The concept of rationality and its application within foreign policy decision-making is one of the most influential approaches to understanding the international political scene in the modern era. Rational choice theorists have looked to use well-established methodology to enhance, assess and process the outcome of foreign policy decision making. Nonetheless, the use of rationalist approaches in foreign policy has contributed to significant discussion and criticism. The assumption of rational choice theory in the political system and hence, foreign policy, is that politicians and policy decision makers behave in a ‘rational’ manner. However, rational in this situation does not mean that individuals always calculate the costs and benefits of …show more content…
Herbert Simon whom was discussed earlier and numerous other scholars have argued that the ‘world of the decision maker as oriented towards suboptimal compromise and behavioural inconsistency’ (Dumbrell, J. & Barrett D, M. 1997). Harold and Margaret Sprout’s work in the 1950s explored how decision makers make decisions on the basis of their psychological environment, ‘their interpretation of the world…plays a key role in formulating foreign policy’ (MacDonald, D, B. 2009). Harold and Margaret Sprout rightly reasoned that difference between the ‘psychological environment’ and the ‘operational environment’ of decision-makers could and would introduce significant distortions to foreign policy making with ensuing implications at some point. According to these critics of rationality, foreign policy decision makers at most act within the framework of information available to them and make decision on that limited basis (Alden, 2011). Professor Yuen Foong Khong (Khong, 1997) provides the example of Harry S. Truman confronting North Korea in 1950 and that if he [Truman] felt an invasion of the South by the North “would have the same consequences as Japans’ invasion of Manchuria” he would be acting on a bounded rational model. In conclusion, Alden (2011) notes that ‘critics of rationality believe that attempts at rational foreign policy decision making are misguided and even potentially dangerous for
What were the major impacts on American foreign policy during the H.W. Bush & Clinton Administrations? How did Bush & Clinton define the post-Cold War world for the United States?
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
The lesson to be learned from all this: the deciding factor in diplomacy should be more based on what one thinks will happen as opposed to could happen. While a little idealistic, MacArthur certainly knew what he was talking about when it came to warfare, and America would have won the Cold War sooner if MacArthur?s mindset were accepted.
Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff be...
The author I am going to talk about is Stone. Stone uses the approach Rational Decision Making. Rationality means choosing the best means to obtain a goal. Stone stated in her article how the rational decision model portrays a policy problem as a choice factoring a political actor (pg. 249). Under the rational decision making, there are four steps the actor goes
As humans, would like to think we are rational in our decisions, especially for major decisions that will affect our lives or the lives of others in the long run. Nonetheless all decisions form from the foundations of our attitudes where they can stem from internal or external factors.
To understand the power struggle relating to foreign policymaking, it is crucial to understand what foreign policy entails. The Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State declares the goals of foreign policy as "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." While this definition is quite vague, the actual tools of foreign policy include Diplomacy, foreign aid, and military force.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Rational choice theory, developed by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish in 1985, is a revival of Cesare Becca...
Issues of ideology and power are remained deeply embedded when dealing with democracy. In International Relations, cultural relativists determine whether an action is right or wrong by evaluating it according to the ethical standards of the society within which the action occurs. . This is particularly so where culture is linked to particular state or regional interests. Relativism has become a complimentary to constructivism since these two concepts are philosophically related. Constructivism and cultural relativism are products of man’s mind. According to both, there are no absolute truths that can really answer the central questions in this thesis since the case itself is about culture, values, and ideology. Furthermore,
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Rational choice theories not only seek to explain the decisions that some people make, but also to help us to better understand decisions that others don’t make. We therefore have an examination of deterrence theories. Traditionally...
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...
... In conclusion, Realism is able to explain the outcomes, actual and hypothetical, of NK policies, since its common assumption matches the centrality of the nuclear issue to the agenda of the country. In addition to that, Neoclassical Realism also provides a valuable explanation for some of the nation's more relevant foreign policy patterns of behavior. Works Cited Kim, Yongho and Yi, Yurim “Security Dilemmas and Signaling during the North Korean Nuclear Standoff”, Asian Perspective, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp.
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.