Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

Decision-Making in Foreign Policy

Baharak Partowazar
Department of Politics and Government
Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Baharakpartowazar@yahoo.com
Jayum A. Jawan
Department of Politics and Government
Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Jayum@putra.upm.edu.my
Fakhreddin Soltani
Department of Politics and Government
Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Fakhreddinsoltany@gmail.com
Abstract

Process of decision-making in foreign policy depends on different factors. Through considering factors of
decision-making in foreign policy, national leaders use a set of rules to apply to different situations when
they deal with international affairs. There are two approaches that influence process of decision-making.
The first one is external factors that limit the choices of states regardless of their political system, history
and culture. In other words external factors refer to systemic pressures of international relations that affect
behavior of all states in process of foreign policy decision-making. The second one is internal factors that
refer to various viewpoints and set of expectations in domestic environment of the states. In other words,
despite to the same systemic pressures, states behave differently because their internal sources such as
different political systems, cultures, and leaders influence their reactions to systemic pressures. After
explaining meanings of foreign policy and decision-making, this article tends to review the external and
internal factors of decision-making and explain how they influence process of foreign policy.

Key words: Decision-making, foreign policy, external factors, internal factors

1.

Introduction
Foreign policy behavior includes intended and unintended actions and words of a government that
influence its foreign policy (Smith, Hadfield, & Dunne, 2008). Therefore, any actions among the states
such as agreements, aids, alliances, use of force, political pressures, and actions in international
organizations are about foreign policy. These actions might be small or they might not have immediate
results, but it is important to mention that they mostly are taken with long-term goals in mind (Pearson &
Rochester, 1998).
Foreign policy refers to the 17th century. After the thirty years war ended in Europe by the peace of
Westphalia in 1648, the modern states emerged. Since then, Nation- States with sovereignty and
separated boundaries have emerged (Kegley & Raymond, 2011). This article is to shed more light on
foreign policy through reviewing the literature and understand the factors of making decisions in foreign
policy.

2.

Definition of Foreign Policy

344

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

Foreign policy studies are part of International Relations. Foreign is used for the policy toward the world
outside of the border of states (Beasley, Kaarbo, Lantis, & Snarr, 2013). Cooper argues that defining the
notion of foreign policy could be difficult. Foreign policy could be described in the broader sense of the
words as any contact between the citizens of different countries, but that is a too-wide of a definition
because it ignores the limitations the word policy places on the term. The word policy narrows down
the meaning to the contacts between the governments. The term also could be understood in a wider
sense, as a grand conception of the world economic and political order that provides a grand framework
for, and guidance to, the month-to-month decisions that nations must take in their relations with other
nations.(Cooper, 1972).
Reynolds mentions three definitions for foreign policy. The first definition is a range of actions taken by
varying sections of the government of a state in its relations with other bodies similarly acting on the
international stage, in order to advance the national interest. In his second definition he refers to foreign
policy as a concept that consists of the external actions taken by decision-makers with the intention of
achieving long-range goals and short-term objectives. In the last definition Raynolds notes: foreign
policies are not made in a vacuum. They are made in relation to other bodies similarly acting in the global
arena(Reynolds, 1995). Unlike Raynolds, Said and Lerche believe that there are two styles of foreign
policy: the policy of status quo and revisionism. A state that takes a policy of status quo is generally
satisfied with its position in the pattern of contemporary international relations. But despite its satisfaction
taking a policy of status quo does not mean that such state is not open to changes within the boundaries of
the structure of power. As long as the changes are limited and as long as the changes do not affect the
stability of the states position such a government is willing to embrace changes that gradually transform
the nature of the relations in its favor. On the contrary to the policy of status quo, the policy of
revisionism works against any stabilization. Such policy always creates crisis and disputes over
controversial matters that help the state to establish the limits of the dispute and the boundaries of the
struggle. In such situations if the dispute do not end up in a war it is the revisionist state that would have
the upper hand in setting the timing as well. The crisis continues as long as the revisionist state wants it to
continue, which means to the point that the state achieves its objectives. All this does not mean that the
revisionist state is not open to proposals to create stability, but this only happen when the state sees an
opportunity in it to change the situation to its own advantage, or when the stability helps it to achieve its
strategic goals (Lerche & Said, 1995).
3.

