Foreign Policy Analysis Research Paper

II. Theory

A. Theories of International Relations

B. Realism

C. Liberalism

D. Constructivism

E. Other Theories of International Relations

F. Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

G. Foundational Texts

H. Contemporary Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

III. Applications and Empirical Evidence

A. Theories of International Relations

B. Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

1. Individuals

2. Groups

3. Society

IV. Policy Implications

V. Future Directions

VI. Conclusion

I. Introduction

The scholarly study of foreign policy in the field of international relations (IR) goes back to the mid- 1950s and early 1960s. Although this means that foreign policy analysis (FPA) is still a relatively young area of specialization, the FPA literature is rich and diverse. As it is discussed in the following pages, since its inception FPA has evolved through distinct stages (Hudson, 2005; Neack, Hey, & Haney, 1995). Specifically, FPA has moved away from searching for an overarching theory of foreign policy to finding theories that work under certain conditions. In this research paper, foreign policy analysis refers to the scholarly study of foreign policy as a whole, which includes such distinct literatures as comparative foreign policy and foreign policy decision making.

This research paper proceeds as follows: First, foreign policy is described, and then the foreign policy analysis subfield is situated within the broader field of international relations. This is followed by a review of major approaches within this subfield from foundational works to the most contemporary research. At the end, the policy relevance of the work produced by the FPA scholars and future directions of the subfield are discussed. The paper concludes with a list of suggested readings.

What is foreign policy, and how is it different from the study of international relations more generally? By foreign policy we mean the actions, strategies, and decisions directed at actors outside the borders of a domestic political system (i.e., a state). That the primary intended target of policy is external to the domestic sphere distinguishes foreign from domestic policy (Kaarbo, Lantis, & Beasley, 2002). In other words, as Breuning (2007) puts it, foreign policy is “the totality of a country’s policies toward and interactions with the environment beyond its borders” (p. 5). A state’s foreign policy covers a variety of issues ranging from the rather traditional security and economic areas to environmental and energy issues, foreign aid, migration, and human rights (Breuning, 2007). The actors that initiate foreign policy actions, and those who are the targets of the actions, are often states—but not always.

According to Breuning (2007), FPA is “first and foremost interested in explaining how and why . . . decisions came about” (p. 164). In effect, this means that—distinct from the broader study of IR—FPA places an emphasis on the human beings involved in the decision-making processes (Breuning, 2007; Hudson, 2005, 2007). As such, FPA looks beyond the state as a single entity and includes the study of multiple actors within a state, both as individuals and as groups of individuals in their capacity to make or influence foreign policy. In other words, this inquiry goes further than governments and investigates the influence of individual leaders, bureaucracies, and institutions in foreign policy making.

Foreign policy analysis is an eclectic subfield of international relations and benefits from many other disciplines such as psychology. One of the most important features of FPA is that it is pursued in a comparative perspective. Comparison entails searching for potentially generalizable patterns in foreign policy making across time, space, and issues. As such, this inquiry can involve comparing foreign policy choices of different leaders within the same country, or foreign policy decisions of different countries regarding the same or similar issues. To the degree that such work would empirically confirm theoretical propositions, a generalizable theory is reached—often with certain set of conditions attached to it (called a midlevel theory). As major works in this research are reviewed in the following sections, this research paper outlines the evolution of foreign policy analysis as a subfield of international relations research.

II. Theory

There is no single, distinct theory of foreign policy; instead, theories of foreign policy derive either from international relations theories such as realism and liberalism or from various approaches to explaining domestic sources of foreign policy making within a state—for instance, leaders, bureaucracies, and culture. This difference in emphasis, respectively, corresponds to looking at external and systemic factors and societal and domestic sources in foreign policy. The latter make up the bulk of the literature in FPA. In contrast to the study of IR more generally, where there is the motivation to formulate grandiose, comprehensive theories, FPA is occupied with building midlevel theories. This research paper first briefly reviews IR theories that are relevant to explanations of and prescriptions for foreign policy; then, major approaches to domestic sources of foreign policy are discussed.

A. Theories of International Relations

International relations theories explain how states relate with each other in world politics. A logical conclusion of this focus is explanations of foreign policy behavior in many IR theories (Kaarbo et al., 2002). Indeed, as Smith (1987) argues, “Virtually every attempt to explain international relations involves an explanation of foreign policy” (p. 348). Many, if not all, IR theories concentrate on the impact of the international system on foreign policy. Although all the theories discussed in this section here are discussed in greater depth in other research papers, a short review will help to place foreign policy within the context of the field of IR.

