Bringing ‘Comparative’ Back to Foreign Policy

Review Essay

Bringing ‘Comparative’ Back to Foreign Policy

Analysis

Marijke BreuningDivision of Social Science, Truman State University, Kirksville, MO 63501, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

The Foreign Policies of the Global South

J.A. Braveboy-Wagner (ed.)

Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 2003. 221 pp.

$ 49.95 hardcover

Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making

A. Mintz (ed.)

Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2003. 175 pp.

$ 45.00 hardcover

Good Judgment in Foreign Policy: Theory and Application

S.A. Renshon and D.W. Larson (eds.)

Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2003. 352 pp.

$ 65.00 hardcover, $ 28.95 softcover

International Politics (2004) 41, 618–628. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800062

Introduction

Foreign policy analysis is an eclectic field of study. As has been detailedelsewhere (Hudson, 1995; Gerner, 1995), the field has both yielded distincttheoretical ‘threads’ of scholarship as well as evolved distinct substantiveresearch foci over time. The early study of foreign policy included not onlyefforts such as the events data sets of comparative foreign policy, but alsotheorizing about — and the empirical analysis of — the foreign policy decision-making process and the foreign policy context. Each of these theoretical andsubstantive efforts continues in contemporary foreign policy research,although the emphasis has largely shifted away from events data towardsvarious forms of case study research. In addition, the field has gravitatedtowards efforts at theory-building that are more self-consciously ‘mid-range’,conditional, and bounded (Gerner, 1995, 11; Hermann, 1995, 252). This is farfrom problematic. Rather, it demonstrates that the seminal early works havebecome a paradigmatic umbrella — a core set of assumptions, expressed ina basic organizing framework, which unifies a diverse set of efforts. Their

International Politics, 2004, 41, (618–628)r 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1384-5748/04 $30.00

www.palgrave-journals.com/ip

continued relevance is well stated by Valerie Hudson (2002) in the openingchapter to Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited). She holds that there-issue of this classic is ‘precisely what is needed now in IR theory’ (Hudson,2002, 3).Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Snyder et al., 1962; see also Snyder et al.,

2002) was innovative in placing the individual decision maker at the heart ofthe theoretical framework, while also recognizing that the individual operateswithin a context.1 Today, actor-centered approaches are varied and many.Researchers have each claimed their slice of the larger framework. The booksunder discussion in this essay are no exception. Jacqueline Anne Braveboy-Wagner’s volume The Foreign Policies of the Global South positions itsarguments primarily at the state level of analysis. Although she recognizes that‘the global south is too diverse for one explanation to be offered for thesenations’ behavior’ (p. 187). Yet, she also argues that the Global South is‘sufficiently differentiated from the North as to merit greater study’ (p. 183).The other two volumes focus on the individual level of analysis, albeit in verydifferent ways: whereas Good Judgment in Foreign Policy, edited by StanleyRenshon and Deborah Larson, seeks to develop a theory about goodjudgment, Alex Mintz’ Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of ForeignPolicy Decision Making endeavors to demonstrate the complementarity ofcognitive, or psychological, and rational approaches. Although the decision-making process plays an important role in the arguments presented in bothvolumes, the theory presented in the latter book is purely about the process,whereas ‘intuition’ and ‘instinct’ compete with process in the former (Larson inGood Judgment, 7, 10).

Taken together, the books discussed in this essay provide a small window onthe heterogeneity of research foci that are captured under the large foreignpolicy analysis umbrella. They also point to the interconnections andcomplementarity of these diverse efforts. These volumes are indicative notonly of the accomplishments of foreign policy analysis as a field, but also pointto neglected areas that demand our attention.

Linking Cognition and Reason

In Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy DecisionMaking, Alex Mintz and colleagues present case studies, an overview ofexperimental studies, and comparisons with alternative models of decisionmaking. The book is the product of an ongoing research project headed byMintz, which revolves around his poliheuristic theory.2 This theory posits that‘leaders simplify their choice problems according to a two-stage decisionprocess’ (pp. 1–2). This permits the merging of cognitive and rational elements:

Marijke BreuningBringing ‘Comparative’ Back to Foreign Policy Analysis

619

International Politics 2004 41

the initial stage approximates the former and the second stage the latter.Importantly, Mintz argues that the initial phase in the decision process ischaracterized by the noncompensatory principle. By this he means that‘if a certain alternative [course of action] is unacceptable on a key dimension... the alternative is eliminated’ (p. 3). Hence, Mintz demonstrates thatnormative suppositions that ‘people should be willing to trade a high valueon one attribute for a low one on another’ (Larson, 17, in Renshon andLarson), are not accurate during the first of the two-stage process. Byseparating the decision-making process into two phases, Mintz theorizes thatthe selection of alternatives is subject to different decision rules than thesubsequent analysis of those alternatives. The set of alternatives that isestablished on the basis of this noncompensatory process is, during the secondphase of the decision process, subjected to a process that more closelyresembles rational analysis.

