Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:57:50.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theories of foreign policy: an historical overview*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

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

Extract

Although it is natural to consider the development of the comparative approach known as Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) as the most obvious source of theories of foreign policy behaviour, it is important to remember that all perspectives on the subject of international relations contain statements about foreign policy. Historically this has been the case because virtually all approaches to the study of international relations took the state to be the central actor. Thus, approaches as diverse as those concentrating on political economy, international society and Marxism have all included a notion of what the state is and how its foreign policy results, regardless of the way in which policy might be defined. Theories of foreign policy are therefore intrinsic to theories of international relations, even for those who deny the centrality of the state as an actor in international society.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 13 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1986

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. Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W. and Sapin, Burton, Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics (Princeton, NJ, Organizational Behavior Section, Princeton University, Foreign Policy Project, Series No. 3, 06 1954)Google Scholar. This was subsequently published in the same authors ‘ edited volume Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York, 1962), pp. 14–185.

2. For a classical critique of idealism and a statement of the realist viewpoint see Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis (London, 1946)Google Scholar and Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, 5th Edition revised (New York, 1978)Google Scholar. For the international society approach see: Butterfieid, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966)Google Scholar; Bull, H., The Anarchical Society (London, 1971)Google Scholar; Donelan, M. (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Mayall, J. (ed.), The Community of States (London, 1982).Google Scholar

3. Morgenthau, op. cit.

4. Ibid., see chapters 4, 5 and 6.

5. See Ibid., pp. 4–15.

6. Ibid., pp. 48–73.

7. Singer, J. David, ‘The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’, in Knorr, Klaus and Verba, Sidney (eds.), The International System: Theoretical Essays (Princeton, NJ, 1961), pp. 77–92.Google Scholar

8. Vasquez, John, The Power of Power Politics (London, 1983).Google Scholar

9. See Kaplan, Morton, System and Process in International Politics (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Rose-crance, Richard, Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, MA, 1979).Google Scholar

10. See the chapters by Waltz, Deutsch and Singer and Kaplan in Rosenau, J. N. (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy, 2nd edition (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

11. For rather different critiques see Reynolds, Charles, Theory and Explanation in International Politics (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar, ch. 2, and Weltman, John J., Systems Theory in International Relations (Lexington, MA, 1973).Google Scholar

12. Waltz, Ibid., ch. 1.

13. Charles W. Kegley, Jr., The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy: Paradigm Lost? (Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina, Institute of International Studies, Essay Series No. 10, 1980), p. 1.

14. See Rosenau, James N., Burgess, Phillip M. and Hermann, Charles F., ‘The Adaptation of Foreign Policy Research: A Case Study of an Anti-Case Study Project’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 17(1), 03 1973, pp. 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. See Smith, Steve, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: British and American Orientations and Methodologies’, Political Studies, Vol. 31(4), 12 1983, pp. 556–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Macridis, Roy C. (ed.), Foreign Policy in World Politics, 5th edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976), p. 23.Google Scholar

17. See Rosenau, James N., ‘Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’, in his The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, 2nd edition (London, 1980), pp. 115–169.Google Scholar

18. See Kegley, op. cit.; see also Steve Smith, ‘Rosenau's Contribution’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 9(2), 1983, pp. 137—146, and Steve Smith, ‘Describing and Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior’, Polity, Vol. 17(3), 1985, pp. 595–607.

19. See Smith, Steve, Foreign Policy Adaptation (Farnborough, 1981), pp. 131–148Google Scholar; this is summarized in Smith, Steve, ‘Rosenau's Adaptive Behaviour Approach—a critique’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 7(2), 1981, pp. 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. See White, Brian, ‘The Study of British Foreign Policy: Some Comments on Professor Barber's Review Article’, British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 3(3), 1977, pp. 340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his ‘The Study of British Foreign Policy’, unpublished paper presented to the BISA annual conference, Durham, 1977. For a reply see Barber, James, ‘The Study of British Foreign Policy: A reply to Brian White’, British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 4(3), 1978, pp. 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. See Jones, Roy, The Changing Structure of British Foreign Policy (London, 1974)Google Scholar; for a (still) very helpful and incisive survey of the subject area, see Jones, Roy, Analysing Foreign Policy (London, 1970).Google Scholar

22. Jervis, Robert, ‘Hypotheses on Misperception’, World Politics, Vol. 20(3), 1968, pp. 454–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also his The Logic of Images in International Relations (Princeton, NJ, 1970) and Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ, 1970).

23. Janis, Irving, Victims of Groupthink (Boston, 1972).Google Scholar

24. Steinbruner, John, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision (Princeton, NJ, 1974).Google Scholar

25. Allison, Graham, ‘Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 63(3), 1969, pp. 689–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also his Essence of Decision (Boston, 1971).

26. Hill, C. J., ‘The Credentials of Foreign Policy Analysis’, Millennium, Vol. 3(2), 1974, pp. 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. See, for example, Rosenau, James N. (ed.), Linkage Politics (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

28. This is discussed in Smith, Steve, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis and Interdependence’, in Barry Jones, R. J. and Willetts, Peter (eds.), Interdependence on Trial (London, 1984), pp. 64–82.Google Scholar

29. See, for example, Northedge, Fred, ‘Transnationalism: the American Illusion’, Millennium, Vol. 5(1), 1976, pp. 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bull, Hedley, ‘The State's Positive Role in World Affairs’, Daedalus, Vol. 108(4), 1979, pp. 111–123.Google Scholar

30. See Rosenau, James N., ‘International Studies in a Transnational World’, Millennium, Vol. 5(1), 1976, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

32. Rosenau, James N., ‘Puzzlement in Foreign Policy’, Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, Vol. 1(1), 1976, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

33. See Waltz, Theory of International Politics, op. cit.

34. Ashley, Richard, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization, Vol. 38(2), 1984, pp. 225–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. See, for example, Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Capitalist World-Economy (Cambridge, 1979).Google Scholar

36. For a collection of essays on this theme see Hollist, W. Ladd and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), World System Structure (Beverly Hills, CA, 1981).Google Scholar

37. East, Maurice, Salmore, Stephen and Hermann, Charles (eds.), Why Nations Act (Beverly Hills, CA, 1978)Google Scholar; Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, Hopple, Gerald, Rossa, Paul and Andriole, Stephen, Foreign Policy Behavior (Beverly Hills, CA, 1980)Google Scholar; Callahan, Patrick, Brady, Linda and Hermann, Margaret (eds.), Describing Foreign Policy Behavior (Beverly Hills, CA, 1982).Google Scholar

38. See, Michael Brecher(ed.), Studies in Crisis Behavior (New Brunswick, NJ, 1978); for examples of this approach applied to different countries, see Michael Brecher with Benjamin Geist, Decisions in Crisis (Berkeley, CA, 1980), and Avi Shlaim, The United States and the Berlin Blockade 1948–1949 (Berkeley, CA, 1983).

39. Smith, Steve and Clarke, Michael (eds.), Foreign Policy Implementation (London, 1985).Google Scholar

40. Jensen, Lloyd, Explaining Foreign Policy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982).Google Scholar