Foreign Policy Models

The game of Robert Putnam's two levels

In the late 1980s, Robert Putnam developed the dual-level approach to foreign policy
analysis. For this analyst, internal factors influence international affairs and vice versa. At
the national level, internal groups pursue their interests by pressing the government to adopt
favorable policies. Here, politicians seek power by building coalitions among these groups.
At the international level, national governments seek to maximize their own capacities to
meet internal pressures while minimizing the adverse consequences of external events. But
at the same time they try not to counter their counterparts so as not to jeopardize
international cooperation (Putnam, 1993). For Putnam, the process of negotiation in foreign
policy considers two important levels: the first is to negotiate a tentative agreement or
consensus before making a decision. At this level, a consensus would bring broad gains for
all. Making a decision and then seeking consensus is risky and often exhausting. The
second level separates the discussions within each group of members to see if they want to
ratify the agreement. Putnam believes that the more profit scenarios there are, the more
level I is likely to be achieved. According to Putnam, the size of the profit scenario depends
on political institutions, the distribution of power, preferences, and possible coalitions
between Tier II components. As a general rule, the group with the highest interest in a
specific issue is more likely to hold the most extreme position. In each scenario, issues such
as the linkage of issues, ratification processes and negotiator strategies, among others, need
to be considered. According to Putnam, a proper review of the internal factors of foreign
policy and international relations should emphasize the interests of different national actors:
parties, social classes, interest groups (economic and non-economic), legislators, public
opinion and elections , Not only the opinion of the officials of the Executive.

In the double game approach, at either level, the credibility of an official engagement may
be low if internal groups are not taken into account. Costs for rejecting something can be
high and hurt reputation even though the negotiator be be unable from to guarantee the
ratification. Putnam considers what any
Negotiation situation involves the players' attempts to restructure the game and change the
perceptions of the costs of not reaching an agreement and the benefits of the reached
consensus. Putnam's model is somewhat pragmatic because governments have to seek to
satisfy the interests of internal actors without jeopardizing international cooperation. This
dilemma can bring a double discourse and even a contradictory politics because in front of
the national public there can be a position, and before the international scene, a different
one. According to Putnam's model, governments strive to make a decision that, on the one
hand, will please the internal groups and, at the same time, be acceptable abroad. In sum,
the model is very useful when in a particular subject there are very high internal interests
and the influence of the external factor is very Significant.

The three levels of analysis by Kenneth Waltz.

Professor Kenneth Waltz identifies that theories must be general, elegant, and
parsimonious. Theories are constructed and do not explain the changes but the continuities.
He is an author who will focus on the continuities of the international system. The changes
will only take place in the structure, but these changes will be associated with the great wars
and presage the rise and fall of great powers (Paul Kennedy) or changes of hegemony.
Waltz, we repeat, will focus on the continuities of the system, just as Robert Gilpin will
focus on the changes in his book "Change and Continuity in World Politics" of 1981.

Waltz argues that in International Relations there are three levels of analysis: a first image
centered on the human, a second image centered on the State and finally, a third image
centered on the system. These levels were developed in his book "The Man, the State and
the War" of the year 1954.

In his most prominent book "Theory of International Politics" of 1979 Waltz raises the
hypothesis that all States at all times end up behaving in the same way when they are at the
top of power. To see how States behave and what causes war, we must therefore focus on
the third image.

The third image will focus on the international structure and what are termed "structural
constraints". After making an analogy between the international structure
And the market will determine that the international structure has anarchy as its computer.
That in this structure the States are characterized by a functional equality and that has a
distribution of capacities and attributes of determined power. Note here that capacities are
important but more important is the distribution of those capacities, because this
distribution will give the arrangement of the units in the structure. Therefore Waltz does not
see power as an end in itself as it was seen by Hans Morgenthau.

Professor Waltz does not believe in the theory of Complex Interdependence of Keohane and
Nye, for him the States seek to control; Let us remember that the world is a world of self-
help. States do not believe in cooperation, because they always seek the absolute
advantages, leaving aside the relative advantages. While the sum of the relative advantages
is more than the advantages Absolute

In this "self-help world" nuclear weapons bring greater stability due to the power of
response. As argued in "The Emerging Structure of International Politics" of 1993 in a
nuclear world the use of weapons implies the possibility of destruction itself. Countries that
find themselves in decline and possessing nuclear power may be tempted to use it, but they
do not do so by assured mutual destruction itself; "The USSR disappeared quietly."

Kenneth Waltz is a theorist who "misses" bipolarity. Bipolarity is the most stable system
that exists. In international politics there are always two opposing options: a "getting on the
train", which is to follow the hegemon; Of "balancing". States by their nature tend to
balance because every state seeks to control and maintain their capabilities. Alliances do
not matter, the important thing is the powers that define the structure. When performing an
analysis of the international system I always have to see how many powers I have and take
as a parameter that the ideal is "two".

