Department of Political Science Graduate Institute of International Studies FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS Mark Laffey Summer, 2007

Office: Rigot 18 Phone: 022 908 5935 (o); (44) 0117 9277244 (h) Email: ml23@soas.ac.uk (this is the best way to contact me) Office hours: Wednesdays, 5.00pm-7.00pm Class: Wednesdays, 2.15pm- 4.00pm. Room: S2

Course objectives and organisation The aim of this course is to provide students with a critical introduction to the subfield of foreign policy analysis (FPA). The general theme of the course might be summarised as from foreign policy to state action. From its origins in the classic works of Snyder, Bruck and Sapin and the Sprouts, foreign policy analysis has been shaped by a particular set of premises that have determined the ways in which the field has developed. Specifically, foreign policy has been equated with decision-making and studied on the basis of individualist, positivist and liberal assumptions as the external projection of processes internal to the nation-state. The vast bulk of conceptual, theoretical and empirical work has focused on the United States. Over time, these assumptions have been increasingly questioned - although it must be said without seriously denting the overall shape of the field. Foreign policy has come to be seen as a social activity that often transcends state boundaries, and studied in post-positivist ways. The course introduces students to the core assumptions and models that have structured the field. We begin with an overview of the evolution the subfield - the stories FPA tells about itself, if you like - and its core assumptions - what I have termed the foreign policy problematic. FPA understands itself as opening up the black box of the state. We therefore examine statist approaches to foreign policy in order to gain a clearer sense of what FPA is arguing against. The remainder of the course rehearses a series of efforts to rethink or overturn statist models, organised conceptually and theoretically rather than chronologically or in terms of so-called levels of analysis. Recognising that the state is itself a contested site, we look at models that disaggregate the state into a set of institutions and organisations. We then consider diverse accounts of state-society relations. In contrast to such efforts, in a direct extrapolation from the classical realist focus on the statesman, others have instead focused more narrowly on individuals, defined as the locus of decision. This leads into analysis of individual rationality and cognition, information processing, group dynamics, and decision units. In contrast to individualist approaches, still other models treat foreign policy as an essentially social

phenomenon, deploying discourse analytic theories. Finally, we consider the implications of seeing foreign policy not as the external expression of processes internal to particular state/society complexes but rather as an (increasingly?) international or transnational process.

Readings There is no required textbook for this course. For each topic, there are a set of required readings - usually five or six articles or book chapters - and a set of recommended readings. Required readings not available on-line are assembled in the course pack. Recommended readings are intended to be indicative only - the literature on FPA is quite simply immense. Students interested in pursuing a particular aspect of the subject should consult reading bibliographies and footnotes, or ask me.

Assessment There are two forms of assessment for this course. Each student will be required to write two short papers (20 percent each) and a final exam (60 percent). The short papers should be 4-5 pages long (double-spaced, 12 point font). The papers are to be critical discussions - not summaries - of the readings assigned for the day on which they are submitted; students are also expected to discuss selected materials from the recommended readings. Students are encouraged in advance to discuss the intended topic of their papers with me. Papers are due at the beginning of class. (Students submitting papers will be expected to take a leading role in class discussion.) One paper must be submitted by April 25, the other by June 6. Papers submitted after the required date will not be accepted. The final exam will be a take-home; questions will be distributed in class on June 6 and due at the beginning of class on June 13.

Course Outline Introduction Week One: No class. Week Two: No class.

The foreign policy analysis problematic Week Three: What is foreign policy analysis? Overviews. Week Four: The foreign policy analysis problematic.

Approaches Week Five: Statist approaches I: realism and its variants. Week Six: Statist approaches II: states as institutions and organizations.

Week Seven: State-society relations. Deadline for first short paper. Week Eight: Individuals, rationality, cognition. Week Nine: Beliefs and information processing. Week Ten: Group dynamics and decision units. Week Eleven: Foreign policy as social action I. Week Twelve: Foreign policy as social action II: discourse analysis. Concluding reflections Week Thirteen: Beyond the inside-out assumption. Deadline for second short paper. Take-home exam distributed. Week Fourteen: What have we learned? Wrap-up. Take-home exam due in class.

