Is Leadership in Foreign Policy Decision PDF

S.
RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a

highly bureaucratic process independent of factors
such as political culture, nationalism and the
variation of geography between sovereign nationstates?
IR6029 Foreign Policy Analysis
Prerna Tarika Diwaker
[Pick the date]
The process of Foreign policy formulation is a highly loaded concept. It is greatly influenced by domestic environment, the
policies and workings of other states, the personality of leaders, plans to advance specific geopolitical designs etc. Bureaucratic
politics, on the other hand is a significant force affecting the outcomes of governmental policymaking processes since it dea ls
with the interaction of individuals within the political structure and the political administrative organizations. In this essay, I try
to answer the above stated question by grappling with these two related but ideologically diverse concepts by tying them together
in a logical flow of thought.
Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

independent of factors such as political culture, nationalism and the variation of
geography between sovereign nation-states?
Introduction
This essay will contend that foreign policy decision making is a highly bureaucratic process
where leadership plays a major role in determining the direction and conclusion of the process.
However, my essay will also argue that leadership will face several constraints; some of them
extending from political culture, nationalism and geographical variation between sovereign
nation-states.
This paper is structured to analyze
What foreign policy is about and what are the two methods followed in foreign policy
formulation.
What are the various factors that significantly determine foreign policy formulation and
how would a leader combat with contrasting interests & identities.
The impact of leadership on bureaucratic politics, how policy decisions are formulated
and which actors are highly significant for influencing fore ign policy decisions.
And finally, it will look at the various types of leadership styles and how the
psychological problems associated with each leadership style can influence foreign policy
formulation.
Initially, I begin by describing briefly what foreign policy is and the various factors that
influence the development of sound foreign policy. I proceed to introduce the two prominently
used methods of foreign policy decision making; namely the Rational Model and the
Bureaucratic Model and will further describe the factors influencing both decision making
models.
After a brief lead into the general ideology of my essay; in this case foreign policy decision
making; I then go on to talk about the specifics in two parts firstly, the role of leadership in
foreign policy decision making and secondly, the impact and role bureaucratic politics.

In the first part, I talk about the role of leadership and personality and the impact they have on
decision making. Here I also examine conditions wherein the relevance of personality is highly
constrained. I also briefly look into the impact of personality on foreign policy decision making.
Referencing Jensen (1982) here, I emphasize the characteristics that a leader needs to possess in
order for the actors personality to have an optimum impact on foreign policy decision making. I
then draw light to a situation of autocratic rule and how such a style of leadership can impact
foreign policy decision making. Finally, by emphasizing on how a decision makers perception
of his environment around is vital to his understanding and formulating of decisions; I draw
attention to how crucial cognition is for sound decision making. With an example of Nehru and
Indias foreign policy decisions with its neighbors, I emphasize how the way in which
individuals alter or avoid information leads to cognitive dissonance.
In the second part, I talk about how Realists believe that foreign policy decision making is not
really leader centric and how the role of the leader does not really matter at all, because all those
individuals who might come to power have roughly the same values and beliefs. In such a way
the drivers of a states foreign policy should be found at the domestic or international level. I also
talk about how bureaucratic politics is very beneficial; since the real definition of national
interest has not been clearly defined as of yet and this can lead to various interpretations of
priorities. Further, I emphasize on the understanding of the extent to which bureau politics
becomes a problem differs significantly across various governmental structures. It is here that I
come to a conclusion as to why senior political officers should be appointed significant roles in
bureaucracies.
Further more into this essay, I go on to describe the impact leaders have on bureaucratic politics.
Here, I look into three different types of leaders, based on their characteristics Participative leaders.
Autocratic leaders.
Laissez- faire or Non-participative leaders.
I also help substantiate this thought with examples drawn from history of foreign policy
decisions taken by various presidents, past and present.
Finally, I help tie up this comprehensive thought process to put across my opinion on the given
essay topic. I conclude by stating that