This model is tested in the four case study chapters, two of which investigateUS foreign policy: Karl DeRouen discusses Eisenhower’s decision not to useforce at Dien Bien Phu in a well-done traditional case study. Michelle Taylor-Robinson and Steven Redd revisit the 1954 US-led coup in Guatemala. Theirstudy presents an interesting take on a well-known case as it traces theconditions under which a third party — in this case the United Fruit Company— can have influence on foreign policy making. The remaining two case studiesfocus on Syria and Pakistan, respectively. Allison Astorino-Courtois andBrittani Trusty investigate the effect of Israeli policy shifts on Syrian peacedecisions in a sophisticated analysis which employs the systematic coding oftextual materials. Kanishkan Sathasivam details Pakistan’s decision to test anuclear weapon is less explicitly tied to the framework than the other casestudies.

Redd’s analysis of a series of experimental studies lends further empiricalsupport to the poliheuristic theory. Interestingly, he finds that both processesand outcomes are influenced by how, and in what manner, leaders obtaininformation from advisors. Redd’s findings thus point to the importanceof understanding the advisory system. In doing so, his chapter demonstratesthe interconnectedness of various threads of the foreign policy analysistapestry: whereas the poliheuristic theory focuses on the dynamics ofgenerating options and making decisions, others have sought to understandmore fully the advisory process (e.g. Hoyt, 1997; ’t Hart et al, 1997;Garrison, 1999; Preston and ’t Hart, 1999). Redd’s conclusions remind usthat the various efforts, each presenting and testing theories of small slices ofthe foreign policy decision-making process, are all part of that overarchingparadigm.

The boldest feature of the volume is the inclusion of two chapters thatcompare the poliheuristic theory to models of rational choice and cybernetic


620


decision making. Of these, Vesna Danilovic’s chapter is especially noteworthy.She observes that Mintz’ theory successfully links disparate analytical conceptsand fruitfully employs a wide range of techniques to enhance the validity ofempirical analyses which test the theory. Yet, she also cautions that the two-stage model requires a more precise specification of the point at which decisionmakers switch from the first, cognitive, to the second, rational, stage and,additionally, suggests incorporating interdependent choice into the secondstage. Both are valid points. Both will also present substantial challenges.

The inclusion of these critical assessments demonstrates both Mintz’ faith inhis model and his preparedness to engage in an intellectual exchange withcolleagues in the field. This makes it unfortunate that the book is less accessibleto those who lack familiarity with the work that preceded the current volume(e.g. Mintz, 1993, 1997; Mintz and Geva, 1997). Mintz’ opening chaptersummarizes the theory in less than 10 pages. A somewhat more detailedintroduction and review of the central principles and propositions of the theorywould have made the book accessible to a wider range of readers. This mighthave served to more easily facilitate the intellectual discussion which Mintz soclearly invites. The poliheuristic theory deserves to be debated: efforts to buildbridges between cognitive and rational approaches are rare and yet could domuch to enhance our understanding of foreign policy decision making.

Good Judgment: Intuition or Reason?

Research on foreign policy decision making is motivated not only by scholarlycuriosity, but also by a desire to provide useable knowledge — knowledge thatcan improve the odds of good decision making. Unfortunately, defining thisconcept has proved quite problematic (see, e.g., Tetlock, 1992). The Renshonand Larson volume underscores the difficulties involved in the study of gooddecision making.

Although the book’s subtitle claims that the volume includes both theoryand application, the book’s preface specifies that the book is about theorybuilding. Indeed, the case studies are less tests of a model than they are vehiclesfor developing a theory of good judgment. The editors as well as thecontributors to this volume struggle especially with the problem that goodjudgment is often assumed when a favorable outcome has materialized. Thecontributors to this volume view this as problematic. For instance, RichardHaass rightly notes there is ‘an element of tautology in equating goodjudgment and successful outcomes’ (p. 249). Larson echoes this concern in herconcluding chapter, writing that ‘we should not evaluate the quality of pastjudgment by their outcomes’ (p. 311).