Please note: owing to starting the course one week later than initially planned, we will have to schedule an extra session during the term. My preference would be to do this the week immediately following the Easter break, but the final decision will be made in consultation with students taking the course.

COURSE CALENDAR: Topics and readings INTRODUCTION Week One: No class March 14

Week Two: No class March 21

THE FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS PROBLEMATIC Week Three: What is foreign policy analysis? Overviews March 28 Discussion questions: What is to be explained in foreign policy analysis? How do different conceptions of what is to be explained affect our adoption of explanatory models? What is a policy?

Required readings: Hudson, V., with C. Vore. 1995. Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today and tomorrow, Mershon International Studies Review 39: 209-238 Kaarbo, J. 2003. Foreign policy analysis in the twenty-first century: Back to comparison, forward to identity and ideas, International Studies Review 5: 156-163. Kerr, D. 1976. The logic of policy and successful policies, Policy Sciences 7: 351-363. Light, M. 1994. 'Foreign policy analysis,' in A. Groom and M. Light, eds., Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter, pp. 93-108. Meehan, E. 1971. The concept foreign policy, in W. Hanreider, ed., Comparative Foreign Policy, New York: David McKay, pp. 351-363. Smith, S. 1986. Theories of foreign policy: An historical overview, Review of International Studies 12: 13-29.

Recommended readings: Carlsnaes, W. and S. Smith, eds. 1994. European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, ECPR/Sage Carlsnaes, W. 2002. Foreign Policy, in W. Carlsnaes et al., eds., Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 331-349. Gerner, D. 1991. Foreign policy analysis: renaissance, routine or rubbish? in W. Crotty, ed., Political Science: Looking to the Future, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, pp. 123-185. Gerner, D. 1995. The evolution of the study of foreign policy, in L. Neack, J. Hey and P. Haney, eds. Foreign Policy Analysis Hermann, C. 1978. Foreign policy behavior: That which is to be explained, in M. East, S. Salmore and C. Hermann, eds. Why Nations Act, Beverly Hills: Sage. Hermann, C. and G. Peacock. 1987. The evolution and future of theoretical research in the comparative study of foreign policy, in C. Hermann, C. Kegley, Jr., and J. Rosenau, eds., New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy, Boston: Allen & Unwin. Hudson, V. 2005. Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations, Foreign Policy Analysis 1: 1-30. Rosenau, J. 1968. Introductory note to The actions of States, in Rosenau, ed.,

International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, New York: The Free Press. Rosenau, J. 1968. Comparative foreign policy: Fad, fantasy or field? International Studies Quarterly 12: 296-329.

Week Four: The foreign policy analysis problematic April 4 Discussion questions: What are the defining elements of foreign policy analysis as a field? How do these elements shape the kinds of questions we ask and the explanations we build? How is the agent-structure problem related to the levels-of-analysis problem?

Required readings: Allison, G. 1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis, American Political Science Review 63: 689-718. Brecher, M., B. Steinberg, and J. Stein. 1969. A framework for research on foreign policy behavior, Journal of Conflict Resolution 13: 75-101. Carlsnaes, W. 1992. The agent-structure problem in foreign policy analysis, International Studies Quarterly 36: 245-270. Singer, J.D. 1961. The level-of-analysis problem in international politics, World Politics 14: 77-92. Waever, O. 1994. Resisting the temptation of Post Foreign Policy Analysis, in Walter Carlsnaes & Steve Smith (eds.), European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, Beverley Hills: Sage, pp. 238-273.

Recommended readings: Allison, G. and P. Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and Level of Analysis problem, chap 1 in Perception and Misperception in International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rosenau, J. 1966. Pre-theories and theories of foreign policy, in J. Charlesworth, ed. Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, New York: Free Press, pp. 115-

169. Rosenau, J. 1980. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, London: Frances Pinter. Rosenau, J. 1984. Pre-theory revisited, International Studies Quarterly 28: 245-306. Snyder, R.C., H.W. Bruck, and B. Sapin. 1962. Decisionmaking as an Approach to the Study of International Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.15-74. Sprout, H. and M. Sprout. 1956. Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, chaps. Sprout, H. and M. Sprout. 1965. The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1-70. Wolfers, A. 1962. The actors in international politics, in Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