The analysis of individual psychological variables is crucial in understanding foreign

policy decision making;
Alternative models of decision- making; including bureaucratic politics and groupthink
also invariably play a role, but the extent to which personality influences foreign policy
depends significantly upon the individual, his/her decision style, environmental
constraints and the prevalence of information and intelligence.
Senior political officers should be appointed roles in bureaucracies so that they can
interpret, manipulate, simplify and alter the institutional rules of foreign policy
formulation.
Introduction to Foreign Policy

Foreign policy can be understood as general objectives that guide the activities and relationships
of one state in its interactions with other states. The development of foreign policy is greatly
influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or workings of other states, the personality of
leaders, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs.
Foreign policy has four aspects - political, internal and external security-related, economic
including commercial, and societal 1 . A successful conduct of foreign policy protects and
advances our national interests, simultaneously contributing to the preservation and enhancement
of our status and power, without being unduly detrimental to national interests, power and status
of others1 . Such successful conduct, aims at avoiding conflicts and; where this is not possible; to
minimize the likely damage to our national interests, power and status 1 .
Factors affecting Foreign Policy decision making

There are many factors that influence the foreign policy decision making processes of
leaders and bureaucracies like political systems of the nation, diplomacy, domestic
considerations, personality of leaders etc. However, analyzing the psychological environment is
preliminary to understanding the dimensions of decision making and the leaders relationship
with success or failure of the decision. Political decision making is just institutions, bureaucracy
framework and mechanical relations without the humans in charge of this institution and devices
passion towards any decision to be made 2 .
The political decision making process varies from one country to another according to the
composition of the political system of the state. The type of the political system in terms of being
1
Raman, B. Decision-making in foreign policy. South Asia Analysis Group. Retrieved from:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/note86
2
Dr. Ahmed Aref AL Kafarneh. Decision-making in foreign policy. Journal of Law, Policy and Globaliza tion. Vol. 10.
(2013). ISSN 2224-3259 (Online).

a democratic or non-democratic regime and in terms of the body that made the decision, affect
the decision-making process heavily2 . In democratic systems this process is subject to
procedures, long consultations and discussions with many parties 3 . Foreign Policies can only be
implemented after more than one approval, and these measures lead to delayed decision making
and implementation. Thus, more often than usual some decisions lose their immediate
effectiveness.
For example, in India capital punishment for crimes such as rape is still heavily debated in the
Parliament. As a result, the victim often doesnt get justice for the offence inflicted against them.
The situation is different in non-democratic regimes. In such regimes the decision- making
process takes place in a narrow range, and limited elements participate in the process 2 . Decisionmaking processes here are fast in the face of external situations, because the decision maker does
not need to review the other institutions in the state in order for his decision to earn legitimacy;
quite contrary to the case in democratic systems. Here, it is of key importance to note that the
final decision is linked to the interests of the system associated with the character of the decision
maker 4 .
In my opinion, those decision making authorities; who often derive information from the many
formal or informal organizations, including embassies, intelligence services, hardware, research
and study centers, international and regional conference centers, networks of information and
private source; should be the key relationship between decision making bodies and the objectives
of sound foreign policy formation5 .
Diplomacy is the key tool of foreign policy; while war, alliances, and international trade
may all be manifestations of it 6
As diplomacy plays a prominent role in the determination of foreign policy; decision- making in
foreign policy is greatly influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or workings of other
states, the personality of leaders, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs. These factors
play a stronger role than other elements such as political culture and nationalism.
(2013). ISSN 2224-3259 (Online).
4
(2013). ISSN 2224-3259 (Online).
5
(2013). ISSN 2224-3259 (Online).
6
Merriam-Weebster (online). Definition of foreign policy. Retrieved from : http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/foreign%20policy

All these factors need to be carefully considered by bureaucracies and leaders while formulating
foreign policy decisions. Most often even the best of facts can lead to wrong decisions in the
absence of high-quality expertise in analyzing facts and assessing their implications 7 . Expertise
can be understood as the product of institutional training, on-job experience, opportunities for
interactions with other experts and first-hand knowledge of the past difficulties in
implementation of foreign policies7 .
Foreign Policy decision making models

The process of foreign policy decision making normally follows two models
The Rational Approach, and