B. Realism

Realist theories of international relations are defined by their assumptions of anarchy and self-help, and a unified, rational actor understanding of the state. Accordingly, realists claim that in order to survive, states should act as power maximizers. For realists, a state’s foreign policy is very much conditioned by its position within the international system and the distribution of power therein.

C. Liberalism

Although certain variants of liberalism share some assumptions of realism, liberals differ from realists in that, for them, the international system by nature is more conducive to cooperation. According to liberal theories of IR, it is in the self-interest of states to cooperate with each other. International institutions play a crucial role in facilitating cooperation among states, since they help states overcome distrust via their established rules. In contrast to realism, liberalism recognizes that domestically states are home to diverse interests and actors. As such, liberal theories of international relations also look into domestic politics since they explain state behavior. For instance, the role of interest groups or businesses in foreign policy is included in the analysis. Liberalism’s most important conclusion for foreign policy is that with a shared culture of liberalism and its ramifications on domestic institutions, like-minded liberal states would have peaceful relations with each other—the democratic peace argument.

D. Constructivism

Constructivism can best be considered as an approach to international relations than as a theory. Constructivist approaches ushered in a major turning point in the study of IR and hence have significant repercussions for the study of foreign policy. Broadly speaking, constructivism defends that intersubjectively created social norms and values explain the behavior of actors in the international system. As such, constructivists question the very existence of such concepts as anarchy and argue that these concepts reflect our own understandings of international relations.

E. Other Theories of International Relations

Today, variants of realism, liberalism, and constructivism are major international relations theories. Alternatives include but are not limited to feminist and Marxist approaches to IR. Similar to the dominant theories discussed previously, the alternatives are not foreign policy theories either, but again we can infer from feminism and Marxism as we study foreign policy.

Feminist approaches to international relations focus on issues pertaining to gender relations and question how these affect the way international relations is studied and practiced. Such an approach often entails how the exclusion of women from politics (or the society or both) and dominant, contrasting notions of masculinity affect world politics.

A Marxist understanding of international relations emphasizes the importance of class relations in world politics. By extension, foreign policy read through the lens of Marxism would explain foreign policy decisions in terms of economic interests and conflicts within and between states.

F. Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

The emergence of foreign policy analysis as a distinct area of study dates back to the seminal Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin (2002, originally published in 1954) and two other works that followed (discussed in the next section). Since then, the field has significantly expanded, unpacking the domestic determinants of state behavior. Today, many scholars distinguish two phases in the development of the literature on FPA. The first stage includes the foundational works in the field; the second follows with a proliferation of research in psychological analysis of individuals and groups as foreign policy decision makers. This research paper follows the same approach in its discussion of the FPA literature.

G. Foundational Texts

FPA within the international relations field goes back to three “paradigmatic works” written in the 1950s and 1960s (Hudson, 2005, 2007): Decision Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics by Richard Snyder, H. W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin (2002); The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs With Special Reference to International Politics by Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout (1965); and “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy” by James Rosenau (1966).

In reaction to the dominant realist approach to international relations, in 1954, Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin (2002) call for looking beyond the state and specifically to actors involved in foreign policy decision making. Likewise, Sprout and Sprout (1965) suggest that the psycho-milieu of the individuals and groups involved in foreign policy making need to be understood in order to explain foreign policy behavior. Finally, Rosenau’s (1966) pretheories article, on the other hand, is a call for systematic, scientific, cross-national generalizations of state behavior. It was from this particular quest that the comparative foreign policy (CFP) approach was born, which sought to create a grand theory of foreign policy (one that would explain all foreign policy across time and space in empirical terms).

The significance of these works was that they championed the idea that individual decision makers and their characteristics were at the heart of understanding foreign policy (Hudson, 2007). Likewise, their message called for an understanding of foreign policy beyond a mere output but also as a process. Hence, the study of FPA has expanded much beyond and benefited from many other disciplines as it grew as a field of research.