On positivism and the agent-structure problem: Neufeld, M. 1993. 'Interpretation and the "science" of international relations,' Review of International Studies 19: 39-61. Wight, C. and H. Patomaki, After Postpositivism: The Promise of Critical Realism', International Studies Quarterly, 44: 213-37. Wendt, A. 1991. Review essay: bridging the theory/metatheory gap in international erlations, Review of International Studies 17: 383-392 Smith, S. and M. Hollis. 1991. Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations' Review of International Studies, 17: 393-410. Wendt, A. 1992. Levels of analysis vs. agents and structures: Part III, Review of International Studies 18: 181-185. Smith, S. and M. Hollis. 1992. Structure and Action: Further Comments' Review of International Studies, 18: 187-188.

APPROACHES Week Five: Statist approaches I: realism and its variants April 11 Discussion questions: What happens to realist theories if we consider alternative accounts of the state? Is state action - as explained in international relations theory - the same thing as foreign policy - as explained in foreign policy analysis? [We will return to this question later in the course.]

Required readings: Elman, C. 1996. Horses for courses: Why not neo-realist theories of foreign policy? Security Studies 6: 7-53. Fearon, J. 1998. Domestic politics, foreign policy, and theories of international relations, Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 289-313. Krasner, S. 1984. 'Approaches to the state: alternative conceptions and historical dynamics', Comparative Politics : 223-246. Panitch, L. 1996. Rethinking the Role of the State, in James Mittelman (ed.) Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner: 83-113. Rose, G. 1998. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy, World Politics 51: 144-172. Waltz, K. 1996. International politics is not foreign policy, Security Studies 6: 54-57.

Recommended readings: 'Forum: Is the state a person?' 2004. Review of International Studies 30: 255-316. Cox, R. 1986. 'Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory,' in R. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 204-254 Goddard, S. and D. Nexon. 2005. Paradigm lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics, European Journal of International Relations 11: 9-61. Holsti, K.J. 1970. National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy, International Studies Quarterly 14: 643-671. Johnston, A. 1995. 'Thinking about Strategic Culture.' International Security 19: 32-64.

Mastanduno, M., D. Lake and G. Ikenberry. 1989. Towards a realist theory of foreign policy, International Studies Quarterly 33: 457-474. Putnam, R. 1988. 'Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games', International Organization 42: 427-461. Rhodes, E. 1996. 'Sea Change: Interest-Based vs. Cultural-Cognitive Accounts of Strategic Choice in the 1890s.' Security Studies, 5: 73-124. Smith, S. 2001. Foreign Policy Is What States Make of It: Social Construction and International Relations Theory. In V. Kubalkova, ed., Foreign Policy in a Constructed World. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 38-55. Sylvan, D. 1981. The newest mercantilism, International Organization 35: 375-393. Walker, S. 1987. Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, Durham: Duke University Press. Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics, International Organization 46: 391-425.

Week Six: Statist approaches II: states as bureaucracies and organisations April 18

Discussion questions: What is the relation between organizations, bureaucacies and foreign policy?

Required readings: Bender, J. and T. Hammond. 1992. Rethinking Allisons Models, American Political Science Review 86: 301-322. Hollis, M. and S. Smith. 1986. Roles and reasons in foreign policy decision making, British Journal of Political Science 16: 269-86. Welch, D. 1992. The organizational process and bureaucratic politics paradigms, International Security 17: 112-146. Stern, E., et al. 1998. Whither the study of governmental politics in foreign policymaking: a symposium, Mershon International Studies Review 42: 205-55.

Krasner, S. 1971. Are bureaucracies important? (Or Allison Wonderland), Foreign Policy 7: 159-179.

Recommended readings: Allison, G. and M. Halperin. (1972) Bureaucratic politics: a paradigm and some policy implications, World Politics 24: 40-79. Deutsch, K. 1963. The Nerves of Government Halperin, M. 1974. Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy, Washington: Brookings. Levy, J. 1986. Organizational processes and the causes of war, International Studies Quarterly 30: 193-222. March, J. 1997. 'Understanding how decisions happen in organizations,' in Z. Shapira, ed. Organizational Decision Making Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9-33. March, J. and J. Olsen. 1984. 'The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life,' American Political Science Review : 734-749. Kier, K. 1995. 'Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars.' International Security 19: 65-93. Morley, M. 1987. Imperial State and Revolution: The United States and Cuba, 19521986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steinbrunner, J. 1974. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sylvan, D and S. Majeski. 2007. A cybernetic approach to continuity in US foreign policy, Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. [available from ML]

