of Decision-Making Process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14366649Keywords:
Policy Making, Foreign Policy, Decision-Making, PathologyAbstract
One of the most important concerns in the field of public policy in general and foreign policy, in particular, is the issue of wrong decisions. That is, decisions that are unlikely to lead to the desired goals in the implementation or even if the results are negative in terms of goals. Although due to the feedback aspects as well as the involvement of other actors whose actions and reactions may not be possible to determine, there is no definite guarantee for a rational or correct decision. However, by recognizing the areas that lead to the decision that is more likely to fail, it is possible to reduce the likelihood of a wrong decision and also avoid the continuation of losses due to feedback. The purpose of this article is to show what factors can lead to inappropriate decision-making and policy-making after presenting a model of optimal rational decision-making,relying on theoretical achievements in the field of international relations and foreign policy. The argument of the article is that despite the multiplicity of factors involved, it is ultimately the cognitive factors that have a decisive influence on decision making.
Downloads
References
Allison, G. (2000). The essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, International Security, 25(1), 134-164.
Art, J. (1973). Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique. Policy Sciences, 4(4), 467-490.
Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Buzan, B, and O Wæver. (2003). Regions and Power: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Rivera, J. (1968). The Psychological Dimension of Foreign Policy. Columbus, OH, C.E. Merrill.
Dix, F, and Lee, M. (2002). The Process of Strategic Planning, SWOT Analysis. Business First, Available from : http://www.bdi-ltd.net/Article_4.pdf (Last access 3/6/2017).
Donnelly, J. (2013). Realism and International Relations (Themes international Relations). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson, G. (2004). Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. European Journal of Operational Research, 15(2): 631–640.
Elman, C. (1996). Horses for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?. Security Studies 6(1), 7-53.
Freilich, C. (2006). National Security Decision-Making in Israel: Processes, Pathologies, and Strengths. Middle East Journal, 60(4), 635-663.
George, A. (1972). The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy. The American Political Science Review, 66(3), 751-78.
George, A. (1979). The Causal Nexus between Cognitive Beliefs and Decision-making Behavior: The ‘Operational Code’ Belief System. in L. Falkowski, ed., Psychological Models in International Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 95-124.
George, A and Stern, E. (2002). Harnessing Conflict in Foreign Policy Making: From Devil's to Multiple Advocacy. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 32(3), 484-508.
Herman, C. (2013), Foreign Policy and Insistence on Error. Social Science Quarterly, 94(1), 217-241.
Hermann, F. (1993). Avoiding Pathologies in Foreign Policy Decision Groups. in Dan Caldwell, Timothy J. McKeown, Alexander L. George, eds., Diplomacy, Force, and Leadership: Essays in Honor of Alexander L. George. Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press: 193-207.
Herrmann, R. (1984). Perceptions and Behavior in Soviet Foreign Policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Herrmann, R. (1986). The Power of Perception in Foreign Policy Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science 30(4), 841-75.
Herrmann, R and Fischerkeller, M. (1995). Beyond the Enemy Image and the Spiral Model: Cognitive-Strategic Research after the Cold War. International Organization 49(3), 415-50.
Hill, T, and Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT Analysis: It’s Time for Product Recall. Long Range Planning 30, 46-52.
Holsti, R. (1977). The ‘Operational Code’ as an Approach to the Analysis of Belief Systems. Durham. NC: Duke University Press.
Houben, G, Lenie, K and Vanhoof, K. (1999). A Knowledge-Based SWOT-Analysis System as an Instrument for Strategic Planning in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Decision Support Systems 26, 125–135.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Leites, N. (1951). The Operational Code of the Politburo. Rand Corporation.
Lobell, S and Ripsman, N and Taliaferro, J. (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pickton, D, and Wright, S. (1998). What’s SWOT in Strategic Analysis?. Strategic Change 7, 107-109.
Robinson, P. (1999). The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign Policy?. Review of International Studies, 25(2), 301-309.
Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Schafer, M and Scott, C. (2002). The 'Process-Outcome' Connection in Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Quantitative Study Building on Groupthink. International Studies Quarterly, 46(1), 45-68.
Stein, J. (2012). Foreign Policy Decision Making: Rational, Psychological, and Neurological Models. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield, and T. Dunne, Eds., Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suedfeld, P and Rank, D. (1976). Revolutionary Leaders: Long-Term Success as a Function of Changes in Conceptual Complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(4), 169-178.
Tetlock, P. (1979). Identifying Victims of Groupthink from Public Statements of Decision Makers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(8), 1314-1324.
Tetlock, Ph and Charles M. (1986). Cognitive Perspectives on Foreign Policy. In S. Long, ed., Political Behavior Annual. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Vertzberger, I. (1990). The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Walt, S. (1999). Rigor or Rigor Mortis?: Rational Choice and Security Studies,” International Security, 23(4), 5-48.
Young, M and Schafer, M. (1998). Is there method in our madness? Ways of assessing cognition in international relations. Mershon International Studies Review. 42(1), 63-96.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Amer Ababakr
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication (Download agreement) with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR, etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process of viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
