1. POSC 2200 – Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy
Russell Alan Williams
Department of Political Science

2. Unit Three: Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy
“States as Actors – Foreign Policy”
Required Reading:
Robert Jervis, “Hypotheses on Misperception,” World Politics, 20 (3), (April 1968), Pp (Available through e-journals, or as an excerpt from the instructor.)
Outline:
Introduction
The role of “Individuals” in Foreign Policy
Theories of Foreign Policymaking
Avoiding Mistakes?
For Next Time

3. 1) Introduction:
Unit goal: Examine range of ideas about what drives states’ foreign policy
The role of individuals?
Models of foreign policymaking?
Rationality and avoiding mistakes?

4. 2) Individuals in Foreign Policy:
Role of leaders is unclear in foreign policy
How can we clarify, or hypothesize, the role of individuals?
Examine individual psychological effects that may allow us to predict responses to events?

5. What is the role of leaders’ personalities or psychology?
Can they help us understand states’ behavior?
Research underdeveloped – leaders won’t submit to detailed observation and psychological analyses!!!!
However, Herman (1980) argued:
Two main types of leader personality that may effect foreign policy
The “Independent Leader”
The “Participatory Leader”

6. The “Independent Leader”
Policy Orientations:
High nationalism
High belief in control
High need for power
High distrust of others
Low understanding – conceptual clarity
Point here is something along the lines that these leaders can be more expected to act on the aggressive side of the national interest, but may be more prone to blunders

7. The “Independent Leader”
Policy Orientations:
High nationalism
High belief in control
High need for power
High distrust for others
Low understanding –conceptual clarity
Bush Chavez Putin
Point here is something along the lines that these leaders can be more expected to act on the aggressive side of the national interest, but may be more prone to blunders

8. The “Participatory Leader”
Policy Orientations:
Low nationalism
Low belief in control
Low in distrust of others
High need for friendly affiliations
High understanding – conceptual complexity
Idea here is that these personality traits translate into possible different foreign policy orientation
-Less aggressive
-Less decisive and imposing in relations with world
-But maybe failures of omission – do these types lead their state to greater power?

9. The “Participatory Leader”
Policy Orientations:
Low nationalism
Low belief in control
Low in distrust of others
High need for friendly affiliations
High understanding – conceptual complexity
Trudeau Clinton ?
Idea here is that these personality traits translate into possible different foreign policy orientation
-Less aggressive
-Less decisive and imposing in relations with world
-But maybe failures of omission – do these types lead there state to greater power?

10. Risk of “circularity”(?)
Problem: We don’t know their real personalities, only what they show in public roles
International structures and events make leaders exhibit “personality traits”
E.g. Clinton and Bush not so different . . .

11. 3) Theories of Foreign Policymaking:
Each theory offers a different view of the state – has implications for thinking about how foreign policy is “made”
Leads to different ideas about how policy is made
“Realism” = Rational Model
“Liberalism” & “Constructivism” = Organizational/Bureaucratic Model
“Liberalism” = Pluralist Model

12. 1) Rational Model of Decision Making:
Assumes: State is a unitary actor
Tendency to assume all states use similar approach
A reasonable response to anarchy?
Stages:
State clearly identifies problem requiring decision
State has clearly defined goals
Decision Makers:
Identify list of alternatives – possible responses
Analyze costs and benefits of each alternative
Select action that gives best benefit for lowest cost
Result: Foreign Policy that rationally pursues “National Interest”

13. 2) Bureaucratic/Organizational Model:
Assumes: Foreign policy driven by sub-national bureaucracies and agencies
a) “Organizational Model”: Assumes “standard operating procedures” of ministry etc. prevents true rationality
Do what they have always done . . .
Could be associated with “Constructivism”

14. b) “Bureaucratic Politics Model”: Different agencies have different goals – Foreign Policy product of power struggles amongst them
Outcomes tend to “satisfice”: minimal compromise that all can live with
=Very different then rational outcome . . .
E.g. Tensions between economic departments and security agencies over air safety
Assumed to be more common in non-crisis situations
Can be associated with “Liberalism” – more emphasis on sub-national actors

15. 3) Pluralist Model of decision making:
Assumes: Foreign policy a product of bargaining among a wide variety of societal actors
Could involve:
Interest Groups
Multinational Corporations
Mass Movements
Public Opinion
Most clearly seen in economic matters
E.g. Trade Protectionism
Less common in security decisions (?)
Closely associated with “Liberalism”

16. 4) Avoiding Mistakes:
Sadly, decision making never totally rational
IR presents observer with information overload
People use psychological shortcuts to “make sense” of what they observe
May influence foreign policy

17. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception”
Classic piece on the “irrationality” of rational foreign policy
Argues: Decision makers fit new information into existing beliefs
More likely when:
Facts ambiguous & situation complex
People think existing theories are right
Result: Decision makers more likely to ignore new, contradictory, information than to change their existing theories.

18. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception”
Example: “Domino Theory”
Theory that communist revolutions spread like a chain reaction
I.e. Success in North Vietnam would spread to rest of S. E. Asia
Required “containment”
Support for anticommunist allies
Result: US intervention in Vietnam

19. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception”
Example: “Domino Theory”
US supports corrupt, unpopular, anti-democratic regimes
Supplant French colonial role in S. E. Asia
US suffers 60,000 casualties, ends war effort in defeat
No domino effect
Theory was well established and situation complex

20. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception”
Solutions? See Jervis’s Safeguards – good advice!
1) Be aware that observations are biased
2) Be skeptical of supporting ideas that are not logically linked to one another
E.g. Iraq: WMD and Democracy

21. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception”
3) Be sure concepts are clearly spelled out – makes it possible to know when your ideas are wrong or failing
E.g. “Victory Conditions”
4) Be sure to consider critical interpretations of new facts – don’t be surrounded by like-minded ideologues – Avoid “groupthink”

22. 5) For Next Time . . .
Unit Four: International Law, International Organizations, and Non-Governmental Organizations
“International Law”
Required Reading:
Globalization of World Politics, Chapter 18.
Kenneth Roth, “The Case for Universal Jurisdiction,” Foreign Affairs, 80(5), (Fall 2001), Pp (Available through e-journals, or from the instructor.)