Decision-making in Foreign Policy

National leaders can use a set of rules to apply to different situations when they deal with international
affairs. Pearson and Rochester divide foreign policy decisions into three categories: Macro-Decisions,
Micro-Decisions, and Crisis Decisions. Macro-decision is the kind of notion whose definition is more in
line with what one expects from by a type of policy. These are decisions that are made mostly on issues
that happen in a longer frame of time involving a larger number of actors. Micro-decisions or
administrative decisions usually are the kind of actions that are relatively narrow in scope, carry a low
threat, and are handled at the lower levels of the bureaucracy The third type of decisions, crisis
decisions, are those characterized by a sense of high threat (including the possibility of military
hostilities), a finite time frame, and involvement of officials at the highest levels (Pearson & Rochester,
1998).
Logical decision-making requires 1) information about the situation; 2) substantive knowledge of causeand effect relationships that is relevant for assessing the expected consequences of alternative courses of
actions; 3) a way of applying the value and interests engaged by the problem at hand in order to judge
which course of action in best and /or least costly and which, therefore, should be chosen. In reality
most of the times these conditions are not met. The policymaker must proceed under the handicap of
severe constraints on the possibility of meeting these requirements of rational decision-making.
Between dynamic and cognitive psychology, between the leaders psychology and information
processing, and between the theory of high-quality decisions and their actual accomplishment(A.
George, 1992).
345

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

But Rourke and Boyer suggest that decision-making for foreign policy has three general aspects: (1)
How differences in the type of government, the type of policy, or the type of situation influence the policy
process; (2) The impact of political culture on foreign policy and (3) The roles of the various political
actors in making foreign policy. About the type of situation they explained that crisis situations are one
factor that affects how policy is made. A crisis is a circumstance in which decision makers are (1)
surprised by an event, (2) feel threatened (especially militarily), and (3) believe that they have only a
short time in which to make a decision. Then explained how leaders have to make rational decisions.
They explained about the differences between the status quo situation and non-status quo situations.
About type of policy they explained that it depends on different issues, different subject areas by different
decision makers and different policy. In this type they introduced intermestic policy that affect on
international relations and also domestic economy. They explained that the influence of political leaders
because of the existence different factors such as interest groups, legislators in domestic policy is less
than foreign policy. Second one is about political culture on foreign policy that based on two sources. The
first one is national historical experience and the second one is the national belief systems. The last aspect
is about the role of political actors in making foreign policy (Rourke & Boyer, 1998).
Hagan mentions that in international relations decision-making is an important phenomenon. He brings
up the examples of World War I, World War II, and the Cold War to show how the people in charge of
decision-making change the course of events and bring a new direction to the whole process. During all
of these wars the leadership in these countries was reacting to very real systemic pressures such as the
degree of uncertainty they generated, the value trade-offs they provoked, and the dispersion of decision
authority they encountered. Hagan emphasizes on the uncertainty of the political situations and the way
the leaders react to them. Depending on the complexity of the situation and the way the leadership reacts
to the political process of events can go to a different direction (J. Hagan, 2001).
In a different analysis Grove pays attention to the different ways the leaders generate support among their
constituents. He divides different strategies that the leaders use into four categories: broadening audience,
buying off, tying hands, and framing threat. The first one is broadening audience strategy refers to the
ways that leaders use to expand their coalition with others in order to create and improve the legitimacy
for his political goals locally or internationally, or create a shared identity for a greater group of
supporters. One can see such strategies in Mahmoud Ahmadinejads reactions towards Israel and the
United States in order to receive more support in the Middle Eastern countries, or the acts of Venezuela's
Hugo Chavez to gain more popularity abroad. The second strategy in decision-making is buying off. To
practice this strategy leaders pay off those who might have a role in a political process to gain support
using material resources or promises of those resources to co-opt opposition abroad or at home. These
leaders use economic aid, military assistance, and investment opportunities from the other states or nonstate local or international actors to support them. Tying hand strategy is a method to convince the
audience that certain decisions should be made because there is no other choice left. George W. Bushs
strategy to convince his consistence to invade Iraq after September 11 is a classic example of such
strategy. The last strategy is framing threat in which leader characterizes certain political actors as an
enemy or threat to gain popular support for their own agenda. Framing threat might be a good device to
define the political context for the audience and to give new meaning to the political actions (Grove,
2007).
4.

