Question

Compare and contrast the three foreign policy decision-making models. How are they similar? How are they different? What are the consequences of these differences and similarities for policy decisions and outcomes? Which model do you think is most effective and why?

(Rational model, organizational process model, and government bargaining model)

Answer 1

Ans)

Foregin policy

It is the strategy of government for dealing with other Nations 'foreign policy general objective that guide the activities and relationship of one state in its international with other state the development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic consideration the policies or behaviour of states or plant to advance specific jio political design.

Approaches of foreign policy

1) Rational actor Model

It is the actor leader who take the decision the way it should do or take action without any bias or influence. Rationality has been considered as the best way to solve
the outstanding issues. It is the behavioural attitude having its very purpose. In defining
rationality, Allison Graham writes ―Rationality refers to consistent value-maximizing choice
within special fiend constraints , rational actor model of decision making is the
process to choose the right options to achieve national goal‘ by analyzing all possible
alternatives and its consequences. Rational decision making is the ability to relate means to
ends.The leadership under this model is open to receive new inputs. After a thorough
analysis of the input information, the decision maker chooses the option that gives the
highest payoff.

Element of decision making

1. Defining the problem

The first element of rational actor model is to find out the problem which arises in the foreign policy and to take action for that.

2. Analyzing the problem

After defining the problem the the problem is and analysed and interpret the corrective measures are taken to solve that problem and if there is any hope of taking decision it is done

3. Prioritizing the Goal

after analysing the problem the priority is given to the main problem and the decisions are taken for that priority goal.

4. Developing alternative

After priorities are selected alternative are selected to solve that. Problem  

5. Evaluating each alternatives

After selecting many alternative the evaluation is done between many alternative and the best alternative is selected it is the process of problem solving.

6. Selecting the best options

after evolution of many alternatives the best alternative is selected for solving the problem and for taking the correct measures with the help of that alternative.

7. Execution of decision

At last the execution of decision the execution refers to the taking in action of the selected alternative for solving the problem.

2 ) Organisation process model

Decision making in the modern globalized world is not as simple as it was in the past. The emerging issues are so complex that the political leadership on its own can hardly do justice while making polices to address these issues. In this regard, there is a need of an efficient and multidimensional organization to take appropriate decisions. To overcome this problem, Graham Allison offered two more different models of decision making, such as the Organizational Process Model and the Bureaucratic Politics Model, where multiple actors and agencies work together in making policies.

Features

A Under this model, the decision outcome mostly remains Satisfying, rather than optimal.

B The Organizational Process Model always believes in incrementalism. Hence, it is a positive and gradual process.  

C this model of decision making is very rigid and lacks flexibility in decision making.

D Decision making under this model is carried out by qualified and experienced

E professionals and specialized organizations, rather than a small group of top level leadership.  

F Organizational process model undertakes sequential search of alternatives and often

G settles on the first options, rather than choosing the best.

Apply

Request Info

Click to Call

Norwich Online

|||Toggle to open or close the navigation

shaking hands

Academic Programs » Resources

Article

5 Key Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

by Norwich University Online September 11th, 2017

  

Foreign policy analysis allows us to better understand how political actors make policy decisions and how they relate to other foreign government and non-government entities. Foreign policy is a complex discipline wherein numerous actors work within structures both inside and outside the state to have an impact on the decision-making process. It is useful to have analytical process models to illuminate the dynamics in this field and help explain how states conduct their foreign policy, international relations and diplomatic endeavors.

There are five main models in foreign policy analysis that will be explored in this article: the rational actor model, the bureaucratic politics model and the organizational process model—all three of which were developed by foreign policy analyst and scholar, Graham Allison, and outlined in his book, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis—as well as the inter-branch politics model and the political process model. In order for an international relations professional to effectively analyze foreign policy as a whole, it is necessary to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of each model therein and understand the ways in which each approach has the potential to remedy the inadequacies of the others.

Rational Actor Model

The most widely cited foreign policy analysis approach is the rational actor model. This approach assumes that the main actor in foreign policy is a rational individual who can be relied on to make informed, calculated decisions that maximize value and perceived benefits to the state. The rational actor model relies on individual state-level interactions between nations and government behavior as units of analysis; it assumes the availability of complete information to policymakers for optimized decision making, and that actions taken throughout time are both consistent and coherent. There are four main steps in the rational actor’s decision-making process: identify the problem, define desired outcomes, evaluate the consequences of potential policy choices and finally, make the most rational decision to maximize beneficial outcomes.

The rational actor theoretical approach can be useful to understanding the goals and intentions behind a foreign policy action. However, critics of this model believe it does not account for instances when complete information may not be available, as well as the relatively subjective concept of rationality or factors that might inhibit rational decision making.

Bureaucratic Politics Model

Unlike the rational actor model, which looks at the state as a unitary actor, the bureaucratic politics model analyzes decisions on the premise that actions are taken by a number of independent, competing entities within a particular state. Each of these separate entities brings values to the decision-making process, as well as its own view of what’s best for personal, organizational and national interests. Each party attempts to satisfy its goals, meaning any collective action is contingent upon successful negotiations and the arrival at an ultimate consensus between all entities.

3) Bureaucratic Politics Model

A number of factors can influence each party’s decision making and how it achieves its goals, such as the relative power and degree of influence of each other actor in the group. Each party has opposing viewpoints and desired outcomes related to an array of issues, and success in achieving certain goals may require other parties to make certain concessions, resulting in decisions that are often seen as more beneficial to one side than the others. Additional factors that impact decision making include the degrees of importance of certain goals and the political values each party represents. The increasingly partisan nature of U.S. politics provides an excellent example of this model in action.

