A

Term paper

on

“LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND FOREIGN POLICY”

Submitted by
Ramesh Kumar Raj
MIRD, FoHSS-TU, Ist Semester, 2018, Roll no-24
Email- rajramesh674@gmail.com
Contact- 9849989848

Submitted to
Tribhuwan University
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Masters in International Relations and Diplomacy
MIRD-TU, Kirtipur, Kathmandu
Foreign Policy analysis (504)
Ass. Prof. Prem Raj Khanal

June 30, 2018

 LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND FOREIGN POLICY
(Chapter-3)

LEVEL OF ANALYSIS AND FOREIGN POLICY

Foreign policy is a government's strategy in dealing with other nations through diplomacy to
pursue or fulfill its national Interest. Foreign policy of any country consists of National-interest
strategies to achieve goals within international milieu. The approaches are strategically employed
to interact with other countries and the study of such strategy is called foreign policy analysis.
Today in world politics the global actors are not only states but individuals, international
government organization, international non-governmental organizations and MNCs. To
understand foreign policy analysis simply analyst have divided it into three perspective termed
levels of analysis. The level of analysis can be better understood in three ways namely Individual,
State and System level of analysis.

1. INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANALYSIS

In foreign policy making process individual is root level. It is the individual who takes decision,
makes policies in response to certain political environment. As all individual are not same and
have their own nature and characteristics that influences the foreign policy making. Individual-
level analysis can be understood by three different perspectives. The first Fundamental Human
Nature, second the people act in response to organization and third to examine the motivation and
actions of specific persons.

a) Cognitive factors
Human in decision making process is not fully rational meant making decisions within constraints
of “bounded rationality”. Bounded rationality can be external and internal. External boundaries
includes missing, erroneous or unknowable information while internal boundaries includes the
result of Human frailties-the limited physical stamina and intellectual capacity to resolve complex
issues. The best example of external boundaries can be- President Bush and Prime Minister
Blair had to decide whether to invade Iraq in March 2003 with- out knowing whether
Saddam Hussein would respond with chemical or biological attacks on U.S. and British
forces. Internal boundaries on rational decision making are the result of our human frailties—the
limited physical stamina and intellectual capacity to study exceptionally complex issues.
Whatever the “realities” were during the crisis leading up to the Iraq War in 2003, the
universe of information available was far more than President Bush, Prime Minister Blair,
President Saddam Hussein, or any human could absorb.

No human likes to think oneself as not fully rational and therefore, in order to cope with our
limitations, we adopt three strategies-cognitive consistency, wishful thinking and using heuristic
device. Cognitive consistency assist in lowering ideas and information contradicting the views.
Similarly, Wishful thinking leads Human convincing one’s idea is best and will succeed. Heuristic
devices are stereotypes and Analogies that deals with limitations of cognitive consistency.

b) Emotional factors
Decision makers never thinks them not rational however Human are strongly bounded by emotions
and feelings like anger, happy, sad that they response to events reciprocally. It can be best
illustrated by the examples-

1) President carter was irritated when President Jimmy Carter was irate when Iranian
students study- ing in U.S. colleges picketed the White House in 1980 during
the hostage crisis with Iran over its seizure of the U.S. embassy and its staff in
Tehran. An incensed Carter growled that he would like to “go out on the streets
myself and take a swing at ... those bastards” (Vandenbroucke, 1991:364)
2) after the 9/11 attack, President Bush was outraged and said, “We are going to find
out who did this and we are going to kick their asses.”

c) Psychological factors
Psychological factors are major cause of irrational decision. According to the frustration-
aggression theory, aggression is the outcome of frustration of individual and society.

Example- on polling in nine Muslim countries, one analyst suggests that rather than a hatred
for freedom, the reason for the widespread negative opinions among Muslims is that, “The
people of Islamic countries have significant grievance with the West and the United States in
particular” based on their view that the United States is “ruth- less, aggressive, conceited,
arrogant, easily provoked, [and biased against Muslims].”
d) Biological factors
Bio politics that deals with the relationship between the physical nature and political behavior of
Humans. Bio politics further can be better understood by two approaches Gender and Ethology.
Ethology which explains about animal instinct in human beings. Better illustrated by Ardrey (pp.
12-14) as human behave in the way that is based partly on innate characteristics.

For example-“Territoriality”- that individual wants to gain, maintain and defend their
territory as an animal instinct in Human. Territorial issues between the neighboring
countries are the common cause to escalate war.

Gender which explains the political behavior, policy making and decision taking on the basis of
gender. For Example, a research found out that male are more favorable towards war than
their female counterparts. There exist controversy in argument that the gender gaps exists
because of the socialization over biology as the determining factor of political behavior. Research
shows that world would have been more peaceful in presence of women leaders instead of male
leaders.

e) Perceptions
Individual views world through perpetual lenses that distort reality at some degree. Perceptions
comes with various characteristics that influence global politics. Perception of seeing opponent
more threatening than actually they may be. For eg:- Nuclear program of N.Korea and Iran as
more threat to US than nuclear program of UK and others.

Another characteristics of perceptions can be tendency to see behviors of others more planned and
coordinated than own. Eg: Mutually convinced US and soviet that other side of each was
orchestrating and coordinated global campaign to subvert them.