Factors of Decision-making in Foreign Policy

Foreign policy analysis is the study of the states behavior to know and comprehend the nature of those
who have a role in the states and the way they work at the domestic level. Foreign policy analysis is
important to governments and to those whose actions can affect the governments foreign policy
(D'Anieri, 2011). In other words, foreign policy is about making choices, but it is also necessary to
describe the context in which choices are made, to identify which individuals, groups, and institutions
participate in the decision-making process, and to examine the formulation and implementation of
policies as well as to trace their consequences (Lentner, 1973). These choices are based on objectives the
decision maker attempt to achieve. Foreign policy objective is more of an image of a future state of
346

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

conditions which governments through individual policy makers aspire to bring about by wielding
influence abroad and by changing or sustaining the behavior of other states. (K. J. Holsti, 1994)..
Foreign policy objectives for a state are future goals that shape the states current foreign policy. These
objectives might be very tangible and concrete or might be more or less abstract. They might be longterm or short term, and also they might benefit the entirety of a nation or a certain part of society. The
objectives are not always in harmony. In fact there are many occasions when the foreign policy objectives
of a state are in conflict. Policy-makers design foreign policy strategies based on how they see and
understand the world. Accordingly there are four major categories of decision makers including realists,
liberals, and radicals. Realists stress on immediate state military/security objectives and pay less attention
to economic issues. Liberals have longer-term economic goals and emphasize on social welfare. Third
groups, radicals, similar to the liberals are those who stress on economic objectives of states, but believe
that a state foreign policy is shaped by the interests of certain classes not the entire society (Russett, Starr,
& Kinsella, 2010). And finally the forth group concentrates on domestic factors to analyze foreign policy.
Mentioned approaches have led to four major theories of analysing foreign policy. Theories of foreign
policy try to explain "what states try to achieve in external realm and when they try to achieve it"(Rose,
1998). Theories identify two main kinds of factors including external and internal ones that influence
decision-making in foreign policy. The first category deals with factors outside the state. It points to the
international environment and the second category deals with factors inside the state. It points to the
domestic political systems.
4.1 External Factors
All states exclusive of their political system, history and culture reside in an international system which
limits the choices those states can make. Some scholars of foreign policy argue that the foreign policies
of states are only a product of the international system. Foreign policy is a reaction to external conditions
and the other actors. Realism, liberalism and constructivism are the expectations which derived from
international relations theories. Analysts of foreign policy in the international system use perspectives to
infer the actions states are likely to take in their foreign policies.
-

Realism:
Based on realist theory, anarchy as a characteristic of the international environment makes international
politics different from domestic politics. In domestic political system role players such as groups and
individuals can work together under government rules. In the international political system because of
lack of an overall system of law, conflict is possible(Mearsheimer, 2003). Realists argue that power and
security are the main goal of states foreign policy. If states only take care of their own interests without
any protection from an international legal system or global police force, the states will face distrust,
competition and conflict among themselves.
Realists believe the key elements of power are military in nature because the goal of states is to survive
and protect their territorial integrity. Different factors such as the size and sophistication of military
forces, economic wealth to purchase military strength, and good leadership contribute to military strength.
Natural defences and abundant resources are geopolitical factors which can be count into calculation of
military strength. States that do not have power to protect themselves have to enter into alliance with
powerful states. So powerful allies by using condition make states constrain.
According to the realists perspective the expectations of foreign policy are based on capabilities of states
and the potential threat to them (Barkin, 2009). States with powerful militarily conduct their foreign
policy in a manner to preserve their power by maintaining a high profile in world affairs and make a
balance against other powerful states. It is important to demonstrate their capabilities in military and
security spheres. In the situation with only one other major power in the international system, two powers
competition for alliance with other countries become a major issue in foreign policy.
The foreign policy of States that are not global power but have some capabilities depends on the
distribution of power in the international system. In bipolar system, states with moderate powers bear
strong pressure to have alliance with one of the major powers. This means loss of autonomy on foreign
347