It comes as no surprise, then, that Renshon stakes out a position in favor ofa process definition of good judgment, noting that good judgment (defined as a


621


good decision making process) will not guarantee a good outcome. Never-theless, he argues that good judgment ‘improves the chances of good outcomes,just as bad judgment improves the possibilities of poor outcomes’ (p. 46). Inkeeping with a focus on process, Renshon defines good judgment in termsof ‘the quality of analysis, reflection, and ultimately insight that informsthe making of consequential decisions’ (p. 26). This is mirrored in thecontributions of Stephen Wayne and Alexander George. Wayne proposes thata good judgment is ‘one in which realism, reflection, and rationality dominatethe decisional process’ (p. 105). Although George stops short of using the term‘good judgment’, he argues that decision making ‘is effective when thepolicymaker deals reasonably well with trade-offs between quality, support,and time and other resources’ (p. 266). Bruce Jentleson and Andrew Bennettfurthermore remind us that foreign policy decision making is, in its essence,judgment under uncertainty (p. 220).

Larson reiterates this in her concluding chapter, adding that outcomesalways depend on the actions of other states (p. 310). For her, this entails thatwe refrain from evaluating good judgment on the basis of outcome and that weinstead ‘consider the range of possibilities and considerations as they appearedto the decision makers at the time’ (p. 310). Interestingly, historian BarbaraTuchman (1984) used a similar criterion in her book The March of Folly. It isalso the perspective that is at the heart of the foreign policy decision-makingparadigm (e.g., Snyder et al., 2002, 71).

Although it seems wise to move away from a focus on outcomes in evaluatinggood judgment, the book demonstrates that defining the elements of a gooddecision-making process is not straightforward. Several of the authors arguethat one element is the ability of leaders to transcend narrow perspectives.David Welch, in a well-crafted case study of Argentina’s invasion of theFalklands/Malvinas, concludes that ‘we do have before us historical examplesof leaders who made serious efforts to put themselves in other people’s shoes,who strove to see the world from different perspectives, and who asked hardquestions about the accuracy and wisdom of their own beliefs and judgments’(p. 208). Renshon agrees that while it may be impossible for leaders to predictoutcomes, it is reasonable to expect from them the ‘capacity to understand andanticipate a range of possible or likely ones’ (p. 47, italics in original). With thatexpectation, Renshon places his work within one of three perspectives on goodjudgment identified by Tetlock (1992). However, it is unclear whether all of thevolume’s contributors subscribe to the same notion of good judgment, becausethe book’s arguments do not reference Tetlock’s typology (even if they do citehis work).

Larson’s closing chapter undermines the process definition of goodjudgment when she argues that ‘exercising good political judgment does notrequire a well-structured, organized policymaking system or even good advice’


622


(p. 313). She goes on to elaborate that ‘good political judgment depends on thepersonal qualities, experience, and interests of leaders in particular subjectareas’ (p. 313). In her opening chapter, she stresses that decision makersfrequently do not ‘analyze a problem extensively but instead use their ‘gutinstincts’’ (p. 10). It is no surprise, then, that she holds that good judgment is‘not necessarily associated with academic knowledge or theoretical expertise’,but instead ‘resides in the experience and intuition of the decision maker’ (p. 7).In her case study chapter, Larson goes on to argue that Truman ‘reacheddecisions through intuitive rather than analytical methods’ when making thedecision that the US would stay in Berlin in defiance of the Soviet blockade in1948–49 (p. 144). This begs the question as to what informed Truman’sintuition: he had a lifelong habit of reading history and had held a number ofpolitical offices prior to ascending to the presidency. Truman may not havebeen able to verbalize the reasoning behind his decisions, but attributing themto ‘intuition’ places them beyond the grasp of systematic empirical analysis andrenders good judgment highly idiosyncratic. I doubt that this is what Larsonintended.

The Global South as a Decision Context

The emphasis of Braveboy-Wagner’s edited volume The Foreign Policies of theGlobal South is less on the decision process than on the decision-makingcontext. She rightly notes that scholarly focus today is less on the foreignpolicies of the states of the global south and more on issues of terrorism, trade,and development. The book is an effort to rectify this, proceeding from thethesis that much can be learnt from the study of third-world foreign policybecause it brings greater comparative perspective to foreign policy researchand, by doing so, helps determine the boundaries of generalizability of variouspropositions.

In their assessment of the current state of foreign policy research, Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr note that ‘one is struck by how little work has been done onthe global south states’ (p. 19). As a partial explanation, they offer thatresearch on the foreign policy decision-making process depends on data thatare often not available or difficult to obtain. In addition, however, foreignpolicy analysis has thus far failed to attract scholars with the language skillsand area expertise to surmount these difficulties. Howard Lentner commentsprecisely on this issue in his chapter: ‘The serious student of foreign policy mustbecome expert in specific countries, gaining an acquaintance with the culture,politics, and economics of the states whose foreign policy he or she wishes toexplain’ (p. 174).

Further, there has been a substantial emphasis on crisis decision making inthe north, while researchers in the south have focused more often on critical


623


(and system level) perspectives — such as imperialism, dependency, and worldsystems theories (Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr, 13, 17). To remedy thissituation, Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr advocate the adoption of a ‘politicaleconomic view of foreign policy’ in order to have a ‘more complete under-standing of why decisions and policies are enacted’ (p. 21, italics in original).As the title of the book suggests, their concern is primarily with the study of theforeign policies of developing countries, which makes it all the more intriguingthat these recommendations are mirrorred by Mintz, whose IntegratingCognitive and Rational Theories is focused on the decision-making process.He calls the study of international political economic decision making a‘neglected yet promising area of research’ (p. 161). In other words, he states ingeneral terms what Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr conclude regarding the studyof the foreign policies of a specific subset of states, namely the third world.

The Foreign Policies of the Global South includes two interesting chapters bySiba Grovogui and Randolph Persaud, which are interpretive and postmodernin their approach to their subject matter. Grovogui argues that the experienceof colonialism and the emergence as independent states has left post-colonialsocieties with a specific legacy that affects their foreign policies. Perhaps so, butthis is a proposition that must be left to empirical work to support or disprove.Persaud, too, presents arguments that could be tested systematically: hecontends that in the third world, the discourse of ‘otherness’ is framed in termsof the larger forces of history or abstract moral values rather than in terms ofspecific enemies. The value of these chapters is to encourage students of foreignpolicy to step out from under their paradigmatic umbrella to find that thecontext of foreign policy decision-making matters and, specifically, that cultureand history matter. This is not new in itself, but the manner in which theseauthors suggest these variables matter is: the experience of colonialism hasbeen largely examined through the paradigm of dependency, not from theperspective of its historical legacy for foreign policy making. The specificframing of ‘otherness’ which Persaud posits also differs from more traditionaltreatments of this concept in the study of identity politics. Both ideas deservefurther investigation.

Chapters by Mohammad-Mahmoud Mohamedou, Paul Adogamhe, AndresSerbin, and Rita Giacalone each focus on a region of the global south: theArab world, Africa, and Latin America. The last continent is represented bytwo chapters, whereas coverage of (south) Asia is missing. Lastly, Braveboy-Wagner addresses small states in a chapter that dovetails well with a recentbook on small state foreign policy (Hey, 2003). She notes that ‘asinterdependence has increased, almost all nation-states have become permeatedstates, though small states are especially unable to keep out external influences’(p. 156). Small states, in other words, are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, itis wise to approach their foreign policies as ‘intended to secure the resources


624


needed to overcome or reduce various key vulnerabilities resulting from size’(p. 160). Although I agree that vulnerability, in its material, relational, andcognitive senses (Braveboy-Wagner, 157) is a core concept, I am not entirelyconvinced that it is the province of small states alone. Consider, for instance,the resource vulnerability of Japan (Sylvan et al, 1990). In the final analysis,vulnerability matters more than size — although it is important to acknowl-edge that small states are more prone to experience such vulnerability.

In the final analysis, the value of The Foreign Policies of the Global South liesnot solely in its explicit subject matter. Rather, the foreign policies of third-world states become an argument for greater attention to historical andcultural variables, specifically in the postcolonial context, and to economicforeign policy making. That the latter is also a recommended direction forfuture research in the concluding chapter to Mintz’ volume only underscoresthat the time may well be ripe for a widening of the foreign policy researchagenda — which has been largely dominated by crisis and US foreign policydecision making.