Week Seven: State-society relations April 25 *** DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF FIRST SHORT PAPER ***

Discussion questions: How do different conceptions of the state, and of state-society relations, lead to different accounts of foreign policy? Required readings: Barnett, M. 1999. Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change: Israels Road to Oslo, European Journal of International Relations 5: 5-36 Mearsheimer, J. and S. Walt. 2006. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard University. Chomsky, N. 2006. The Israel lobby?, ZNet. Owen, J. 1994. How liberalism produces democratic peace International Security 19: 87-125 Robinson, W. 1996. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony, chaps 1-2.

Recommended readings: Benjamin, R. and R. Duvall. 1985. 'The capitalist state in context, in R. Benjamin and S. Elkins, eds., The Capitalist State in Context, University of Kansas Press, pp. 19-57. Bergquist, C. 1996. Latin American Revolution, US Response, chap. 3 in Labor and the Course of American Democracy, London: Verso, pp. 81-115. Frieden, J. 1988. Sectoral conflict and foreign economic policy, 1914-1940, International Organization 42: 59-90. Gibbs, D. 1991. The Political Economy of Third World Intervention: Mines, Money and U.S. Policy in the Congo Crisis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Halliday, F. 1987. 'State and society in international relations: a second agenda,' Millennium 16: 215-229. Lens, S. 1970. The Military-Industrial Complex. Philadelphia: Pilgram Press and the National Catholic Reporter.

10

Melman, S. 1970. Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rupert, M. 1990. 'Producing Hegemony: State/Society Relations and the Politics of Productivity in the United States, International Studies Quarterly 34: 427-456. Snyder, J. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Smith, T. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Widmaier, W. 2005. The democratic peace is what states make of it: a constructivist analysis of the US-Indian near miss in the 1971 South Asian crisis,European Journal of International Relations 11:

There is a huge literature on the role of public opinion and interest groups in foreign policy, almost all of it liberal. Representative examples include: Eichenberg, R. 1998. Domestic Preferences and Foreign Policy: Cumulation and Confirmation in the Study of Public Opinion. Mershon International Studies Review, 42: 97-105. Holsti, O. 1996. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Knopf, J. 1998. How Rational is The Rational Public? Evidence from U.S. Public Opinion on Military Spending. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42: 544-71. Powlick, P. and A. Katz, 1998. Defining the American Public Opinion/Foreign Policy Nexus, Mershon International Studies Review, 42: 29-61. Risse-Kappen, T. 1991. Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. World Politics 43: 579-512. Shapiro, R. and B. Page. 1988. Foreign Policy and the Rational Public, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32: 211-47 Trubowitz, P. 1998. Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Students might also consider alternative views of the media, and the so-called CNN effect:

11

Herman, E. and N. Chomsky. 1988. A Propaganda Model, chap. 1 in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon, pp. 1-36. Klaehn, J., ed. 2005. Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomskys Propaganda Model, Toronto: Black Rose. Robinson, P. 2001. Theorizing the influence of media on world politics: models of media influence on foreign policy, European Journal of Communication 16: 523-544. Robinson, P. 2002. The CNN Effect: the myth of news, foreign policy and intervention, New York: Routledge.

Week Eight: Individuals, rationality, cognition May 2. Discussion question: How is the relationship between individual rationality and cognition conceived in foreign policy analysis?

Required readings: George, A. 1969. The operational code: a neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making, International Studies Quarterly 13: 190-222. Hermann, M. 1980. Explaining foreign policy behaviour using the personal characteristics of political leaders, International Studies Quarterly 24: 7-46. Jones, B. 1999. 'Bounded rationality,' Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 297-321. Walker, S. 1977. 'The interface between beliefs and behavior: Henry Kissinger's operational code and the Vietnam War,' Journal of Conflict Resolution 21: 129-168. Young, M. and M. Schafer. 1998. 'Is there method in our madness: Ways of assessing cognition in international relations,' Mershon International Studies Review 42: 63-96. Levy, J. 1997. Prospect theory, rational choice and international relations, International Studies Quarterly 41: 87-112.