Multipolar worlds present more uncertainty and calculation difficulties for national leaders.
Fortunately, these uncertainties are reduced by the presence of nuclear weapons. With
nuclear weapons countries still worry about maintaining the balance of power; There is a
return to a system of balance of power thanks to the development of nuclear weapons. Few
authors, or almost none, predicted the Soviet Union's tumultuous collapse. Because of his
reliance on bipolarity, Waltz did not think
That the USSR would fall. Nevertheless, Waltz envisioned that the characteristic of the new
post-Cold War international order would be uncertainty. "We will live in this situation of

Uncertainty for at least another decade or two. " Everything seems to be that the passage of
time is affirmatively answering the one sustained by Waltz; Who also said "US imperialism
represents the greatest threat in the world, overwhelming power always repels."

All three Graham Allison models.

Graham Allison sought to explain the 1962 missile crisis from three models: the rational,
bureaucratic, and organizational actor.

 The act rational.

The model of the rational actor establishes that, in its international relations, the State is
rational and unitary. It is rational because the behavior of countries in the international
arena is determined by their interests and national objectives and is unitary because it
implies that the State acts as a single entity; That is to say, it does not contemplate the
interests and preferences of the different subnational actors. In this sense, such a model
explains foreign policy as a rational activity aimed at taking the best foreign policy option
and promotes the idea of the State as a rational agent. The Allison model consists of four
essential points that They are:

1. The State selects the objectives and values that a policy or decision
has to reach and maximize. That is, the decision maker must have a clear
idea of what the goal is to achieve. Such objectives should, according to this
model, promote national interest, national security and the survival of the
State.
2. The government considers the different mechanisms or means to
achieve the established purposes. At this point, the decision maker selects
the different strategies that can serve to achieve the objectives and, in turn,
values the environment international.
3. In the third point, the group in power determines what are the different
alternatives to achieve the objectives set. Here, decision makers have to
evaluate and calculate the potential impact of each alternative. In
 A prospective exercise, determine the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
The idea is to achieve the greatest benefits and try to reduce costs.

4. Finally, decision-makers select the best alternative that will allow

them to achieve their goals. This stage is, in itself, the most important
because it involves the decision-making process [Allison, 1971]. This model
is very useful for explaining the foreign policy decision-making process for
different cases, but it has some shortcomings. For example, it is not possible
for states today to be completely unitary, since there is a diversity of
subnational actors with different preferences. In addition, a rational decision
does not automatically mean that it is intelligent. Often, the course of action
responds to the interests of the group in power and not the national interest.
Another problem is that on many occasions it is difficult to predict the
consequences of different alternatives.

 The second Allison model is the Bureaucratic to Mod.

It explains the foreign policy of states based on preferences is composed of a set of actors,
who have different preferences on what should be done in a particular subject. Each actor is
important in the decision-making process and tries to impose his point of view. The final
objective is that, after a negotiation process, the actors reach a consensus on the final
decision, which will be respected by all. The idea is that this decision contains some
minimal element of each preference. According to this model, the actors are organized
hierarchically within the decision-making process. The hierarchy of these actors can be
observed in the power.

The four circles of power are:

1. The Inner circle or the center circle; Is composed of the president and his
most important advisers, such as the Secretary or Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
State, the Minister of National Security and the Secretary or Minister of Defense.
This circle includes the most powerful actors in the policy decision-making process
Exterior.
2. The Second circle or the second circle; Is composed of the armed forces and
lesser bureaucratic agencies, such as the Ministry of the Interior, Economy,
Treasury, Energy, Commerce, Etc.
 3. The Third circle or the third circle; Is constituted by interest groups, political
parties and the Congress.
4. The Outer Most Circle or the farthest circle; Includes the media and public
opinion in general. These actors have the least power in foreign policy-making,
according to the bureaucratic model.

 Graham Allison's third model is the Organizational structure.

Which establishes the existence of a standardized operational process (SOP) in the face of
any international contingency or crisis. Within this model, each actor has a specific
function. Therefore, the leaders expect that each organization will fulfill the assigned task.
This model avoids the process of identifying or calculating the consequences of possible
alternatives, as follows a kind of manual with standardized answers that are adopted in any
matter. Therefore, everyone expects the crisis to be resolved. Although they were proposed
after a very significant crisis, Allison's three models allow a broad explanation of the
behavior of the different actors involved in the decision-making process of foreign policy in
normal situations. There is no agreement on which is the best and most complete; The three
can be applied according to the conditions and theme.