Unit 4: Factors Determining Foreign Policy

Introduction

Foreign policy analysis as an academic discipline examines how states, the main actors of international relations, respond to external developments and engage with other actors. The academic debate on the factors determining foreign policy is quite similar to the discussion on the level of analysis.

A Theoretical Account

The academic literature on foreign policy analysis is replete with different theoretical accounts, each of which tries to make sense of foreign policy decision from a different perspective. Structural realism does on the other hand single out distribution of material power capabilities among states and the anarchical structure of international system as the most important explanatory factor in this regard and turns a blind eye to the potential impact of individual and internal factors on foreign policy.The academic literature on foreign policy decision making process also reveals that states do not always act as strong unitary actors. States are generally composed of institutional autocracies, some of which operate in the realm of foreign policy.Each organization approaches foreign policy problems from its own institutional perspectives and therefore, tries to make sure that the final foreign policy consensus reflectsits institutional concerns and priorities.The bureaucratic politics model, on the other hand, suggests that the leaders of such foreign policy related organizations wage turf wars among each other and their ultimate goal is to help strengthen their status and prestige within the state apparatus. Similar to structural realism neoclassical realism gives the main priority to external structural factors, yet unlike the former neoclassical realism argues that the way how states would respond to external stimuli and make sense of external/systemic factors would be decisively informed by their internal characteristics. International environment offers states a mixture of opportunities and constraints, yet the way how states would make sense of them would be fundamentally shaped by their internal characteristics. The academic literature on foreign policy decision making process also reveals that states do not always act as strong unitary actors. States are generally composed of institutional autocracies, some of which operate in the realm of foreign policy. One school, organizational behavior approach, argues that states are made up of different organizations which compete with each other in order to shape the foreign policy preferences and behaviors of their states.

Individual Factors

Most analysts identify states with their leaders and suggest that leaders speak on behalf of their countries. Acting as the spokesperson of their countries,leaders try to achieve national interests of their countries in a rational way.The tendency to refer to historical analogiesand apply cognitive shortcuts is another factor that appears to constrain rationality.

Internal Factors

As regards the internal factors that play a role in foreign policy, the nature of political regimes, national role conceptualization of ruling elites, strategic culture, political ideologies, religion, interest groups, civil society organizations, public opinion, and etc. stand out the most.As opposed to democratic states, authoritarian states would feel more comfortable with employing coercive and costly strategies in their foreign policy, since leaders of such regimes would not feel themselves constrained by public opinion and electoral concerns.Ideology is a unit level variable and transmitted from one generation to another through various socialization processes. In discussing internal factors shaping foreign policy outcomes one needs to mention the role of organized interest groups, lobbies and civil society organizations as well . Of all internal factors, the nature of political regimes and political ideologies seem to attract the academic attention most. Whether a country is ruled by democratic or non-democratic regimes might affect how that country defines its foreign policy interests and act accordingly. Ideology is a unit level variable and transmitted from one generation to another through various socialization processes. Ideology manifests its impact on foreign policy in different ways. Some countries, such as the United States and France, tend to ascribe to themselves universal liberal characteristics and champion the promotion of liberal democracy all around the globe. In discussing internal factors shaping foreign policy outcomes one needs to mention the role of organized interest groups, lobbies and civil society organizations as well (Breuning, 2007, 120-125). Their impact is mainly bottom-up because their aspiration is to influence the key decision makers at the state level by helping arouse organized public pressure at the societal level.

External Factors

The third set of factors that might help analysts make sense of foreign policy of states is external factors.In general, the degree of states’ maneuvering capability would be the highest in multipolar systems because states would be able to align with multiple powers, play one power off against another, and change alliance relations easily. Turkey’s foreign policy has turned out to become more multidimensional and multidirectional since 2008 as the global economic crisis and its aftermath accelerated the transition to multipolarioty in global politics. On the other hand, states with a few neighbors would likely feel themselves much more secure and safe and spThird, the importance of geographical location also manifests itself in the sense of states leveraging their particular geographical features in their foreign relations.On the other hand, revisionist states would likely trigger alliance formation dynamics in their neighbors. For example, the growing power capabilities of China and its increasing regional assertiveness in its region seem to have caused strong alarm bells to ring in East Asia, particularly on the part of the countries that have traditionally relied on American security protection. Power distribution is also important for another reason. The literature on foreign policy analysis is replete with studies that contend that global/ super powers, middle/medium-sized powers and small-sized power would behave differently in their foreign policy. Even though the distribution of material power capabilities among states would put them into different power categories, such as global, middle level or small-sized countries, these labels also suggest different foreign policy roles. Geographical location and the nature of the terrain on which countries are located are also important in the sense of preparing war plans. Should a country sit on a plain landmass with no highs, it would spend money to improve its defense capabilities as well as tend to be extremely vigilant towards its neighbors. Following the unification of Germany in the second half of the 19th century, then German Prime Minister Bismark pursued a balance of power policy whose ultimate goal was to make sure that Germany’s potential rivals/challengers to the west and east, namely France and Russia, do never join forces against Germany and Germany soothe its rivals by entering into alliance relations with all of them. If a state views its neighbors as status quo oriented actors, it would not define them as threats and focus its attention on the fields of common interests and the prospects of cooperation. Status quo oriented states would not push their neighbors to increase their military expenditures. On the other hand, revisionist states would likely trigger alliance formation dynamics in their neighbors. For example, the growing power capabilities of China and its increasing regional assertiveness in its region seem to have caused strong alarm bells to ring in East Asia, particularly on the part of the countries that have traditionally relied on American security protection. Another example would be the intensification of efforts on the part of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAB) and Egypt to counterbalance the rise of Iran’s geopolitical influence in the Middle East in recent years. Because these countries view Iran as a revisionist country and their perception of the American commitment to their security interests grew negatively during Obama’s presidency, they have decided to spend more on defense and increase their strategic cooperation among each other (Bianco, 2018, 27-41).