Recommended readings: Axelrod, R., ed. 1976. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political

12

Elites, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Byman, D. and K. Pollack. 2001. Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in, International Security 25: 107-146. Cottam, M. 1986. Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Influence of Cognition, Boulder: Westview Press. Crawford, N. 2000. 'The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships,' International Security, 24: 116-56. Holsti, O. 1970. 'The "Operational Code" Approach to the Study of Political Leaders: John Foster Dulles' Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs,' Canadian Journal of Political Science 3: 123-57. Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Larson, D. 1985. Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mintz, Alex. 2004. How do leaders make decisions? A polyheuristic perspective, Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 3-13. Ripley, B. 1993. Psychology, foreign policy and international relations theory, Political Psychology 14: 403-416. Simon, H. 1985. Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science, American Political Science Review 79: 293-304. Stern, E. 2004. 'Contextualising and critiqueing he poliheuristic theory,' Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 105-126. Walker, S. M. Schafer, and M. Young, 1999. 'Presidential operational codes and foreign policy conflicts in the post-cold war world,' Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43: 609-25.

For a useful clarification of the relations between rational choice and pscyhological theory, students might look at the rational deterrence debate: Achen, C.H. and D. Snidal. 1989. 'Rational Deterrence and Comparative Case Studies', World Politics 41: 143-69. Downs, G.W. 1989. 'The Rational Deterrence Debate', World Politics 41: 225-237.

13

Jervis, R. 1989. 'Rational Deterrence: Theory and Evidence', World Politics 41: 183-207. Lebow, R.N. & J.G. Stein. 1989. 'Rational Deterrence Theory: I Think, Therefore I Deter', World Politics 41: 208-224. Wagner, R.H. 1992. 'Rationality and Misperception in Deterrence Theory', Journal of Theoretical Politics 4: 115-141.

For useful overviews of the psychological literature, students should look at Levy, J. 2003. 'Political Psychology and Foreign Policy,' in D. Sears, L. Huddy, and R. Jervis, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 253-84. Tetlock, P. 1998. 'Social Psychology and World Politics,' in D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 868-912.

Week Nine: Beliefs and information processing May 9. Discussion questions: How should we conceive of the relations between beliefs and information processing?

Required readings: Breuning, M. 2003. The role of analogies and abstract reasoning in decision-making: evidence from the debate over Trumans proposal for development assistance, International Studies Quarterly 47: 229-245. Laffey, M. and J. Weldes. 1997. Beyond belief: Ideas and symbolic technologies in the study of international relations, European Journal of International Relations, 3: 193-237. Larson, D. 1994. The role of belief systems and schemas in foreign policy decisionmaking, Political Psychology 15: 17-33. McLean, J. 1988. Belief systems and ideology, in S. Smith and R. Little, eds., Belief Systems and the Study of International Relations, Oxford: Blackwell.

14

Sylvan, D. and S. Thorson. 1992. Ontologies, problem representation, and the Cuban missile crisis, Journal of Conflict Resolution36: 709-732. Sylvan, D., C. Ostrom, and Gannon. 1994. Case-based, model-based, and explanationbased styles of reasoning in foreign policy, International Studies Quarterly 38: 61-90.

Recommended readings: Goldstein, J. and R. Keohane (eds.). 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hudson, V., ed. 1997. Culture and Foreign Policy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Hudson, V. and M. Sampson. 1999. 'Culture and Foreign Policy Analysis.' Special Issue, Political Psychology, 20: 667-896. Hunt, M. 1987. Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy, New Haven: Yale University Press. Khong, Y. 1992. Analogies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Little, R. 1988. 'Belief systems in the social sciences,' in S. Smith and R. Little, eds., Belief Systems and the Study of International Relations, Oxford: Blackwell. Shafer, D. 1988. Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vertberger, Y. 1986. Foreign policy decision-makers as practical-intuitive historians: applied history and its shortcomings, International Studies Quarterly 30: 223-247. Vertzberger, Y. 1993. The World in their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Yee, A. 1996. , 'The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies.' International Organization, 50: 69-108.

Students interested in experimental research into how human beings process information should consult Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1982. 'Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,' in Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky, eds., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15

Week Ten: Group dynamics and decision units May 16 Discussion questions: How should we conceptualise the relations between group dynamics, decision units, and foreign policy?