The Bureaucratic Approach.
A common starting point for studying the decision-making process is the Rational Model 8 . In
this model, decision makers set goals, evaluate their relative importance, and calculate the costs
and benefits of each possible course of action then choose the one with the highest benefits and
lowest costs7 . The choice may be complicated by uncertainty about the costs and benefits of
various actions. In such cases, decision makers must attach probabilities to each possible
outcome of an action. For example, will pressuring a rival state to give ground in peace
discussions work or back- re.
Some decision makers are relatively accepting of risk, whereas others are averse to risk. These
factors affect the importance that decision makers place on various alternative outcomes that
could result from an action. In their book Foreign Policy Analysis (2012), Alden and Aran state
thatThe Foreign Policy decision-making process is a major focus of foreign policy analysis
scholarship seeking to unlock and explain the complexities of state conduct in t he
international system. In this regard, rationality and its application to foreign policy
decision making is one of the most influential approaches to understanding contemporary
international politics 9 .
An alternative to the rational model is the government bargaining or bureaucratic politics model,
in which foreign policy decisions result from the bargaining process among various government
agencies with somewhat divergent interests in the outcome. As stated by Alden and Aran (2012),
7
Raman, B. Decision-making in foreign policy. South Asia Analysis Group. Retrieved from:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/note86
8
Graham T. Allison and Philip Zelikow. Essen ce of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Boston: Little,
Brown, 1971)
9
Alden and Aran. Foreign Policy Analysis. (London: Routledge, 2012), 14.

work on the role of foreign policy and bargaining further enhances our understanding of the
interdependence between human agency and bureaucracies within executive decision makingunits 10 .
The Bureaucratic politics model explains foreign policy in a combination of bureaucratic
organizations and political actors 11 . Bureaucratic organizations are relevant to foreign policy as
they generate outputs that structure the basis on which policy makers make decisions.
Bureaucracies also tend to develop common attitudes and shared images which play a crucial
role in framing how a particular issue is perceived by foreign policy makers 11 .
Leadership and Foreign Policy decision making
The effect of personality on decision- making is most vital in the realm of foreign policy
formulation. It plays an essential role in determining good foreign policy as in addition to being
achievable. Leaders make foreign policy decisions based on many political factors and
consequences. Good foreign policy is achievable; and presumably, is a realistic source for
ordering the international system through some form of balancing or trade-off mechanism 12 .
Caitlin Smiths article on a similar stream was very helpful in aiding me to gather substantial
data about this section of my essay.
The influence of leadership and personality in foreign policy comprises of subjective processes,
background, individual characteristics, goals and values. Jensen(1982) talks about Legal
abstraction by stating that society assumes that decision making is the result of operations of a
human organization; since it is individuals who make decisions and not states 13 . I agree with
her when she states that, although personality can be important in adding to our understanding of
foreign policy behavior; its impact is highly dependent upon the compulsions imposed by the
world order as well by those upon domestic legislative structures 14 .
For example, Adolf Hitler ruled the NSDAP autocratically by asserting the Fhrerprinzip
("Leader principle"), which relied on absolute obedience of all subordinates to their superiors;
thus he viewed the government structure as a pyramid, with himselfthe infallible leaderat
the apex15 . Rank in the party was not determined by electionspositions were filled through
appointment by those of higher rank, who demanded unquestioning obedience to the will of the
leader14 . Thus, all foreign policy decisions in Germany during Hitlers reign of power were
10
Alden and Aran. Foreign Policy Anal ysis. (London: Routledge, 2012)
12
13
Jensen, L. Explaining Foreign Policy. (London: Prentice-Hall, 1982)
14
Smith, C. Personality in fo reign policy decision-making. University of Leeds. Retrieved from: http://www.eir.info/2012/10/16/personality-in-foreign-policy-decision-making/
15
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: A Biography. (New York: W. W . Nor ton & Company, 2008).
11