H. Contemporary Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

Contemporary research and interest in foreign policy analysis has not progressed in a linear fashion. First of all, one observes a break with the Rosenau (1966) line of research that was engaged with producing a grand theory of foreign policy. By the early 1970s, such attempts at creating large data sets as the Comparative Research on the Events of Nations (CREON) and the Dimensionality of Nations (DON) were being overshadowed by an emerging literature focusing instead on explaining the impact of individual and group behavior on foreign policy. The CFP approach that derived from Rosenau and dominated the field during the 1970s gradually disappeared in the late 1980s, since it did not produce the grand theories of foreign policy it aspired to. In the meantime, use of various methodologies and disagreements in how to study foreign policy pushed the subfield in a short-lived crisis from the 1980s into the early 1990s. One of the reasons behind this temporary crisis was the transition from the search for a grand theory and solely empirically oriented research (the gradual vaporization, or more accurately reformulation, of CFP research) to the emergence of multiple approaches and methodologies. In addition, the unfolding events of the late 1980s that led to the end of the cold war and hence led to a new world of international politics also affected the study of foreign policy.

By the early 1990s, foreign policy analysis as a field emerged with a relative consensus that midlevel theories served as new goals rather than a grand theory of foreign policy. As such, these theories explicitly stated their limitations and the conditions of applicability. In this process, the CFP approach also refined its search for a grand theory of policy as it looked for new directions in the study of foreign policy. Since then, midlevel theories have shaped the FPA literature.

Contemporary approaches to the scholarly study of foreign policy have developed within this context and can be divided into literatures that focus on (a) individual, (b) group, and (c) societal characteristics of foreign policy actors. In the following section, first each is discussed as to their assumptions about the importance of these levels of analysis; then, their applications to foreign policy cases and empirical evidence for each are discussed.

III. Applications and Empirical Evidence

A. Theories of International Relations

Direct applications of international relations as theories of foreign policy remain few in number. Despite the rarity of such work, we continue to benefit from the grand theoretical lenses of IR theories. For instance, a rare exception is Rittberger’s (2001) and his colleagues’ attempt to explain Germany’s foreign policy since its unification. A somewhat similar work is Sterling-Folker’s (2006) Making Sense of Inter national Relations Theory. Otherwise, some realists attempt to apply realist theory to foreign policy (Wivel, 2005); however, some realists debate this. In addition, Houghton (2007) discusses the gains from cooperation between constructivism and FPA. These notwithstanding, the majority of IR research explains state behavior as an outcome of overarching processes or the international system.

B. Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis

Arguably, the most important contributions to the subfield of foreign policy analysis came from domestic-based explanations. Responding to a call to understand the foreign policy decision- making process and benefiting from various fields of research, many works contributed to the expansion of knowledge in the study of foreign policy.

1. Individuals

Foreign policy decision makers are individual actors, and as all individuals, they too are bounded by the human mind. Hence, individual characteristics of decision makers (such as their beliefs, experiences, emotions, and conceptions of the self and nation) can have significant impact on foreign policy decision making. This effect may be higher under certain circumstances, such as during crises when an individual has to make a decision under stress and time pressure and possibly with limited information.

Research on individual characteristics of leaders benefited significantly from the field of psychology. For instance, in Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Jervis (1976) illustrated the importance of psychological factors in his investigation of the impact of misperceptions in foreign policy. Likewise, Vertzberger’s (1990) The World in Their Minds looked at the impact of information processing on foreign policy decision making. Various other works deriving from psychological approaches all share the assumption that studying political leadership offered a lot to explain foreign policy. The interest in the psychological characteristics of decision makers has expanded to various specific topics; here, operational code and leadership trait analysis are discussed as examples. Other relevant research studies the impact of bounded rationality, motivated and unmotivated bias, cognitive maps, scripts, and schemas on foreign policy making.

Operational code analysis entails the study of the core belief system of an individual leader. In most contemporary examples of operational code analysis, operational code refers to a leader’s beliefs about the political world and also his or her approach to political action. Operational code research goes back to Nathan Leites’s works on the Soviet Politburo and the Bolshevik Revolution. Later, George (1969) further developed the concept as he refined operational code into a belief system composed of five philosophical beliefs and five instrumental beliefs (Holsti, 1970; Walker, 1977). The most significant stride in this research was the introduction of automated content analysis in the late 1990s (for a recent review, see Schafer &Walker, 2006a). Since then, the less time-consuming nature of machine coding attracted more attention to operational code analysis. Among others, for instance, Schafer and Walker (2006b) illustrated that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton had different views of democracies and nondemocracies, and their actions also differed accordingly. They show that democratic leaders hold a cooperative orientation toward other democracies.