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

policy in exchange for gaining security (Neack, 1995). The middle countries, in a system with more than
two strong powers can be more independent and influential and enjoy more options for alliance
States with fewer military capabilities have little chance to strengthen their independent foreign policy as
they are severely influenced by strong powers. Realism focuses on military conflict at the expense of
economic cooperation. By military capability states can influence international politics. States that don't
use their wealth in order to build a strong military can influence others by using economic sanctions or
promises of economic rewards in a relationship. By changes in the international system economy has
become more important in contemporary international relations. For solving some problems such as trade
imbalance and global environmental threats military force is ineffective.
-

Liberalism:
Liberal theories highlight the effect of economic wealth on foreign policy States become more
interdependent by increase in global trade and financial relationship and the technological advances
(Keohane & Nye, 2011). According to liberal perspective, states find working on common interests is
more beneficial. Interests such as Arms control agreements, trade agreements and cultural exchanges can
benefit states. Cooperating with other states, and makes international institution in order to improve and
help that cooperation, allows states to advance their goals of economic wealth. In economic liberalism
perspective states will be in a good condition by their cooperation in worldwide division of labour and
specializing in what it is better at producing (Doyle, 1997).
Increasing interdependency can have a negative side. Numerous connection between states make greater
chance for conflicts of interests. When states by cooperation could not solve differences may consider
using force to guarantee access to resources they need. In general states with the same strong common
interest in one area, often become more involved with other state's behaviour in other areas. In liberalism
viewpoint the key characteristic of the international environment is economic interdependence which
states have to consider when making foreign policy decisions.
Some states such as rich states are more dependent than the other states. Other states can affect them and
rich states in order to follow their goals sacrifice some part of their economic wealth. These countries
because of their wealth have centrality in the world economy and can choose trading partners. They do
not need economic aid of the other states. Poor states engage in the global economy have limited
manoeuvre ability in their foreign policy. Economic existence of these countries depends on their
relationship with other countries and non-state actors such as multinational corporations and international
financial organizations. They have to follow the foreign policy demands of their benefactors (Moon,
1983).
In the early of twenty- first century both globalization and liberalization pressures complicate the effects
of interdependence. Although globalization in the worldwide financial and trading market connects
economies but it has not done equally. Poor states have limited leverage to oppose pressures to open up
their markets, even if they do not agree with the liberal philosophy and risk political retribution when the
gap between rich states and poor states become greater within their economies. Some states changed their
previous stand and agreed with liberal philosophy in economy.
With increasing the role of international cooperation, states have to deal with non-state actors and
compete with them in order to influence on international politics. States also in order to control their
domestic politics compete with non-state actors. Rich states and poor states in order to establish greater
interdependence at the regional level are engaging in agreements and dialogues. Therefore regional
integration is another layer of external factors which can affect on foreign policy of states.

Constructivism:
Constructivism considers the international system consistent of social interactions of states and mutual
understandings in a global society. For constructivist the international system is not just objective forces
of power, interests, and organization. In constructivist opinion both anarchy and interests are not
determined objectively. Constructivism constituted by the agent actions such as states and the meaning
and ideas which agents attached to them. Constructivism grew after the Cold War as a major rival for
rationalism in the international relation theory (Finnemore, 1996).
348