autocratically decided. In fact, many historians consider Hitler's foreign policy decisions to be
one of the major causes for the outbreak of World War II in Europe 16 .
Smith (2011) contends that while considering the effect of personality on foreign policy
formulation, it is crucial to note the existence of certain integral conditions under which
personality and individual mannerisms are unable to make a significant impact upon decision
making17 . In his book Explaining Foreign Policy; Jensen (1982) identifies a number of situations
in which personality is likely to affect the decisional outputs of both the leader and of the
fundamental environment 18 . He contends that for personality to have an ideal impact upon
foreign policy decisions, the leader must display a high level of involvement in international
affairs and must possess high decisional independence16 . In my opinion, the role of the individual
is not always consistent. At times bureaucrats and politicians are required to perform dual roles;
which can sometimes result in conflicting ideologies.
For example, when Tony Blair, discussed the possibility of the UK invading Iraq in 2002 19 ; he
was not only involved as a Prime Minister but was also involved as a self-confessed churchgoer
and a morally concerned human being 20 .
In looking at instances personality is the major determinant behind policy decisions, it is ideal to
look at regions where politics is highly autocratic and unimpeded by bureaucracy. The UAE
region serves as an optimum condition for observing such an avatar of personality in foreign
policy decision. In such regimes, the leader tends to operate according to personal desires and
according to personal interests; unconstrained by bureaucratic constraints or opposition forces.
This can be exemplified during King Fahd's rule in Saudi Arabia; during which the royal family's
lavish spending of the country's wealth reached its height. In addition, the biggest and most
controversial military contract of the century, the Al-Yamamah arms deal was signed on the
kings watch; which cost the Saudi treasury more than $90 billion 21 . These funds were originally
allocated to building hospitals, schools, universities and roads. As a result, Saudi Arabia endured
16
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: A Biography. (New York: W. W . Nor ton & Company, 2008).
Smith, C. Personality in fo reign policy decision-making. University of Leeds. Retrieved from: http://www.eir.info/2012/10/16/personality-in-foreign-policy-decision-making/
18
19
Gilligan, A and Collins, N. Iraq War: timeline of Tony Blairs role. The Teleg raph. January 21, 2011. Retrieved
from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8272699/Iraq-War-timeline-of-Tony-Blairs-role.html
20
Stephen Benedict Dyson, Personality and foreign policy: Tony Blairs Iraq decisions, Foreign Policy Analysis,
2006, 1986 vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 314-316.
21
Taylor, Michael J.H. Flight International World Aircraft and Systems Directo ry (3rd Edition ed.). ( United
Kingdom: Reed Business Information, 2001). pp. 189190.
17

stagnation in infrastructure development from 1986 till 1999 22 . King Fahd also waged two wars
during his reign of power. He supported Saddam Hussein in the decade-long battles with Iran,
thereby creating a dependent in Baghdad; or so a reasonable man would have thought 23 . He also
encouraged the United States to see in the war an opportunity to retaliate against the Iranians and
wean Iraq from its Soviet allies 24 . We could attribute such foreign policy decisions of King
Fahds to the absence of strong bureaucratic constraints and due to autocratic authority over the
country and its resources. As evident, it is more difficult to attempt to apply models of
bureaucratic politics to regimes such as these where the ultimate decision making authority of
foreign policy decisions of the state rest in one persons power.
According to Smith (2011), Cognition or discernment is vital to perception and the way in
which a decision maker perceives the world is highly beneficial; especially for the reasons
behind various policies 25 . Since the outside environment, ideologies, upbringing, personal faith
and individual characteristics can heavily influence the way in which information is processed,
they can thus be said to influence decisional output. According to Jensen (1982), this can lead to
cognitive consistency, in which individual decision makers strive for situational developments
to comply with their belief system 26 . It can alternatively also lead to cognitive dissonance, in
which individuals will alter information that serves to disprove their theories about the ene my or
the world itself 27 .
For example, Indias first Prime Minister - Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, always believed in peaceful
alliances and in the solution of international affairs based on discussions. Socialism and
Satyagraha had a significant international influence on Nehru28 ; and those influences could be
seen in his foreign policy decisions for India in the 18th century. In his foreign policies, Nehru
tried to guide India in such a way, so as to steer clear from any form of violence and militarism.
He believed that a newly decolonized nation must invest all its economic and logistic resources
22
Taylor, Michael J.H. Flight International World Aircraft and Systems Directo ry (3rd Edition ed.). ( United Kingdom:
Reed Business Information, 2001). pp. 189190.
23
Sicherman, H. King Fahds Saudi Arabia. American Diplo macy. Retrieved from
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2005/0709/sich/sich_saudi.html
24
Sicherman, H. King Fahds Saudi Arabia. American Diplo macy. Retrieved from
25
Smith, C. Personality in foreign policy decision-making. University of Leeds. Retrieved from: http://www.eir.info/2012/10/16/personality-in-foreign-policy-decision-making/
26
27
Smith, C. Personality in foreign policy decision-making. University of Leeds. Retrieved from: http://www.eir.info/2012/10/16/personality-in-foreign-policy-decision-making/
28
S. Gopal, The Formative Ideology of Jawaharlal Nehru. Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 11, No. 21 (May 22,
1976)