Another important approach to how psychological characteristics of political leaders affect their foreign policy choices is the Leadership Trait Analysis (LTA) framework, a research identified with Margaret Hermann. This particular line of inquiry derives from the assumption that leaders have different styles of decision making because leaders interact with their subordinates, close advisers, or other leaders in different manners, and they follow a different set of principles or rules as they interact with others. Hermann’s decades-long research now covers 122 national leaders and 87 heads of state from around the world and suggests a set of different leadership styles. According to Hermann (2003), the most useful traits in assessing leadership style are (a) the belief that one can influence or control what happens, (b) the need for power and influence, (c) conceptual complexity (the ability to differentiate things and people in one’s environment), (d) self-confidence, (e) the tendency to focus on problem solving and accomplishing something versus maintenance of the group and dealing with others’ ideas and sensitivities, (f) general distrust or suspiciousness of others, and (g) the intensity with which a person holds an in-group bias. The LTA has proved to be a fruitful line of research (among many others, Kaarbo & Hermann, 1998). Recently, Dyson (2006) showed the significance of Tony Blair’s personality and leadership style in explaining British foreign policy making during the 2003 Iraq War. Dyson found that Blair had a high belief in his ability to control events, a low conceptual complexity, and a high need for power; Blair’s preferences and behavior as derived from his personality profile corresponded to Blair’s Iraq decisions. Dyson’s work is a good illustration of how individuals matter in foreign policy decision making.

2. Groups

Individual decision makers often interact with other individuals as foreign policy decisions are formulated. These interactions may take place in either small or large groups but always under the unique settings of the group that are created purposefully or inadvertently. Hence, the structure of a group of individuals and the process of decision making therein become a concern for scholars of foreign policy. For instance, Kaarbo (1998) studied the dynamics of coalition cabinet decision making in parliamentary systems (also see Ozkececi-Taner, 2005). As discussed later, this concern mainly derives from the fact that individuals in group settings strive to conform to others— which hampers decision making in a way that reduces alternatives being discussed or leads members of the group to wrongful interpretations of the reality.

The study of decision-making dynamics in small and large groups also benefited from the field of psychology and has continually attracted foreign policy scholars to conduct further research about its effect on foreign policy decision making. The groundbreaking work was Janis’s (1972) Victims of Groupthink. In this book, Janis illustrated that small groups of decision makers were prone to ignore, misinterpret, or even reject new information in order to avoid controversy and lack of cohesion within the group. During the 1990s, further research on this topic explored what happens beyond groupthink (Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 1997), suggesting that there is more to explore than merely assuming that groups act differently and that contextual factors may affect the decision-making processes in groups.

A similar line of inquiry looked at the conflicts between different leaders and groups involved in decision-making processes. Initially introduced by Allison (1969), the bureaucratic politics approach, one of the three conceptual models used to explain the Cuban missile crisis, generated a lot of attention in comparative foreign policy analysis. Indeed, Allison’s work about decision making in the U.S. and Soviet administrations during the crisis most deservedly became “the best known example of bureaucratic politics” (Kaarbo, 1998, p. 69). According to the bureaucratic politics model (BPM), policymakers compete with each other in a game of bargaining within the hierarchy of government. The model suggests that the hierarchical nature of decision making and power sharing promotes differences among players (Allison, 1969). Because every actor has different sets of objectives, actions result from bargaining games among them; as such, the bureaucratic politics model describes them as resultants rather than outputs. That is, the outcomes of bargaining games are often different from what was sought by each actor. Allison illustrates this approach with an analogy of foreign policy behavior with moves in the game of chess where “a number of distinct players, with distinct objectives but shared power over the pieces, were determining the moves as the resultant of collegial bargaining” (p. 691). Although the model faced harsh criticisms and was even discredited (Bendor & Hammond, 1992), one of the reasons for the continued interest in the BPM is the availability of new information about the Cuban missile crisis. As the official records of the Cuban missile crisis have been declassified, scholars of foreign policy have also refined the bureaucratic politics model.