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

Constructivist believe that norms of suitable behaviour as a social product of international structure that
controls states foreign policy(Cardenas, 2004). Norms are presentation of mutual expectations of suitable
manner that originates from factors such as beliefs, standards of behaviour, international agreements, and
procedures of decision-making. States usually avoid crossing norms because of possible consequences
such as sanctions or embarrassment (Keck & Sikkink, 1998). Because of the same reason states try not to
make decisions that appear inappropriate in international community. despite the fact that states are not
complying with all of international laws , the system still has some moral, normative authority that
supported by states (Press-Barnathan, 2004).
4.2. Internal Factors
Theories which focus on internal sources of foreign policy offer various viewpoints and set of
expectations. Despite to the same international circumstances, those theories that pay attention to the
internal sources of state, expect differences among states foreign policy. The diversity of political
systems, cultures, and leaders are three factors that point states in different direction even the states facing
the same external forces. Domestic oriented explain that sometimes states make decisions which not
useful for them in international politics. Domestic oriented explain deviations from rationality which
leaders need to satisfy domestic and foreign goals and interest or examine the process of decision-making
when it is not perfect. Those who point to domestic sources of foreign policy tend to high-light different
voices and conflicts over foreign policy. These voices can reside at the public, societal groups,
government organizations, leaders and different levels of actors and institutions in the countries.
-

The Public Opinion:

Public opinion refers to the citizens attitudes especially about the problems in foreign policy. Society
may agree or has different opinions on an issue. The average individual is usually not too interested in
foreign affairs. Leaders usually do not pay attention to public opinion on foreign policy. Leaders try to
shape the public opinions towards their own desired form or dismiss their opinion altogether (Chan &
Safran, 2006). Evidence shows that leaders who do not consider the public opinion usually don't suffer in
polls because in the election domestic policy takes priority to foreign policy. The media have a significant
effect on public and states relationship. Media can affect public opinion on foreign policy (Entman,
2004). There is a correlation between changes in public opinion and changes in foreign policy (Everts &
Isernia, 2001). In some especial cases of foreign policy decisions, leaders are paying attention to public
reactions. Although in foreign policy public does not formulate specific stable opinion, it shows more
long-lasting core values or opinion moods (Jenkins-Smith, Mitchell, & Herron, 2004). Isolationism,
anticommunism, non-appeasement, neutrality and anti- imperialism are some of underlying beliefs the
public uses to judge foreign policy. A countrys identity and its perception of its role in the world in
relations with other countries forms strong opinions in society. Leaders must stay within these
expectations or face public opposition (Lantis & Howlett, 2010). Similar to public opinion, identity and
role of a specific policy can be shaped by elites and utilized to support specific foreign policy positions
(Nabers, 2009).
Most research on public opinion focus on democracies. Democracies have established mechanism for the
public opinion's influence on leaders. In authoritarian political systems the public does not have any
influence on foreign policy (Telhami, 1993). In this system the core values which held by the public may
set boundaries. Authoritarian systems might be built on foreign policy orientations. Basic values and
character of a society root in traditions and common opinions of that society. These draw the big picture
of foreign policy (Berger, 2003). These values can be individualism, collectivism, pragmatism, or
moralism. Cultures with high moral values can be judgmental in internal and foreign policies (Hudson,
1997). Cultures also influence the mechanism that foreign policy decisions were made. This sometimes
might prolong the decision-making process for example by the process of public consultation (Sampson,
1987). In spite of the usual opinion that cultural characteristics do not affect policies it is difficult to
measure the influence of culture on foreign policy.

Social Groups:
Leaders focus on societal group inputs more than the whole society because societal groups can connect
the society to the state or opposing and competing with the state. Interest groups express a particular
sector of society and are able to activate that sector to demand their needs. Interest groups have different
349

