Allison, G. T.

Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban

Missile Crisis. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston. 1971

Introduction
- Some Questions Allison wishes to answer:
- Why did the Soviet Union place strategic offensive missiles in
Cuba?
- Why did the US respond with a naval quarantine (blockade) of
Soviet shipments to Cuba?
- Why were the missiles withdrawn?
- What are the lessons of the missile crisis?

The General Argument

- “When we are puzzled by a happening in foreign affairs, the source
of our puzzlement is typically a particular outcome” (2) or, put
differently, Why a particular outcome occurred.
- In searching for an explanation, one typically puts himself/herself in
the place of the nation, or national government, (i.e. the actor)
confronting a problem of foreign affairs and tries to figure out, from
that perspective, why the nation made its choice.. (3)
- Treating national governments (or any other organization) as if they
were centrally coordinated, purposive individuals provides a useful
shorthand for understanding problems of policy.
- Of course, this carries with it a number of assumptions which
could prove deleterious.
- These can be summed up in three propositions:
1. Professional analysts of foreign affairs (as well as ordinary
laymen) think about problems of foreign and military policy in
terms largely implicitly conceptual models that have significant
consequences. (4)
- In sum, a more detailed analysis is required. What’s necessary
is an analytic approach to the narrative to find the dependent
and independent variables to in turn establish a chain of
causality.
2. Most analysts explain (and predict) the behavior of national
governments in terms of one basic conceptual model. here
entitled the Rational Actor or Classical Model (Model 1). (4)
- Laymen personify rational actors and speak of their aims and
choices.
- Theorists of international relations focus on problems between
nations in accounting for the choices of unitary rational actors in
the absence of an actor.
- General Procedure: Fix the unit of analysis. Focus on certain
concepts, like goals and objectives of the nation or government,
Invoke certain patterns of inference: i.e. if the nation performed
 an action of this sort, it must have had a goal of this type.
3. Two alternate conceptual models, here labeled an Organizational
Process Model (Model 2) and a Governmental (Bureaucratic)
Politics Model (Model 3), provide a base for improved
explanations and predictions. (5)
- Model 1’s implication that important events have important
causes must be balanced with an appreciation that:
1) Monoliths are black boxes covering various gears and levers
in a highly differentiated decision-making structures.
2) Large acts result from innumerable and often conflicting
smaller actions by individuals at various levels of
bureaucratic organizations in the service of a variety of only
partially compatible conceptions of national goals,
organizational goals, and political objectives.
- Model 1’s grasp of national purposes and of the pressures
created by problems in international relations must confront the
intra-national mechanisms from which governmental reactions
emerge.
- In Model 2, the Organizational Process Model, what Model 1
analysts characterize as “acts” or “choices” are thought of
instead as outputs of large organizations functioning according
to regular patterns of behavior.
- The Model 2 analyst uses the same General Procedure outlined
above. In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis:
1) Frame the Puzzle: From what organizational context and
pressures did this decision emerge? (6)
2) Fix the Unit of Analysis: Organizational output.
3) Focus Attn on Certain Concepts: The strength, standard
operating procedures, and repertoires of organizations.
4) Invoke Certain Patterns of Inference: If organizations
produced an output of this kind today, that behavior resulted
from existing organizational features, procedures, and
repertoires.
- A Model 2 analyst has “explained” the event when he has
identified the relevant Soviet organizations and displayed the
patterns of organizational behavior from which the action
emerged.
- Model 3 focuses on the politics of a government. Events in
foreign affairs, according to this model, are understood neither
as choices nor as outputs.
- In Model 3, what happens is characterized as a resultant
(result) of various bargaining games among players in the
national government.
- Again, using the same General Procedure, this time through the
lens of Model 3 to analyze the Cuban Missile Crisis:
1) Frame the Puzzle: Which results of what kinds of bargaining
 among which players yielded the critical decisions and
actions? (6)
2) Fix the Unit of Analysis: Political resultant [result].
3) Focus Attn on Certain Concepts: The perceptions,
motivations, positions, power, and maneuvers of the players.
4) Invoke Certain Patterns of Inference: If a government
performed an action, that action was the resultant of
bargaining among players in games. (6-7)
- A Model 3 analyst has “explained” this event when he has
discovered who did what to whom that yielded the action in
question. Predictions are generated by identifying the game in
which an issue will arise, the relevant players, and their relative
power and skill.

