1. Plan for Today: 1. Wrap-up of points from Sagan & Waltz debate. 2. Evaluation of decisionmaking approaches. 3. Introduction to constructivism.

2. Reinforcing Points from Sagan & Waltz Debate 1. Waltz: 1. War less likely as costs of war increase relative to gains. 1. Nuclear war imposes extreme and certain costs. 2. States will be rational because they must be rational in order to survive  will not launch nukes. 3. Advocates gradual spread of nuclear weapons.

3. Reinforcing Points from Sagan & Waltz Debate 2. Sagan: 1. Military more war-prone than civilian leaders because: 1. Self-selection into profession and socialization. 2. Strong biases in favour of offensive doctrines and decisive operations (Snyder, Posen). 3. Military follows logic of immediate mission goals, ignores longer-term consequences.

4. Reinforcing Points from Sagan & Waltz Debate 2. Sagan: 2. Rationality assumption of realism never proven – just assumed for simplicity of theory. 1. Leaders may be rational, but limits and errors due to bureaucratic organizations (“bounded rationality”). 2. Complex and tightly coupled systems most prone to errors. 3. States have sub-organizations with conflicting goals and politics – bureaucratic politics.

5. Reinforcing Points from Sagan & Waltz Debate 2. Sagan: 3. US “hard case” to test theory: if organizational pathologies affect outcomes in US, then certainly so in poorly organized states. 1. Many near accidents with nuclear weapons. 2. Future nuclear states likely developing-world states with political instability and unreliable civilian oversight of military.

6. Evaluating Decisionmaking Approaches as Theory 1. Explanatory power: so-so. 1. Accuracy. Not entirely right all the time – sometimes actors do not stand where they sit. 2. Generality. 1. Bureaucratic politics often idiosyncratic. 2. Organizational process more generalized. 3. Parsimony/ detail tradeoff. As with liberal interdependence, a lot of actors and variables. Very detailed explanation of outcomes, but not parsimonious. Very detailed explanation of outcomes, but not parsimonious.

7. Evaluating Decisionmaking Approaches as Theory 2. Predictive power – not good: Some predictions well specified: Some predictions well specified: E.g. Complex, tightly-coupled systems and organizations  WILL have failures. E.g. Complex, tightly-coupled systems and organizations  WILL have failures. However, usually difficult to predict stance of each actor (BP), what errors they will make (OP), and what outcomes of actions will be. However, usually difficult to predict stance of each actor (BP), what errors they will make (OP), and what outcomes of actions will be.

8. Evaluating Decisionmaking Approaches as Theory 3. Intellectual consistency and coherence – not good: Particularly BP – disagreements among authors about how actors in different positions are supposed to behave. Particularly BP – disagreements among authors about how actors in different positions are supposed to behave. E.g. What will military’s objectives be? Civilians or military more warmongering? E.g. What will military’s objectives be? Civilians or military more warmongering?

9. Evaluating Decisionmaking Approaches as Theory 4. Scope – relatively broad: Can cover any issue where governments making foreign policy decisions. Can cover any issue where governments making foreign policy decisions. Dealing with decisions by governments, so doesn’t cover actions of nongovernmental organizations. Dealing with decisions by governments, so doesn’t cover actions of nongovernmental organizations.

10. Evaluating Decisionmaking Approaches as Theory 5. Self-reflection and engagement with other theories – very little: Doesn’t combine well with any other approaches – realism, liberalism, holistic domestic politics arguments. Doesn’t combine well with any other approaches – realism, liberalism, holistic domestic politics arguments.

11. Constructivism

12. Constructivism -- Introduction Many concepts in social and political life are not hard physical facts – instead, reality constructed by humans over time. Many concepts in social and political life are not hard physical facts – instead, reality constructed by humans over time. Constructivists are concerned with how social reality is constructed. Constructivists are concerned with how social reality is constructed.

13. Constructivism -- Introduction Most constructivists say we can study identities and concepts in social scientific way. Most constructivists say we can study identities and concepts in social scientific way. Looking for patterns. Looking for patterns. Ruling out possible alternative explanations. Ruling out possible alternative explanations.

14. Constructivism -- Introduction  Ontology: Institutions and identities create actors as much as actors create institutions. Contrast: under rationalist approaches, actors create institutions. Contrast: under rationalist approaches, actors create institutions.

15. Constructivism -- Introduction  Causal argument:  Social interaction among actors  norms and identities  shapes further social interaction.  Ideational structures as important in determining actors’ behaviour as material structures.

16. Constructivism -- Introduction  Key concepts:  Norms: “collective expectations for the proper behavior of actors with a given identity.” (Katzenstein)  Identity: set of characteristics that you think defines you – who is the “we” you are talking about? Who am I?

17. Logic of Consequences vs. Logic of Appropriateness (March & Olsen) Two potential logics of action in any social environment: Two potential logics of action in any social environment: 1. Logic of consequences: political action from rational calculation by actors to maximize preferences. Interests  choices  outcomes. Interests  choices  outcomes. 2. Logic of appropriateness: political action from norms and identities suggesting appropriate action in given situation. Identities & norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift. Identities & norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift.

18. Logic of Consequences vs. Logic of Appropriateness Two potential logics of action in any social environment: Two potential logics of action in any social environment: 1. Logic of consequences: political action from rational calculation by actors to maximize preferences. (Realism, Neoliberalism, Decisionmaking) Interests  choices  outcomes. Interests  choices  outcomes. 2. Logic of appropriateness: political action from norms and identities suggesting appropriate action in given situation. (Constructivism) Identities + norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift. Identities + norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift.