Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:30:17.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rosenau's adaptive behaviour approach – a critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Steve Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the widespread usage of systems analysis in political science over the last twenty years it is axiomatic that the problem of adaptation has been a recurring theme in the literature. At the level of the individual political system this concern has been germane to the work of Easton, the structural functionalists and the developmental/modernization writers. In International Politics writing, the problem of adaptation is central to both the applications of systems theory, at whatever level of analysis (for example Kaplan, Rosecrance at the systemic level, and Hanrieder and Modelski at the state level) and the less overtly theoretical works which still emphasize the importance of a state adapting to its environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 107 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Easton, D., The Political System (2nd Edition, New York, 1971)Google Scholar; A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, 1965)Google Scholar; Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

2. For an original statement of this perspective see Almond, G. and Coleman, J., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, 1960), pp. 3–64Google Scholar. Almond, G. and Powell, G. B., Comparative Politics (2nd Edition, Boston, 1978).Google Scholar

3. See, for example, Apter, D., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago, 1965).Google Scholar

4. Kaplan, M., System and Process in International Politics (New York, 1957).Google Scholar

5. Rosecrance, R., Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, 1963).Google Scholar

6. Hanrieder, W., ‘Compatibility and Consensus. A Proposal for the Conceptual Linkage of External and Internal Dimensions of Foreign Policy’, American Political Science Review, lxi (1967), pp. 971–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Modelski, G., Theory of Foreign Policy (London, 1962).Google Scholar

8. For two recent books on British foreign policy which exhibit this concern see: Northedge, F. S., Descent from Power (London, 1974)Google Scholar; Frankel, J., British Foreign Policy 1945–73 (London, 1975).Google Scholar

9. S. M. Smith, Foreign Policy Adaptation: Aspects of British and Dutch Foreign Policies 1945–63. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, 1978. A shortened version of this is to be published by Gower Publishing in 1981.

10. Rosenau, J. N., ‘Restlessness, Change, and Foreign Policy Analysis’, In Search of Global Patterns, Rosenau, J. N. (ed.), (New York, 1976), p. 369.Google Scholar

11. The Inter-University Comparative Foreign Policy Project (ICFP).

12. See especially Rosenau, J. N., ‘Puzzlement in Foreign Policy’, Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, i (1976), pp. 1—10Google Scholar. Parts of that paper were included in his address to the 1975 BISA conference.

13. J. N. Rosenau, ‘Restlessness, Change, and Foreign Policy Analysis’, op. cit. p. 369.

14. Barber, J., ‘British Foreign Policy: A Review of Some Recent Literature’, British Journal of International Studies, i (1975), pp. 272–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, B., ‘The Study of British Foreign Policy: Some Comments on Professor Barber's Review Article’, Ibid. iii (1977), pp. 340–348Google Scholar; B. White, ‘The Study of British Foreign Policy’, unpublished paper presented to BISA annual conference, Durham, 1977; Barber, J., ‘The Study of British Foreign Policy: A Reply to Brian White’, British Journal of International Studies, iv (1978), pp. 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Allison, G., ‘Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis’, American Political Science Review, Ixiii (1969), pp. 689–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Essence of Decision (Boston, 1971).

16. Rosenau, J. N., ‘Foreign Policy as Adaptive Behaviour’, Comparative Politics, ii (1970), pp. 365–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his critique of Hanrieder — ‘Compatibility and Consensus and the Emerging Political Science of Adaptation’, American Political Science Review, lxi (1967), pp. 983–988.

17. In addition to the two sources noted in footnote 16 see Rosenau, J. N., The Adaptation of National Societies, (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Rosenau, J. N., ‘Adaptive Politics for Research and Practice in Foreign Policy’, International Studies: Present Status and Future Prospects, Riggs, F. W. (ed.) (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 218–244Google Scholar; Rosenau, J. N., ‘Adaptive Politics in an Interdependent World’, Orbis, xvi (1972), pp. 153–173Google Scholar; Rosenau, J. N., Burgess, P., and Hermann, C., ‘The Adaptation of Foreign Policy Research’, International Studies Quarterly, xvii (1973), pp. 119–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenau, J. N., ‘Foreign Intervention as Adaptive Behaviour’, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, Moore, J. N. (ed.) (Chicago, 1974), pp. 129–151.Google Scholar