Arranging a Hundred Flowers

The eclecticism of contemporary foreign policy analysis research has beennoted by others. Hudson references the former Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung’shundred flowers campaign in her 1995 essay on the past, present, and future ofthe field (Hudson, 1995, 222). Hermann (1998) makes a broader observationabout the eclectic nature of international studies as a whole and urges the fieldto engage in dialogue. For her, the issue is how to achieve coherence as a fieldof study, while simultaneously maintaining ‘appropriate recognition’ for adiversity of approaches (Hermann, 1998, 617). Within the subfield of foreignpolicy analysis there has been some recognition of the interconnectionsbetween various research foci, although there has also been ample stereotypingof the approaches of others — such as the ‘straw man’ rendition of rationalchoice models by those who advocate more actor-centered approaches or therejection of case study research by those who advocate the use of statisticalanalysis of larger data sets.

The books under consideration in this essay do not escape such attitudesaltogether, but they do provide hopeful signs of a greater preparedness tounderstand the merits of various theoretical propositions and methodologicalapproaches. The volume edited by Mintz stands out not only as an attempt tobuild a theoretical bridge between rational and cognitive theories, but also inthe heterogenous effort to test the resulting poliheuristic theory: the bookincludes case studies as well as data from experimental studies. Although theRenshon and Larson volume positions itself clearly in within the political


625


psychological approach, Renshon’s argument that ‘framing decisions’ arecrucial to decision maker’s understanding of the problem creates an openingfor connection between the work on good judgment and Mintz’ poliheuristictheory (Renshon, 26–27).

The contribution of the volume edited by Braveboy-Wagner lies primarily inthe reminder that the generalizability of theories built and tested largely ondata from American foreign policy will remain in doubt. In his contribution tothe latter book, Adogamhe points out that the ‘foreign policy processes ofdeveloping countries are as complex as those of developed countries eventhough they differ in content and processes’ (p. 79). At the heart of the neglectof especially third-world foreign policy making (but also small state foreignpolicy making and, to a degree, non-US foreign policy making more generally)is perhaps an implicit judgment about the sort of foreign policy content that’smost worthy of attention. As Astorino-Courtois and Trusty note in theirchapter in the Mintz volume: ‘foreign policy decision making in the absence ofcrisis-related factors has gone largely unexplored’ (p. 29, italics in original).Both Mintz and Braveboy-Wagner (as well as several of their volumes’contributors) point to the need to bridge the gap between the study ofinternational political economy and foreign policy decision making.

In sum, then, the three books collectively suggest future directions for thefield of foreign policy analysis:

(1) The field would do well to turn its attention to a broader array of subjectsthan the predominant narrow focus on crisis decision making. Particularmention is made of the inclusion of foreign economic policy making, which isespecially relevant in a world in which states are ever more interconnected asglobalization progresses. Foreign economic policy making is particularly wellsuited to analyze relationships that are characterized by inequality. Moreover,the Grovogui and Persaud contributions in Braveboy-Wagner’s volumeprovide a reminder that such relationships must be understood in the contextof their historical development across time.

(2) Foreign policy analysis would benefit from a more conscious effort atunderstanding the interconnections between the various threads of research. Attimes, researchers act like the blind men and the elephant, presuming they eachknow what the elephant looks like after having touched just a small part of thewhole. Even if there is a recognition that there is a larger whole, the fieldcollectively has not moved very far in the direction of weaving the specificresearch threads into a coherent theoretical tapestry.

(3) Related to the previous point, foreign policy analysis (like the field ofinternational relations as a whole) would benefit if researchers employingvarious research strategies — case studies, statistical methods, mathematicalmodels, experimental studies — would develop a greater positive appreciationfor the ways in which their strategies complement one another.


626


(4) Foreign policy analysts must be encouraged to acquire the language andarea expertise that would facilitate the examination of a broader array of cases.Such empirical investigation would permit greater insight into the usefulness ofour theoretical propositions.