Required readings: Beasley, R., et al., 2001. People and processes in foreign policymaking: insights from comparative case studies, International Studies Review 217-250. Garrison, J. 2003. Foreign policymaking and group dynamics: where weve been and where were going, International Studies Review 5: 177-183. tHart, P. 1991. Irving Janis victims of groupthink, Political Psychology 12: 247-278. Hermann, M. 2001. How decision units shape foreign policy: a theoretical framework, International Studies Review 3: 47-82. Maoz, Z. 1990. 'Framing the national interest', World Politics 43: 77-110. Preston, T. and P. tHart. 1999. Understanding and evaluating bureaucratic politics: the nexus between political leaders and advisory systems, Political Psychology 20: 49-98.

Recommended readings: Beasley, R. 1998. 'Collective interpretations: How problem representations aggregate in foreign policy groups,' in D. Sylvan and J. Voss, eds. Problem representation in foreign policy decision making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 80-115. 't Hart, P., E. Stern, and B. Sundelius. 1997. 'Foreign policy-making at the top: political group dynamics,' in 't Hart, P., E. Stern, and B. Sundelius, eds. Beyond Groupthink, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. t'Hart, P. 1990. Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hermann, M. and C. Hermann. 1989. Who makes foreign policy decisions and how: an empirical inquiry, International Studies Quarterly 33: 361-387. Janis, I. 1982. Groupthink, rev. ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

16

Kaarbo, J. 1998. 'Power politics in foreign policy: The influence of bureaucratic minorities,' European Journal of International Relations 4: 67-97. Kegley, C. 1987. 'Decision regimes and the comparative study of foreign policy,' in C. Hermann, C. Kegley, and J. Rosenau, eds. New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy, Boston: Allen and Unwin, pp. 247-268. Kowert, P. 2002. Groupthink or Deadlock: When Do Leaders Learn from Their Advisors? Albany: State University of New York Press. Verbeek, B. 2003. Decision-Making in Great Britain During the Suez Crisis: Small Groups and a Persistent Leader. Burlington: Ashgate, 2003.

Week Eleven: Foreign policy as social action I May 23. Discussion question: What are the implications for how we make sense of foreign policy if reasoning is a social practice rather than a mental process? Required readings: Anderson, P.A. 1987. What do decision makers do when they make a foreign policy decision?, in C. Hermann et al., eds. New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy, Boston: Allen and Unwin. Andrews, B. 1975. 'Social rules and the state as a social actor,' World Politics 27: 521540. Barnett, M. 1999. 'The politics of indifference at the United Nations: The security council, peacekeeping and genocide in Rwanda,' in J. Weldes, et al., eds. Cultures of Insecurity Minneapolis: Univesity of Minnesota Press, Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices Oxford: Oxford University Press, chaps. 3, 8, 9. Milliken, J. 1995. State action in IR: A critique, Unpublished manuscript, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva.

Recommended readings: Beer, F. and G. Boynton. 1996. Realistic rhetoric but not realism: a senatorial

17

conversation on Cambodia, in F. Beer and R. Hariman, eds., Post-Realism: the rhetorical turn in international relations, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 369383. Gusfield, J. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hopf, T. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities & Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 & 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Milliken, J. and D. Sylvan. 1996. 'Soft Bodies, Hard Targets, and Chic Theories: US Bombing Policy in Indochina', Millennium 25: 321-359 Shapiro, M., G. Bonham and D. Heradstveit. 1988. 'A discursive practices approach to collective decision-making,' International Studies Quarterly 32: 397-419. Sylvan, D. and H. Alker, Jr. 1988. 'Foreign Policy as Tragedy: Sending 100,000 Troops to Vietnam,' Unpublished manuscript [available from ML] Sylvan, D. and S. Majeski. 1996. Rhetorics of place characteristics in high-level U.S. foreign policy making, in F. Beer and R. Hariman, eds., Post-Realism: the rhetorical turn in international relations, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 309-329. Weldes, J. 1996. Constructing national interests, European Journal of International Relations, 2: 275-318.