18. J. N. Rosenau, ‘Foreign Policy as Adaptive Behaviour’, op. cit. p. 365.

19. Ibid. p. 366.

20. Ibid.

21. J. N. Rosenau, The Adaptation of National Societies, op. cit. p. 21.

22. McGowan, P., ‘Problems in the Construction of Positive Foreign Policy Theory’, Comparing Foreign Policies, Rosenau, J. N. (ed.) (New York, 1974), pp. 25–43.Google Scholar

23. Ibid. pp. 31–32.

24. Ibid. p. 33.

25. Rosenau, J. N., ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’, Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, Farrell, R. B. (ed.) (Evanston, 1966), pp. 27–92.Google Scholar

26. J. N. Rosenau, The Adaptation of National Societies, op. cit. p. 16.

27. Ibid. p. 20.

28. McGowan, P. J., ‘Adaptive Foreign Policy Behaviour: An Empirical Approach’, Comparing Foreign Policies, Rosenau, J. N. (ed.) op. cit. pp. 45–54.Google Scholar

29. M. K. O'Leary, ‘Foreign Policy and Bureaucratic Adaptation’, Ibid. pp. 55–70.

30. Thorson, S., ‘National Political Adaptation’, Ibid. pp. 71—114.Google Scholar

31. Hansen, P., ‘Adaptive Behaviour of Small States — The Case of Denmark and the European Community’, Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies Volume II, McGowan, P. (ed.) (Beverly Hills, 1974), pp. 143–174.Google Scholar

32. McGowan, P. and Gottwald, K. P., ‘Small State Foreign Policies’, International Studies Quarterly, xix (1975), pp. 469–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Ibid. pp. 496–497.

34. Petersen, N., ‘Adaptation as a Framework for the Analysis of Foreign Policy Behaviour’, Co-operation and Conflict, xii (1977), pp. 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Ibid. pp. 234–239.

36. Ibid. p. 248.

37. Stephens, J., ‘An Appraisal of Some System Approaches in the Study of International Systems’, International Studies Quarterly, xvi (1972), pp. 321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Ibid. p. 341.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid. pp. 341–342.

41. Ibid. p. 343.

42. Ibid. pp. 344–347.

43. Ibid. p. 347.

44. P. McGowan, ‘Problems in the Construction of Positive Foreign Policy Theory’, op. cit. p. 38.

45. Ibid. p. 31.

46. Ibid. p. 38.

47. Ibid.

48. N. Petersen, ‘Adaptation as a Framework for the Analysis of Foreign Policy Behaviour’, op. cit p. 225.

49. Ibid. p. 226.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid. pp. 227–234.

52. S. M. Smith, op. cit.

53. For a detailed discussion of this procedure see Ibid. pp. 80–102. The specific hypotheses are also t o be presented in the shorter, published version of the thesis, see S. M. Smith, Foreign Policy Adaptation forthcoming, ch. 3.

54. Ibid. pp. 396–419.

55. Ibid. pp. 419–423.

56. Ibid. pp. 84–95, and 448–456.

57. J. N. Rosenau, The Adaptation of National Societies, op. cit. pp. 21–24.

58. P. McGowan, ‘Problems in the Construction of Positive Foreign Policy Theory’, op. cit.

59. S. M. Smith, op. cit. pp. 85–95, and 448–456.

60. S. Thorson, op. cit. pp. 73–74.

61. S. Thorson, ‘Adaptation and Foreign Policy Theory’, Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, Volume II, P. McGowan (ed.), op. cit. pp. 123–124.

62. Freedman, L., ‘Logic, Politics and Bureaucratic Politics Processes’, International Affairs, Hi (1976), pp. 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. For a history of the project see J. N. Rosenau, P. Burgess and C. Hermann, op. cit.

64. For a list of these papers see Ibid. pp. 142–144. Many have been published in J. N. Rosenau, Comparing Foreign Policies, op. cit.

65. P. McGowan, ‘The Future of Comparative Studies’, In Search of Global Patterns, J. N. Rosenau (ed.), op. cit. p. 227.

66. P. McGowan, ‘Problems in the Construction of Positive Foreign Policy Theory’, op. cit. p. 38.

67. Ibid.

68. J. N. Rosenau, ‘Pretheories and Theories of Foreign Policy’, op. cit.

69. Rosenau, J. N., ‘Comparative Foreign Policy: One-Time Fad, Realized Fantasy and Normal Field’, International Events and the Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy, Kegley, C. W., Raymond, G., Rood, R., and Skinner, R. A. (eds.), (Columbia, S.C., 1975).Google Scholar

70. J. Stephens, op. cit. p. 348.