towards development and not towards defense and armament 29 . Nehru had an innate belief in
honest fellow- feeling and political generosity. However, as history shows this did not work out
in favor of India with respect to peace talks with Pakistan and foreign relations with China.
These resulted in failed foreign policies pertaining to the Kashmir issue and that of Panchsheel
with China.
The Role of Political Leaders in Bureau Politics

Belonging to an alternate school of thought; many scholars consider foreign policy decisions to
be a result of pushing and tugging amongst various bureaucratic agencies, and not rational
decision- making by executive leaders. In their opinion; bureaucrats tend to see foreign policy
situations as how they affect the existence & operations of their bureaucracies 30 . Hence, their
responses to such situations are largely colored by various considerations. Bureaucratic outputs
may reflect the desires of several bureaucracies to accrue benefits or secure relative ascendancy,
and not to further national interest. According to Robert Jervis, bureaucracies are intellectually as
well as politically powerful and provide the newcomer with information, a view of the world,
and a home 31 .
Thomas Preston and Paul Hart (1999) contend that, in foreign policy there exists a certain
uncertainty in how the national interest is to be defined; which gives room for diverging
interpretations about what objectives are negotiable and what aims are to be given precedence32 .
In their opinion, Bureaucratic politics is advantageous in this process because in foreign policy
there is a dearth of varied ideological political representation.
They also believe that in reality, Leaders are not very comfortable in dealing with problems and
value-laden controversies and are more than happy to trade off effectiveness and efficiency in the
machinery of foreign policy formulation for safeguarding qualities such as integrity, reliability,
and resilience 33 . Indeed, what the leaders embody and represent plays a crucial role in
29
S. Gopal, The Formative Ideology of Jawaharlal Nehru. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 21 (May 22,
1976)
30
Alden and Aran. Foreign Policy Analysis. (London: Routledge, 2012)
31
Jervis, R. Perception and Misperception in Interna tional Politics. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976)
32
Preston, T and Hart, P. Understanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics: The Nexus between Political Leaders
and Advisory Systems. Political Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 49-98. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/stable/pdfplus/3792005.pdf?acceptTC=true
33
10

determining how the apex advisory system function, how policy decisions are formulated, and
who would have a meaningful influence on the leaders' inner circle of decision34 .
However, while juxtaposing that leaders constitute an important variable for understanding
bureaucratic politics, it is important to note a very important point noted by Preston and Hart
(1999) i.e. to recognize that this is a limited claim. They contend that although the role of
political leaders is not always an important factor for bureaucratic politics; it should not
insubordinate the kinds of institutional, structural variables usually associated with bureaucratic
politics models. They stateJust as the impact of bureaucratic politics on policy is found to be variable, so is the
impact of leaders found to be on bureaucratic politics. Further, it should be understood
that the importance of the role played by leaders as a variable affecting the characteristics
of the bureaucratic process varies drastically 35 .
In an example provide they state that, in the case of presidential inner circles; especially in the
context of that of U.S.A; policymaking groups tend to be more loyal to the leader than to the
parliamentary systems of cabinet government; particularly those with coalition cabinets and In
fact, many of the classical malfunctions resulting from over-cohesiveness of groups are more
likely to occur in presidential advisory groups than in collegial cabinets 36 . This is also seen in
other government bodies of other countries. Like in India the Central Government body of
ministers- the Union Ministry, are chosen with recommendations from the Prime Minister. Quite
obviously, the head of the state would like to have a council that does not drastically differ with
his ideologies.
This is because these aberrant forces; including bureau politics; are more pertinent in such
advisory groups. Preston and Hart (1999) also contend that, these structural differences between
presidential and collegial systems can easily be overdrawn if either one fails to recognize that
34
35
36
11

institutional structures are not determinants of behavior, but only provide certain incentives and
guidelines to the leaders 37 .
I agree with them on this aspect. Indeed; within bureaucratic politics; senior political officers
ought to be given a significant role so that they can interpret, manipulate and alter the
institutional rules of foreign policy formulation38 .
Impact of Leadership on Bureaucratic Politics
Further excerpts from Preston and Hart (1999) suggest that the impact of leadership
characteristics on the nature of bureaucratic politics within political administrations can be very
significant 39 . Here they look at three types of leaders with vary differently with respect to need
for control and sensitivity to context. This is similar to the types of leadership found in
Management and Business Studies theory.
According to them, leaders with high need for control and high sensitivity to context are more
likely to have an administrative and participative leadership style, where they are actively
involved in policy formulation40 . Such leaders tend to use an open advisory network that is
characterized by broad information channels for gathering policy advice that both supports and
opposes the leader's policy views 41 . This is similar to structure of that of President John F
Kennedys office during the discussion about an action to combat Cuban Missile Crisis 24 . As a
result, bureaucratic processes of concession formation and speculation are prevalent within such
leaders' political organizations. Here, the combination of active involvement and openness to
37
38
39
40
41
12

information serves to minimize the impact of decisional pathologies related to either bureaucratic
consensus-seeking or bureaucratic confrontation 42 .
Next; leaders characterized by a high need for control and a low sensitivity to context exhibit a
more predominant leadership style in which the leader personally dominates policymaking and
uses a closed advisory network 43 . Here, the advisory network is characterized by limited
information access channels for advice supporting the leader's policy preferences and for
contradictory advice and as a result, such leaders' inner circles are often characterized by
decisional pathologies associated with both bureaucratic consensus-seeking and bureaucratic
confrontation44
A related example is that of one pertaining to President Roosevelt's use of a competitive style in
his policy making. His notable accomplishments include trust busting and conservationism 45 .
Many Historians credited Roosevelt for changing the US' political system by permanently
placing the presidency at center stage and making leadership character as important as the
political issues concerning the nation46 .
Finally, they look at those leaders characterized by both low needs for control and low sensitivity
to context. They say such leaders evidence a laissez- faire leadership style (non- interference) in
which the leader is rarely involved in policy formulation and in such a system the leader uses a
closed advisory network 47 . In their opinion, such styles move directly to the more serious
decisional pathologies found in bureaucratic confrontation like bureau political distortion and
paralysis 48 . They substantiate this opinion further by explaining that, given the absence of a
42
and Advisory Systems. Political Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 49 -98. Retrieved from:
43
44
Preston, T and Hart, P. Understanding a nd Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics: The Nexus between Political Leaders
45
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2005). "Biography: Impact and Legacy". Retrieved from:
http://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/essays/biography/9
46
General Article. "Legacy. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general article/tr-legacy/
47
48
Preston, T and Hart, P. Unders tanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics: The Nexus between Political Leaders
13

participative leader; bureaucratic conflict in such contexts beco mes heightened because the
bureaucracy now is the only vehicle for resolving policy disputes, formulating policy and
reaching authoritative decisions26 . Since a laissez- faire leader possesses almost no role in policy
formulation process or decision making regime; the tasks are left to subordinates and lower level
officers to resolve matters through legislative conflict. Thus; they conclude; within laissez faire
styles, bureaucratic conflict in the policy environment is more widespread and than in any other
style 49 .
Conclusion and Comments