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

forms built on a single objective such as, ethnicity, religion or on economics. Economic interest groups
can be a significant societal source of foreign policy because these groups produce wealth, and economic
welfare which is the primary function of modern states. Economic groups in order to promote their
foreign business adventures abroad or to protect markets from competitors internally have an interest in
foreign relations (Krasner, 1978).
Interest group leverage on a foreign policy depends on level of group's organization. Relationships
between the state and the interest groups can influence on foreign policy. Interest groups have a difficult
struggle to influence the government when the government is not in agreement with them. The
government has more ability to affect the problem and control the public awareness of the issue. By
depending on the political system, the government has political support from the public. Both
globalization and liberalization have increased the number of economic groups which have an interest in
foreign policy of states. This increases the capability of these groups to influence foreign policy.
Political parties, as a part of the government, are able to communicate the societal opinion to political
leadership (J. D. Hagan, 1993). The function of parties in many ways is similar to interest groups. In
Some countries only one party can dominate the political system and the ideology of that party can be
important in setting limitations to debate over foreign policy stands and in forming rhetoric for leaders
speeches. In these countries some sectors of parties enjoy a more important role. In political systems
factions can be important when a party has the majority of the parliament and rules alone. Party factions
try to dominate each other or they have to make compromise for party unity. Even when in a party there is
an agreement on other issue, the foreign policy can be influenced by differences inside the party
In fragmented multi party political system factions remain important however the competition between
the parties becomes important too. Parties try to distinguish themselves from each other ideologically in
vying for the publics support, therefore they are polarizing the debate over foreign policy, or in order to
capture the moderates they try to move toward the centre of the political spectrum, that often decide
elections(Rathbun, 2004). In some multiparty systems, parties must enter into coalition and share power
to make policy because the political scene is fragmented.
A countrys military is a part of government, but for control over policy in many countries, military
leadership competes with the civilian leadership. The military has the ability to act as a powerful source
of opposition to the goals of the governments foreign policy, especially when those goals related to
national security or reducing the resources of military. Military groups might force the leaders towards
expansionist directions for further self-interested goals of organizational growth and prestige (Snyder,
1991). Policy makers may be sensitive to a military which is not depends on civilian leaders because it
can control the initial means of coercion, otherwise they face the risk of a military coup.
-

Governmental Organization:
Foreign policy formation in democracies is different and involves different democratic entities and actors.
Democratic leaders have to respond to the public and political parties and build a foreign policy based on
their input. According to liberal theory because of differences in the government organization the
behaviour of democracies will more peacefully than authoritarian systems (Owen, 1994). In a democracy
even if a leader is leaning towards he has to convince other role players and justify the military and
economic consequences. Democratic institutions create a political culture which is built on finding a
peaceful solution for problems .In a democratic system citizens know that they can solve their
disagreements peacefully . On the other hand authoritarian leaders are the sole decision makers. They
make their decisions without any constraints. Both democracies and authoritarian governments can
involve and initiate the conflict. Democracies seldom fight other democracies. Scholars follow this idea
that democratic cultural values and institutional constraints make democratic foreign policy different.
However the evidence does not support the theory that democracies are more peaceful in their foreign
policy. On the other hand it is not always true that authoritarian leaders act without any limitations These
leaders also have to deal with groups or entities such as military who might disagree In authoritarian
systems citizens cannot remove their leaders out of the office by vote however they can use alternatives
such as supporting non-governmental opposition groups, military coup, assassination and revolution.

350

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

Newly formed authoritarian regimes encounter opposition and don't have enough control therefore they
have to take public opinion in consideration. Some countries have serious economic, religious, and ethnic
domestic diversities which can reduce the states legitimacy. The leaders of these states may utilize
foreign policy to make statements on national identity, show strong leadership or distract the attention
away from domestic issues (Tarar, 2006). In some of authoritarian states foreign policy decisions are
made based on mutual opinion of a group and no single leader controls it. Significant differences exist
between the organization of democratic and authoritarian governments. It might be a better approach to
see how centralized the governing body is and how strong the government is comer to oppositions
(Katzenstein, 1976).
Maybe the differences between the foreign policy of democratic and authoritarian states been exaggerated
(Rosato, 2003). The actual decision-making authority in democracies may be not as diverse as it is
assumed. Citizens in a democracy are not usually well rehearsed on political issues and cannot affect
foreign policy. Foreign policy decisions typically centralized at the top of the governments hierarchy.
The second feature of government organizations which affect on foreign policy is bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy which includes collecting information, forming proposals, providing consults, reinforcing
policy, and foreign policy decisions. In international politics because of the complexities in many
problems the governments make themselves organize bureaucratically, assigning responsibility to various
areas or jurisdictions of policy to different agencies or departments. Separate agencies are responsible for
diplomatic relationships and various parts of the military.
Dealing with a complex word requires bureaucratic organization which also can cause problems (Davis,
2006). Different parts of the system may have difference of opinion. Departments by acting on their own
may create inconsistent foreign policy. It also can causes making decisions that are not well thought and
in benefit of the state
These kinds of issues which root in bureaucratic organization in a government happen less in certain
circumstances. Bureaucracy exists in all states however sometimes a single leader or single unifying force
can ratify the decision-making of the system. On some matters there is a common ground between all
entities that overrules the differences and unifies the system. In some critical situation, the top leaders
mostly override the system and lower the effects of bureaucratic politics.
-