The comparative study of foreign policy found an untimely death when theevents data sets did not yield the hoped-for results. Perhaps it is time for thedevelopment of a ‘new’ comparative foreign policy. This would entail a greateremphasis on cross-national comparisons, placing area expertise in the serviceof theoretically informed investigation. Methodologically, it would entail afocus on theory-testing using small-N studies as well as larger-scalecomparisons. Substantively, the focus would not only be on cross-nationalinvestigation, but also on a larger array of subjects to facilitate comparisonsacross issue areas. Such a ‘new’ comparative foreign policy would serve tofulfill the vision of Snyder et al. (2002, 1962) and others of the first generationof foreign policy research. Its most significant value, however, would be toenhance our understanding of the degree to which our theoretical propositionsare conditional and bounded, or more generally applicable. By building thetheoretical ‘blocks’ of foreign policy decision making from the specific to thegeneral, perhaps the subfield of foreign policy analysis can help the study ofinternational relations move beyond the endless arguments between realism,liberalism, and other grand theories.

Notes

1 Other seminal early works include Rosenau (1966), Sprout and Sprout (1956, 1957, 1965), and

Brecher (1972).

2 See http://www.yale.edu/unsy/phresearch.htm for more information on the project.

References

Brecher, M. (1972) The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Settings, Images, Process, New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.

Garrison, J.A. (1999) Games Advisors Play, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Gerner, D.J. (1995) ‘The Evolution of the Study of Foreign Policy’, in L. Neack, J.A.K. Hey and

P.J. Haney (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hermann, C.F. (1995) ‘Epilogue: Reflections on Foreign Policy Theory Building’, in L. Neack,

J.A.K. Hey and P.J. Haney (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second

Generation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hermann, M.G. (1998) ‘One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for Dialogue’,

International Studies Quarterly 42(4): 605–624.

Hey, J.A.K. (ed.) (2003) Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior,

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Hoyt, P. (1997) ‘The Political Manipulation of Group Composition: Engineering the Decision

Context’, Political Psychology 18: 771–790.


627


Hudson, V.M. (1995) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’, Mershon

International Studies Review 39: 209–238.

Hudson, V.M. (2002) ‘Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Touchstone for International Relations

Theory in the Twenty-First Century’, in R.C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and B. Sapin (eds.) Foreign

Policy Decision-Making (Revisited), New York: Palgrave.

Mintz, A. (1993) ‘The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Non-compensatory Theory of Decision Making’,

Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(4): 595–618.

Mintz, A. (1997) ‘Foreign Policy Decision Making: Bridging the Gap Between the Cognitive

Psychology and Rational Actors Schools’, in N. Geva and A. Mintz (eds.) Decision Making on

War and Peace: The Cognitive Rational Debate, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Mintz, A. and Geva, N. (1997) ‘The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making’, in

N. Geva and A. Mintz (eds.) Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive Rational

Debate, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Preston, T. and ’t Hart, P. (1999) ‘Understanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics: the Nexus

Between Political Leaders and Advisory Systems’, Political Psychology 20(1): 49–98.

Rosenau, J.M. (1966) ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’, in R.B. Farrell (ed.)

Approaches in Comparative and International Politics, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Snyder, R.C., Bruck, H.W. and Sapin, B. (eds.) (1962) Foreign Policy Decision-Making, Glencoe,

IL: The Free Press.

Snyder, R.C., Bruck, H.W. and Sapin, B. (eds.) (2002) Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited),

Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1956)Man-Mileu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International

Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1957) ‘Environment Factors in the Study of International Politics’,

Journal of Conflict Resolution 1: 309–328.

Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1965) The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs with Special

Reference to International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sylvan, D.A., Goel, A. and Chandrasekaran, B. (1990) ‘Analyzing Political Decision Making

from an Information-processing Perspective: JESSE’, American Journal of Political Science 34(1):

74 –123.

Tetlock, P.E. (1992) ‘Good Judgment in International Politics: Three Psychological Perspectives’,

Political Psychology 13(3): 517–539.

’t Hart, P., Stern, E.K. and Sundelius, B. (1997) Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and

Foreign Policy-Making, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Tuchman, B. (1984) The March of Folly, New York: Knopf.

About the Author

Marijke Breuning (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Associate Professor ofPolitical Science at Truman State University. She has research interests incomparative foreign policy, with a special emphasis on development coopera-tion, ethnic politics, and regional integration. Her work has appeared inInternational Studies Quarterly, Comparative Political Studies, InternationalPolitics, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Political Communication, Acta Politica,and other journals. With John T. Ishiyama, she authored Ethnopolitics in theNew Europe, published by Lynne Rienner in 1998.


628


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Bringing ‘Comparative’ Back to Foreign Policy

Documents

Transcript of Bringing ‘Comparative’ Back to Foreign Policy