Recent developments too have led to a renewed interest in the bureaucratic politics model. Specifically, policymaking after the September 11, 2001, attacks and in the months leading to and following the 2003 Iraq War during the administration of George W. Bush has attracted a lot of attention. Several studies discussed the competitive and fractionalized nature of decision making within the U.S. administration. It is, however, interesting to note that the BPM gains impetus from decision-making processes at times of serious conflict (Cuban missile crisis) or war (Vietnam and Iraq Wars; Hudson, 2005). In her research on minority influence over foreign policy decisions of coalition governments, Kaarbo (1998) argued for the merits of the perspective (power sharing, competitive decision making) and suggested that the model (its predictions and assumptions) itself might be dropped. Overall, along with these, possibly one last reason for the BPM’s presence in the study of foreign policy has been that it is a simple, plausible, and logical framework (Rhodes, 1994).

3. Society

As factors beyond the individual and group level, national characteristics of a state can have a significant effect on its decision-making processes. The historical, socioeconomic, and political context of a society can all exert influence in foreign policy making. Societal sources of foreign policy range from culture and identity to elite and public opinion.

Now relatively an extinct research at this level of interest, but a lively one during the 1970s (see, e.g., East, 1973), is the effect of national attributes (size, political, and economic system, etc.) on foreign policy (where engaging in a war was often, if not always, the foreign policy event). Presently, the democratic peace research can be considered a remaining example of such an interest in national attributes. In addition, a new generation of event data sets, such as the Kansas Events Data System (KEDS), also belongs to this tradition (Breuning, 2007; Hudson, 2005, 2007). Distinct from the past endeavors, these new data sets do not reject the vital role individual decision-makers’ play in foreign policy decision making (Breuning, 2007).

The study of culture as it relates to foreign policy analysis is a societal level of inquiry as well. Culture, according to Kaarbo et al. (2002), can “set [broad] parameters for foreign policy” (p. 15). For instance, cultural characteristics of a society can influence its decision-making processes: As Kaarbo et al. (2002) discuss, if consensual decision making is the practice in a country, then the making of a decision can take longer. Despite such recognition, research about the influence of culture on foreign policy remains a relatively less studied issue area. A major exception is an edited volume, Culture and Foreign Policy (Hudson, 1997). In a truly comparative framework, this book investigated the influence of culture on foreign policy in diverse settings like Belgium and the Netherlands, China, and India. For instance, Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot (1997) used national role conceptions as a conceptual tool to explain how Belarus and Ukraine developed different approaches to nuclear nonproliferation. Chafetz et al. argued that the possession of nuclear weapons was incompatible with the Belarussian national role conception and hence Belarus immediately signed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Ukraine, on the other hand, desired such possession and because of inconsistent, multiple national role conceptions moved between complying with and defying the NPT. Barnett (1999) also looked at culture as a factor affecting foreign policy. According to Barnett, Israel’s acceptance of the Oslo Accords can be explained by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin’s creation of a political culture that presented withdrawal from the occupied territories as a desirable and legitimate option for Israel.

In contrast to the research about the impact of culture on foreign policy, the study of elite and public opinion in relation to foreign policy is a rich area of research. Questions pertaining to the effect of public opinion on foreign policy have been contested in the foreign policy literature for decades and are but settled; moreover, the answers are significantly changed since the initial studies on this subject. As Holsti (1992) explained, the conventional view of the role of public opinion in the United States (the Lippmann-Almond consensus) was that it was “ill-informed, emotion-driven, shortsighted, and self-absorbed” (p. 514). Although this initial conception of the relationship between public opinion and foreign policy has long been challenged since the 1970s (see Shapiro & Page, 1988), there is not a new consensus yet (Holsti, 2002). We know that this relationship is complicated by the fact that government officials too attempt to shape public opinion (Foyle, 2004). There is more interaction and competition between the government and the public in an effort to shape the former’s policies and the latter’s opinion. Last, the subject definitely demands more attention especially at another time of war. As Holsti (1992) argued, research on the role of public opinion in U.S. foreign policy has been shaped by three 20th-century wars: World Wars I and II and the Vietnam War. It is later argued that in the post–September 11 world, the Iraq War constitutes a special place in understanding public opinion and foreign policy. Once again, another war led to tensions between the policymakers and the publics in various parts of the world.

IV. Policy Implications

To what extent does the scholarly work in the foreign policy analysis subfield affect real world policy? One of the goals of foreign policy analysis scholarship is to produce useful knowledge for the practice of foreign policy making. It is, however, safe to argue that the relationship between the scholarly work and the practice of policymakers has been tumultuous at best. Although academics at times complained about the nature of policies, policymakers often distanced themselves from the abstract world of theories. George (1993) argued that the main distinction between the communities of scholars and policymakers is that each has different professional goals and indeed they cannot easily communicate with each other.