Leaders:
The person or individuals who are the head of government have the ability to make decisions on foreign
policy. Leaders characteristics become more focus of attention when they have more power in forming
foreign policy and in unpredictable situations. In these situation the personality and value system of the
leader plays an important role in forming the state's behaviour (Levy, 2003). In other words, the leader's
uprising and personal life experiences plays an important role in their political behaviour (A. L. George &
George, 1964). Every leader has a unique personal background. In coping with foreign policy problems
they used their values, beliefs and experiences.
In spite of differences, different people prefer to ignore facts in order to have consistency in their belief.
When leaders see another country as their enemy, their opinion gets biased about the information they
gathered. As a result the changes in images and impressions of enemy is very difficult even with change
in enemy's behaviour (O. Holsti, 1976). According to their images and behaviours, leaders can be
subtyped in different groups. The first group are the ones who look for conflict and domination the
second group looks for acceptance and cooperation, others can be nationalist, with lack of trust and
believe in use of power to solve their issues and the last group consider their state as a part of the world
community and try to solve the problems with trust (Dyson, 2006).
The style of leaders decision-making and how they handle information and the people around them is
important. Some leaders try to be active in foreign policy decision-making, others authorise other centres
of power to make foreign policy decisions. Some leaders came with an agenda for foreign policy and
show lack of flexibility to any changes and not accepting others opinion. Others try to maintain their
power. They pay attention to advice and do not make any decision without consultation and consensus
(Kaarbo, 1997).
351

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

5.

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

Conclusion
There are two main approaches on decision-making in foreign policy in which one focuses on external
factors and the other one focuses on internal factors. The approaches that focus on external factors are
demonstrated in grand theories of international relations including realism, liberalism and constructivism.
In other words, these theories, through systemic analysis emphasize on effects of external environment on
choices of decision-makers in domestic sphere and therefore decision-makers are bound to follow the
regularities of international sphere. According to these approaches characteristics of decision-makers or
government in general such as being authoritarian or democratic have minimal influence in foreign
policy.
Though external factors insist of limitations of decision-makers in foreign policy, the approaches
emphasizing on internal factors focus more on factors of decision-making in domestic sphere and argue
that leaders pay attention rather on internal factors than external ones. In other words, internal factors
such as public opinion, social or economic groups, governmental organizations and leaders personalities
shape foreign policy rather than forces of international system. Therefore, the characteristics of the
governing decision makers or the government in general can influence foreign policy deeply
References

Barkin, S. (2009). Realism, Prediction, and Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(3), 13.
Beasley, R. K., Kaarbo, J., Lantis, J. S., & Snarr, M. T. (2013). Foreign policy in Comparative Perspective: Domestic
and International Influences on State Behavior. Los Angeles: CQ Press.
Berger, T. U. (2003). Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Cardenas, S. (2004). Norm Collision: Explaining the Effects of International Human Rights Pressure on State
Behavior. International Studies Quarterly, 6, 18.
Chan, S., & Safran, W. S. (2006). Public Opinion as a Constraint against War:Democracies Responses to Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6, 19.
Cooper, R. (1972). Economic Interdependence and Foreign Policy in the Seventies. In J. R. Howard (Ed.), An
overview of international studies (pp. 232). New York: MSS Information Corporation.
D'Anieri, P. (2011). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Davis, J. (2006). Infighting in Washington: The Impact of Bureaucratic Politics on U.S. Iraq Policy,. In J. Davis (Ed.),
Presidential Policies and the Road to the Second War in Iraq (pp. 318). Burlington: Ashgate Pub Co.
Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Dyson, S. B. (2006). Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair's Iraq Decisions. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2(3), 17.
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Everts, P., & Isernia, P. (2001). Public Opinion and the International Use of Force. London: Routledge.
Finnemore, M. (1996). Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of
National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (pp. 153). New York: Columbia University Press.
George, A. (1992). Adapting to Constraints on Rational Decisionmaking. In R. Art & P. Education (Eds.),
International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1964). Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Stud. New York: Dover
Publications.
Grove, A. (2007). Political Leadership in Foreign Policy:Manipulating Support across Borders. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hagan, J. (2001). Does Decision Making Matter? International Studies Review, 3(2), 41.
Hagan, J. D. (1993). Political Opposition and Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective. Colorado: Lynne Rienner
Publishers Inc.
Holsti, K. J. (1994). International Politics: A Framework for Analysis (Seventh ed.). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Holsti, O. (1976). Cognitive Dynamics and Images of the Enemy. Journal of International Affairs, 21, 33.
Hudson, V. M. (1997). Culture and Foreign Policy Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