Week Twelve: Foreign policy as social action II: discourse analysis May 30. Discussion questions: What are the implications of adopting a post-positivist understanding of foreign policy as discourse? Required readings: Ashley, R. 1987. 'Foreign policy as political performance,' International Studies Notes 13: 51-54. Doty. R. 1993. Foreign policy as social construction: A post-positivist analysis of U.S. counterinsurgency policy in the Philippines, International Studies Quarterly 37(2): 297320. Milliken, J. 1999. 'The study of discourse in international relations: a critique of research and methods,' European Journal of International Relations 5: 225-254.

18

OTuathail, G. 2002. Theorizing practical geopolitical reasoning: the case of the United States response to the war in Bosnia, Political Geography 21: 601-628 Waever, O. 2002. Identities, communities and foreign policy: Discourse analysis as foreign policy theory, in L. Hansen and O. Waever, eds. National Integration and National Identity (London: Routledge), pp. 20-49.

Recommended readings: Campbell, D. 1990. Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States, Alternatives 15: 263-286. Campbell, D. 2005. 'The biopolitics of security: oil, empire, and the sports utility vehicle,' American Quarterly, 57: 943-972. Campbell, D. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Second ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Doty, R. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North/South Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Larson, H. 1997. Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis, New York: Routledge. Merlingen, M. 2006. Foucault and World Politics: Promises and challenges of extending governmentality theory to the European and beyond, Millennium 35: 181-196. Neumann, I. 1996. Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and International Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Neumann, I. 1996. 'Self and Other in International Relations,' European Journal of International Relations 2: 139-174. OTuathail, G. and J. Agnew. 1992. 'Geopolitics and discourse: Practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy,' Political Geography 11 Rumelili, B. 2004. 'Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU's mode of differentiation,' Review of International Studies 30. Weldes, J. 1999. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Weldes, J. and D. Saco. Making state action possible: The U.S. and the discursive construction of the Cuban problem, 1960-1994, Millennium, 25: 361-395.

19

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Week Thirteen: Beyond the inside-outside assumption June 6. *** DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF SECOND SHORT PAPER *** *** TAKE-HOME EXAM DISTRIBUTED IN CLASS *** Discussion questions: How does putting in question the assumption that foreign policy decision-making is essentially a domestic process alter our understanding of foreign policy?

Required readings: Agnew, J. 1994. The territorial trap, Review of International Political Economy 1: 5380 Broad, R. 1990. Introduction, in Unequal Alliance: The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and the Philippines, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1-19. Slaughter, A. 2004. A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press, chaps. 1, 4, 5 White, B. 1999. The European challenge to foreign policy analysis, European Journal of International Relations 5: 37-66. Wapner, P. 1995. Politics beyond the state: Environmental activism and world civic politics, World Politics 47: 311-340.

Recommended readings: Agnew, J. 2005. 'American hegemony and the new geography of power,' chap 3 in Hegemony: The new shape of global power Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Brenner, N. 1999. 'Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality and geographical scale in globalization studies,' Theory and Society 28: 39-78. Chatterjee, P. and M. Finger. 1994. The Earth Brokers: Power, Politics and World Development. London: Routledge.

20

Dezalay, Y. and B. Garth. 2002. The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists and the Contest to Transform Latin American States, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Haas, P. 1989. Regimes and epistemic communities, International Organization 44: 377-403. Higgott, R. 2000. Challenging triumphalism and convergence: the limits of global liberalization in Asia and Latin America, Review of International Studies 26: 359-379 Lifin, K. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation, Columbia: Columbia University Press. Klotz, A. 2002. Transnational activism and global transformations: The anti-apartheid and abolitionist experiences, European Journal of International Relations 8: 49-76. Price, R. 1998. Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Landmines, International Organization, 52: 613-644 Risse-Kappen, T. 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenau, J. 1984. A pre-theory revisited: world politics in an age of cascading interdependence, International Studies Quarterly 28: 245-305. Ruggie, J. 2004. Reconstituting the Global Public Domain Issues, Actors, Practices, European Journal of International Relations 10: 499-531. Rutherford, K. 2000. The evolving arms control agenda: Implications of the role of NGOs in banning antipersonnel landmines, World Politics 53: 74-114. Strange, S. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Week Fourteen: Wrap-up. June 13. *** TAKE-HOME EXAM DUE IN CLASS *** Discussion questions: What have we learned? No additional readings.

21