HomePolitics, Law & GovernmentPolitics & Political Systems

Bureaucratic politics approach

government

WRITTEN BY

Brent Durbin

Brent Durbin is an assistant professor in the Department of Government at Smith College. He contributed several articles to SAGE Publications’ Encyclopedia of Governance (2007), which served as...

See Article History

Bureaucratic politics approach, theoretical approach to public policy that emphasizes internal bargaining within the state.

Bureaucratic politics approach

QUICK FACTS

RELATED TOPICS

Policy

The bureaucratic politics approach argues that policy outcomes result from a game of bargaining among a small, highly placed group of governmental actors. These actors come to the game with varying preferences, abilities, and positions of power. Participants choose strategies and policy goals based on different ideas of what outcomes will best serve their organizational and personal interests. Bargaining then proceeds through a pluralist process of give-and-take that reflects the prevailing rules of the game as well as power relations among the participants. Because this process is neither dominated by one individual nor likely to privilege expert or rational decisions, it may result in suboptimal outcomes that fail to fulfill the objectives of any of the individual participants.

Most discussions of bureaucratic politics begin with Graham T. Allison’s 1969 article in The American Political Science Review, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” although this work built on earlier writings by Charles Lindblom, Richard Neustadt, Samuel Huntington, and others. Allison provides an analysis of the Cuban missile crisis that contrasts bureaucratic politics bargaining with two other models of policy making. The first of these assumes that policy decisions are made by a unitary, rational decision maker, represented by “the state” in many formulations. Thus, bureaucratic politics is often offered as a counterpoint to realist or rationalist conceptions of policy decision making. The second alternative approach describes policies as guided by, even resulting from, previously established bureaucratic procedures, which leaves little room for autonomous action by high-level decision makers. Compared with these and other alternative conceptions of policy making, the bureaucratic politics model represents a significant and distinctive strain of organization- and state-level theory in international relations, organization theory, public policy, and American politics.

Perhaps the most-abiding concept from the bureaucratic politics model, and the shorthand many have used to define it, is that actors will pursue policies that benefit the organizations they represent rather than national or collective interests. This idea, that “where you stand depends on where you sit,” is often called Miles’s law after the Truman-era bureaucrat who coined the phrase. A central and intuitively powerful claim of bureaucratic politics explanations, this premise has been criticized for its narrow view of preference formation. For example, critics note that it fails to explain the role of many important actors in the original bureaucratic politics case study of the Cuban missile crisis. Yet even the early bureaucratic politics theorists, including Allison, were explicit in acknowledging that other factors, such as personality, interpersonal relations, and access to information, also play important roles in the bureaucratic politics process. For these theorists, three key questions guide one’s understanding of the policy-making game: (1) Who are the actors? (2) What factors influence each actor’s position? and (3) How do actors’ positions come together to generate governmental policies?

Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription.

Subscribe today

Each of these queries masks a number of additional questions and hypotheses about the bureaucratic politics process.

Whether actors are elected or appointed, high-, mid-, or low-level, and new to their stations or old hands can all affect their interests and bargaining positions

. For example, actors who serve as part of a temporary political administration, such as political appointees of the U.S. president, might be likely to pursue shorter-term interests than would career civil servants with long-standing organizational affiliations.

Many aspects of the policy environment also influence the bureaucratic politics dynamic.

Issues that are highly salient and visible to key constituencies, for instance, may cause politically ambitious actors to alter their bargaining positions

The venue in which bargaining takes place—cabinet room, boardroom, public news media, and so forth—may also privilege some actors and some interests over others.

Comparative study

Systemic realist arguments of foreign policy decision-making suggest that partisan disagreement stops at the water's edge. A domestic-politics model of foreign policy decision-making posits that politics does not stop at the water's edge. Extant research on foreign policy voting in the U.S. Congress is consistent with the systemic realist argument. According to this research, partisan voting is less likely to occur on national security, or high-politics issues, than on low-politics issues. I argue that this research suffers from two flaws. First, it does not measure high-politics in accordance with systemic realist thinking. Second, the goal in addressing the water's-edge question is not to learn if a specific variable, such as high-politics, is significant, but to compare competing models. To this end, it is necessary to engage in a “three-cornered fight” and conduct a nonnested model discrimination test. After creating a new measure of high-politics, I compare a systemic realist model against a domestic-politics model of foreign policy voting in the House of Representatives from 1953—2000. The model discrimination test indicates that the domestic-politics model outperforms the systemic realist model. Institutional dynamics and public opinion are more important for understanding foreign policy voting than are more traditional realist variables.

Best foreign policy

Rational Actor model, the decision outcomes  

are always the product of rational choice and logical conclusion. This model is free from bias

and personal influences. The decision is comparatively affective and quick and useful for the

crisis like situations. Allison‘s second model of decision making is the Organizational

Process Model. According to this model of decision making, the structure of the machinery

functions like that of a large organization, where the whole assignment is divided into several

sub-assignments and distributed among several specialist sub-organizations. These small

units give inputs and formulate the way out formula for their share of assignment. At last all

such individual assessments are merged together to take the final decision. The BPM is a

lengthy and complicated process and beneficial to deal with the long term issues. The third

and the last model of Allison is the Bureaucratic Politics model.