That is not to say, however, that academics and policymakers do not engage with each other at all. To the contrary, every now and then individuals go back and forth between academia and the policy world. For instance, in the United States, some notable examples are Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice; other examples around the world are relatively less known—if there are any at all. According to George (1993), these are indeed the individuals who can contribute to bridging the gap between the scholarly world and the policymaking world.

V. Future Directions

One can argue that although foreign policy analysis as a field of study steadily progressed, it was a half-empty glass with a capability to deliver more. That metaphorical analogy has a legitimate reasoning; indeed, there is a lot more to be explored. For instance, there is not much work yet on integrating different factors influencing foreign policy into a comprehensive framework, or in particular areas of interest such as public opinion, we are relying on some specific contexts—in that example, on the U.S. context. In addition to such gaps in the extant FPA literature, other developments such as the availability of automated research techniques (see below) make new approaches to FPA possible. Here, some of the gaps and new opportunities in FPA research are discussed as possible future avenues of research in FPA.

In preceding sections, contemporary approaches to the scholarly study of foreign policy—other than international relations theories— are discussed by dividing the literature to individual, group, and societal factors in foreign policy. Notably, there is no mention of studies that integrate multiple factors or levels of analysis. Indeed, there is a lack of multilevel (integrative) work in FPA. A major exception to this statement is Putnam (1988), where he argues that decision makers often find themselves in a simultaneous two-level game between their domestic constituents and international pressures. Further research on two-level games, or multilevel research in foreign policy analysis, remains an important but not much developed research agenda.

As discussed earlier, there is often an increased interest in foreign policy decisions and decision-making processes during war times. In the foreign policy analysis literature, bureaucratic politics of decision making and the public’s role in foreign policy often benefit from this interest. Yet the changing circumstances of world politics create new challenges and demand more work in explaining foreign policy decisions during wars. For instance, the processes of decision making in the U.S. administration during the 2003 Iraq War call for a renewed attention to bureaucratic politics of foreign policy. Similarly, the somewhat coordinated nature of protests across the globe during initial months of the Iraq War (likewise during the World Trade Organization meetings) constitutes an interesting topic to investigate. Furthermore, in the extant literature about the role of public opinion on foreign policy, there is a heavy focus on the United States; FPA will definitely benefit from expanding this view and including more comparative cases about the influence of public opinion on foreign policy. Specifically, there is a dearth of literature on the role of public opinion in nondemocracies. As Telhami (1993) showed the conventional wisdom here may not necessarily be true, and FPA definitely needs more research on the role of public opinion on foreign policy in nondemocracies.

Last, as more data become available, quantitative and automated approaches to foreign policy analysis will increase both in quality and quantity. For instance, Kansas Events Data System (KEDS) illustrates a successful research program in this particular type of research. Additionally, renewed interest in automated at-a-distance methods such as ProfilerPlus, which enables computer-based leadership traits and operational code analysis, signals such a direction in FPA (see Schafer & Walker, 2006a).

VI. Conclusion

Foreign policy analysis, a subfield of international relations, has significantly contributed to our understanding of world politics since its inception in 1954 (Snyder et al., 2002). It has provided a rich menu of approaches to explain and understand foreign policy in a generalizable way and beyond system-oriented explanations. Although this research paper draws only a broad picture of this literature, as discussed FPA captures multiple levels of analysis with detailed investigations of the role of individuals, groups, and states or societies. FPA also stands as a successful example of interdisciplinary work, particularly for its collaboration with psychology in explaining the influence of the individual on foreign policy. Today, students, scholars, and policymakers have many diverse tools for explaining foreign policy thanks to those achievements.