Chapter 1. Model 1: The Rational Actor

{
Please keep in mind that this, as with most books, states ~all of the
relevant theory in the beginning, introductory portion. Here, I will
only give particularly interesting, relevant, or poignant bits from the
text. I withhold the bulk of the chapter to avoid tautology. It is
basically concerned with applying the tenets of the Rational Actor
Model, Model 1, to the narrative of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
}
- The analyst begins by considering various preferences that the
Soviets might have in mind. (10) { Allison gives some examples
“from the literature”, but nothing too specific. Determining Soviet
preferences would differ w/r/t the particular IR theory one uses to
ascertain preferences, strategies, &c. }
- “What is striking about these examples... are the similarities of
various analysts when they are called upon to produce
explanations. Each assumes that what must be explained is an
action [emphasis added]. i.e., behavior that reflects purpose or
intention. Each assumes that the actor is a rational government.
Each assumes that the action is chosen as a calculated solution to
a strategic problem. For each, explanation consists of showing
what goal the government was pursuing when it acted and how
the action was a reasonable choice, given the nation’s objective.
This cluster of assumptions characterizes the Rational Actor
Model.” (13) [Emphasis added]

The Classical Model Illustrated

{
Pages 15-28 contain a number of highly specific subheadings.
Including:
- Diplomatic History
- Strategy
 - Sovietology [!]
- Sinology [i.e. study of the Chinese] [!!!]
- American Foreign Policy
- Theory with a Capital ‘T’
In spite of a thorough reading, little was distilled from these sections
that will be of use here. Although, below can be found a couple
relevant points.
}
- Strategic behavior influences an actor’s choice by working on his
expectations of how his behavior is related to his adversary’s. (15)
- One advantage of the Rational Actor Model is that it provides an
inexpensive approximation by letting the analyst think about what
he would do if he were the enemy. (19)
- Analysis of Soviet (or any nation’s/organization’s) policy actions can
be done through determining four pieces of information: (20)
1) The foreign policy objectives of the contending powers.
2) The means available to them for pursuing their own objectives.
3) The principles that guide their employment of their distinctive
styles of political warfare.
4) The constraints under which they operate in conducting the
struggle.
- In general, the less information about the internal affairs of a nation
or government, the greater the tendency to rely on the classical
mode, the Rational Actor Model.

A Rigorous Model of Action

{
This section begins with a rehashing of the axioms we discussed in
class.
}
- The basic concepts of these models of rational action are:
1) Goals and Objectives: The goals and objectives of the agent
are translated into a “payoff” or “preference” or “utility”
function. The general definition of a rational actor states that
RA’s will make choices which maximize expected utility. (29)
2) Alternatives: The rational agent must choose among a set of
alternatives displayed before him in a particular situation. In
decision theory, these are presented as a decision tree.
3) Consequences: To each alternative is attached a set of
consequences or outcomes of choice that will ensue if that
particular alternative is chosen. Variations are generated at
this point by making different assumptions about the accuracy
of the decision-maker’s knowledge of the consequences that
follow from the choice of each alternative.
4) Choice: Rational choice consists simply of selecting the
alternative whose consequences rank highest in the decision-
 maker’s payoff function.
- Rationality refers to consistent, value maximizing choice within
specific constraints. (30)

A Rational Actor Paradigm

{
Allison, in summary of Chapter 1, “Model 1: The Rational Actor”,
applies Model 1 in detail. I encourage you to read it. It is from page
32 to 35. Here, it is outlined in broad strokes.
}
I. BASIC UNIT OF ANALYSIS
II. ORGANIZING CONCEPTS
A. National Actor
B. The Problem
C. Static Selection
D. Action as Rational Choice
1. Goals and Objectives
2. Options
3. Consequences
4. Choice
III. DOMINANT INFERENCE PATTERN
IV. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS
V. SPECIFIC PROPOSITIONS

Chapter 2. Cuba II; A First Cut

{
Chapter 2 introduces no new theory. It is an application of the
Rational Actor Model to the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis,
including the lead-up to it. I will not outline it here, as it is unlikely
that (1) an outline would not help explain it, as I’d just be re-typing
the chapter, and (2) it seems unlikely that we’d be asked to recall
this on an exam. But I do recommend reading it. It’s a quick read.
}