352

office@penseejournal.com

Pensee Journal

Vol 76, No. 4;Apr 2014

Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Mitchell, N. J., & Herron, K. G. (2004). Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the
U.S. and British Publics. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(3), 22.
Kaarbo, J. (1997). Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Framework for Research.
Political Psychology, 18(3), 28.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1976). International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced
Industrial States. International Organization, 30(1), 45.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics New York:
Cornell University Press.
Kegley, C. W., & Raymond, G. A. (2011). The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. Boston: Cengage
Learning.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2011). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (4th ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson.
Krasner, S. D. (1978). Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Lantis, J. S., & Howlett, D. (2010). Culture and National Security Policy. In J. Baylis, E. C. Wirtz & C. S. Gray (Eds.),
Strategy in the Contemporary World (pp. 480). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lentner, H. H. (1973). Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative and Conceptual Approach: Merrill Publishing
Company.
Lerche, C. O., & Said, A. A. (1995). Concepts of international politics in global perspective (Fourth ed.): Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Levy, J. S. (2003). Political Psychology and Foreign Policy. In D. Sears, L. Huddy & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook
of Political Psychology (pp. 820). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2003). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Moon, B. E. (1983). The Foreign Policy of the Dependent State. International Studies Quarterly, 27(3), 25.
Nabers, D. (2009). Filling the Void of Meaning: Identity Construction in U.S. Foreign Policy After September 11,
2001. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5, 23.
Neack, L. (1995). Linking State Type with Foreign Policy Behavior. In L. Neack, P. Haney & J. Hey (Eds.), Foreign
Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation (pp. 448). New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Humanities.
Owen, J. M. (1994). How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security, 19(2), 38.
Pearson, F. S., & Rochester, M. (1998). International relations: The global condition in the late twentieth century.
London,New York: McGraw-Hill.
Press-Barnathan, G. (2004). The War against Iraq and International Order: From Bull to Bush. International
Studies Review, 6(2), 17.
Rathbun, B. C. (2004). Partisan Interventions: European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. New
York: Cornell University Press.
Reynolds, P. A. (1995). An introduction to international relations (Third ed.). London: Longman.
Rosato, S. (2003). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. The American Political Science Review, 97(4), 17.
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 28.
Rourke, J., & Boyer, M. (1998). Work Politics:International Politics on the World Stage. Guernsey: McGraw-Hill
Humanities.
Russett, B., Starr, H., & Kinsella, D. (2010). World Politics: The Menu for Choice (Ninth ed.). Boston: Cengage
Learning.
Sampson, M. W. (1987). Cultural Influences on Foreign Policy. In C. F. Hermann, C. W. K. Jr & J. N. Rosenau (Eds.),
New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (pp. 538). London: Routledge.
Smith, S., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T. (2008). Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition New York: Cornell University
Press.
Tarar, A. (2006). Diversionary Incentives and the Bargaining Approach to War. International Studies Quarterly,
50(1), 19.
Telhami, S. (1993). Arab Public Opinion and the Gulf War. Political Science Quarterly, 108(3), 15.

353

office@penseejournal.com