Bibliography:

1. Allison, G. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689-718.
2. Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
3. Barnett, M. (1999). Culture, strategy and foreign policy change: Israel’s road to Oslo. European Journal of International Relations, 5(1), 5-36.
4. Bendor, J., & Hammond, T.H. (1992). Rethinking Allison’s models. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 301-322.
5. Breuning, M. (2007). Foreign policy analysis. New York: Palgrave.
6. Chafetz, G., Abramson, H., & Grillot, S. (1997). Culture and national role conceptions: Belarussian and Ukrainian compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In V. M. Hudson (Ed.), Culture and foreign policy (pp. 169-200). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
7. Dyson, S. (2006). Personality and foreign policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq decisions. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2(3), 289-306.
8. East, M. (1973). Size and foreign policy behavior. World Politics, 25(4), 556-576.
9. Foyle, D. (2004). Leading the public to war? The influence of American public opinion on the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(3), 269-294.
10. George, A. (1969). The “operational code”: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190-222.
11. George, A. (1993). Bridging the gap: Theory and practice in foreign policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
12. Hart, P., Stern, E. K., & Sundelius, B. (Eds.). (1997). Beyond groupthink: Political group dynamics foreign policy making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13. Hermann, M. G. (2003).Assessing leadership style: Traits analysis. In J. Post (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders (pp. 178-212). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
14. Hermann, C., Kegley, C. W., & Rosenau, J. N. (Eds.). (1987). New directions in the study of foreign policy. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
15. Hill, C. (2003). The changing politics of foreign policy. New York: Palgrave.
16. 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(1), 123-157.
17. Holsti, O. (1992). Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond Lippmann consensus. International Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 439-466.
18. Holsti, O. (2002). Public opinion and foreign policy analysis: Where we were, are and should strive to be. In M. Brecher & F. Harvey (Eds.), Millennial reflections on international studies (pp. 514 528).Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
19. Houghton, D. P. (2007). Reinvigorating the study of foreign policy decision making: Toward a constructivist approach. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(1), 24-45.
20. Hudson, V. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: Actor specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1-30.
21. Hudson, V. (2007). Foreign policy analysis. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
22. Hudson, V. M. (Ed.). (1997). Culture and foreign policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
23. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
24. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Kaarbo, J. (1998). Power politics in foreign policy: The influence of bureaucratic minorities. European Journal of International Relations, 4(1), 67-97.
26. Kaarbo, J., & Hermann, M. (1998). Leadership styles of prime ministers: How individual differences affect the foreign policymaking process. Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 131-152.
27. Kaarbo, J., Lantis, J. S., & Beasley, R. K. (2002). The analysis of contemporary comparative foreign policies. In R. K. Beasley, J. Kaarbo, J. S. Lantis, & M. T. Snarr (Eds.), Contemporary comparative foreign policy (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
28. Neack, L., Hey, J. A. K., & Haney, P. J. (Eds.). (1995). Foreign policy analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Ozkececi Taner, B. (2005). The impact of institutionalized ideas in coalition foreign policy making: Turkey as an example, 1991 2002. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(3), 249-278.
30. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460.
31. Rhodes, E. (1994). Do bureaucratic politics matter?: Some disconfirming findings from the case of the U.S. Navy. World Politics, 47(1), 1-41.
32. Rittberger V. (Ed.). (2001). German foreign policy since unification. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
33. Rosenau, J. N. (1966). Pre theories and theories of foreign policy. In R. B. Farrell (Ed.), Approaches to comparative and international politics (pp. 115-169). Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
34. Schafer M., & Walker, S. G. (Eds.). (2006a). Beliefs and leader ship in world politics: Methods and applications of operational code analysis. New York: Palgrave.
35. Schafer, M., & Walker, S. G. (2006b). Democratic leaders and the democratic peace: The operational codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 561-583.
36. Shapiro, R., & Page, B. (1988). Foreign policy and the rational public. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(2), 175-190.
37. Smith, S. (1987). Foreign policy analysis and international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 345-348.
38. Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., & Sapin, B. (2002). Foreign policy decision making revisited. New York: Palgrave.
39. Sprout, H., & Sprout, M. (1965). The ecological perspective on human affairs with special reference to international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. Sterling Folker, J. (Ed.). (2006). Making sense of international relations theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
41. Telhami, S. (1993). Arab public opinion and the Gulf war. Political Science Quarterly, 108(3), 437-452.
42. Vertzberger, Y. (1990). The world in their minds. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43. Vertzberger, Y. (2002). Foreign policy analysis: Steady progress and a half empty glass. In M. Brecher & F. P. Harvey (Eds.), Millennial reflections on international studies (pp. 479-501). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44. Walker, S. G. (1977). The interface between beliefs and behavior: Henry Kissinger’s operational code and the Vietnam War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(1), 129-168.
45. Wivel, A. (2005). Explaining why state X made a certain move last Tuesday: The promise and limitations of realist foreign policy analysis. Journal of International Relations and Development, 8(4), 335-380.