The examination and analysis of individual psychological variables can be extremely important
in understanding foreign policy decision-making; provided that systemic conditions allow for the
projection of personality onto decision outputs. Additionally, alternative models of decisionmaking; including bureaucratic politics and groupthink; also invariably play a role. However, the
extent to which personality influences foreign policy depends significantly upon the individual,
his decision style, environmental constraints and the prevalence of information and intelligence.
From data derived from Preston and Hart (1999), I come to a conclusion that bureaucratic
politics is still only a partially understood phenomenon in the policy formulation process within
government because of its complexity, occurrence, forms, and impact on policy, that all seem to
be inter-related 50 . Hence, within bureaucratic politics; senior political officers with expertise and
considerable prior experience ought to be given a significant role so that they can guide,
interpret, manipulate and alter the institutional rules of foreign policy formulation51 .
Also, from the data provided and the examples cited we can come to conclusion that t he personal
characteristics of leaders plays a vital role in determining how advisory systems function, how
policy decisions are made, and which actors have access into leaders' inner circle of decision52 .
Thus, all this helps me in concluding that yes, the process of foreign policy decision making is
49
Preston, T and Hart, P. Understanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics: The Nexus between Political
50
51
52
Leaders
Leaders
Leader s
Leaders
14

indeed a highly bureaucratic process where leadership plays a major role in determining the
direction and conclusion of the process. However, it is significantly influenced by political
culture, geographic variation and nationalism.
Bibliography
Alden, C and Aran, A. Foreign Policy Analysis. (London: Routledge, 2012)
Allison, G and Zelikow, P. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile
Crisis. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)
Baylis, T. A. Governing by committee: Collegial leadership in advanced societies.
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989).
Blondel, J. and Muller-Rommel, F. (Eds.) Governing together: The extent and
limits of joint decision making in European cabinets. (London: Macmillan, 1993)
15

Burke, J. P. and Greenstein, F. I. How presidents test reality: Decisions on

Vietnam, 1954 and 1965. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1991).
Dr. Ahmed Aref AL Kafarneh. Decision-making in foreign policy. Journal of
Law, Policy and Globalization. Vol. 10. (2013). ISSN 2224-3259 (Online).
Dyson, Stephen, Personality and foreign policy: Tony Blairs Iraq decisions,
Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006, vol. 2
George, A. L. Presidential decision making in foreign policy: The effective use of
information and advice. (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1980).
General Article. "Legacy. Retrieved from:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tr-legacy/
Gilligan, A and Collins, N. Iraq War: timeline of Tony Blairs role. The
Telegraph. January 21, 2011. Retrieved from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8272699/Iraq-War-timelineof-Tony-Blairs-role.html
Kershaw, I. Hitler: A Biography. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008)
Janis, I. L. Victims of group think. (Boston: Houghton Miffli, 1972)
Jervis, R. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. (New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1976).
Merriam-Weebster (online). Definition of foreign policy. Retrieved from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign%20policy
Mintz, A. Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision
Making. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002)
16

Preston, T. and t Hart, P. Understanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics:

The Nexus between Political Leaders and advisory systems. Political Psychology,
Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 49-98
Raman, B. Decision-making in foreign policy. South Asia Analysis Group.
Retrieved from: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/note86
Smith, C. Personality in foreign policy decision-making. University of Leeds.
Retrieved from: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/10/16/personality-in-foreign-policydecision-making/
S. Gopal, The Formative Ideology of Jawaharlal Nehru. Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 21 (May 22, 1976)
Sicherman, H. King Fahds Saudi Arabia. American Diplomacy. Retrieved from
Taylor, Michael J.H. Flight International World Aircraft and Systems
Directory (3rd Edition ed.). (United Kingdom: Reed Business Information,
2001). pp. 189190.
17

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy Decision PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy Decision PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

S.

RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

The analysis of individual psychological variables is crucial in understanding foreign

Introduction to Foreign Policy

Factors affecting Foreign Policy decision making

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Foreign Policy decision making models

The Rational Approach, and

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

The Role of Political Leaders in Bureau Politics

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Conclusion and Comments

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Burke, J. P. and Greenstein, F. I. How presidents test reality: Decisions on

Is Leadership in Foreign Policy decision making a highly bureaucratic process

Preston, T. and t Hart, P. Understanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics:

S-ar putea să vă placă și