Similarly, other form of perceptions can be finding hard to understand why other dislike, mistrust
and fear of us and we and other tend to have similar images of one another.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

The second approach of individual level analysis. According to this approach Humans act basically
in two different settings, as an individual and in collective settings. The first place is role behavior
which explains that as a human we play many roles based on our attitude to response the
environment that we live. Policy makers and the Head of the states play various roles combined
with self-expectations and external expectations. External expectations on the part of higher
position holders are transferred by public opinions, critics and advisors. For eg: President Bush
public response after 9/11 attack despite of his secret service to remain safely out of
Washington DC. The second is decision making behavior with organizations. When opinions
are given in an organization, people do not think about how their opinions will be but they
think about how other will take it and most importantly, the leaders.

III. LEADERS AND THEIR INDIVIDUAL TRAITS

It is idiosyncratic level of analysis that focuses how leaders personal characteristics influences
policy and decision making process. Under this approach we find out how individual’s personality,
physical and mental health, ego and ambition and political history and personal experiences affects
policy making in world politics.

a) Personality
There are various categorization schemes related to personality traits however well known political
personality are Active-passive scale and positive-negative scale. It is considered that active leaders
are policy innovator who faces criticism whereas passive are reactors. Similarly, Positive
personality have egos strong to enjoy the contentious political environment whereas, Negative
personalities are apt to feel burdened, even abused by political criticism.

Active-positive personality Eg- US President Clinton have active-positive personality as

claimed as “almost compulsively averactive’’ (Renshon, 1995:59)

Passive-negative personality Eg- Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were both active-
negative personalities who showed symptoms of delusion, struck out at their enemies, and
generally developed bunker mentalities.

According to a post- war report to the CIA, Saddam’s psychology was shaped powerfully by a
deprived and violent childhood. Reflecting that, he changed his original name, Hussein al-Takrit,
by dropping al-Takrit (his birthplace) and adding Saddam, an Arabic word that means “one
who confronts.”

b) Physical and mental health

Physical and mental health of individual affects the policy and decision making process.
For eg- Franklin Roosevelt was so ill from hypertension in 1945 that historian concludes that
he was “in no condition to govern the republic’’. And the impact that he was unable to resist
stalin’s demands for soviet domination in Eastern Europe

Similarly, Mental health as for example of Hilter intake of medically prescribed drugs that
led him for the bizarre manic-depressive cycle of his decision making late in the war.
Similarly, secretary of state Henery Kissinger once referred president Nixon as “ my
drunken friend” who among other events was reportedly incapacitated during international
crisis with the soviet union )Schulzinger, 1989:178)

c) Ego and ambition

Ego and ambition as one of the another individual factor affecting foreign policy decision making.

For eg. According to one intelligence report, the Iraqi leader saw himself in “larger than life
terms comparable to Nebuchadnezzar [the great Babylonian king, 605–563 B.C.] and
Saladin [the Sultan of Egypt who in 1189 defeated the Christians during the Third
Crusade].”, President Bush invasion in Iraq and panama

d) Political History and Personal Experiences

Personal experiences in politics is also most determining factor in decision taking and policy
making.
For eg- personal experiences of President Bush influenced his determination in 2003 to drive
Saddam Hussein from power.

2. STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS

State level of analysis based on how a country’s political structure and the political forces and
subnational actors within the country cause its government to decide to adopt one or another
foreign policy.

Types of government, situation and policies

The type of foreign policy making process varies with what type of government does state posses
whether authoritarian or democratic. If a state has an authoritarian government, it is clear that the
foreign policy of that state will be narrowed and is highly influenced by individual supported by
ministers, interest grops and domestic elements. Similarly, if a state has a democratic government,
the foreign policy is much more open and is framed by legislators, public opinion, media,
opposition parties, and other actors. For eg- President Bill Clinton signed the CTBT on behalf of
US but senate refused to ratify in 1999.

Types of situation and the foreign policy process

The policy making process is adversely affected by country’s situation. The situation can be crisis-
non crisis. Crisis situation is when decision makers are- suppressed by an event, feel threatened
and time availability problem to response the event. Similarly, non-crisis situation are often
involvement of broad array of domestic actors to shape policy.

For eg- Popularity gained by president bush after the response to 9/11 attack with war on
terror.
Popularity gained by Nepalese PM KP Sharma oli stand on nationalism after India blocade
to Nepal in 2015.

Political culture
Political culture and identity of the country comprises of society’s widely held traditional values.
It is civic responsiveness toward the political environment ideology and practices of the country
and policy making is adversely affected by the political cultural. The decision making process is
civic-centric. For instance, Americans and Chinese have belief of their values as more implacable
to the world. The American values that can hardly sustain in china and Chinese value as the same
in America. So, their respective governments frames policy in accordance to their own values.

Foreign policy making actors

In the process of policy making various actors are involved like political executives, bureaucracies,
legislature, political opponents, interest groups, media and the people. Thus there is always clash
of ideas and test of political power of long term prevailing policies.

Heads of government and political executives

The head of the government of any state is termed as President, Prime Minister or Premier who
are the most prominent figure in executing policies. They dominates the policy making process.
This head of states are assisted by other chief executives which includes foreign affairs ministers
and defense ministers. They posses formal and non-formal power that they can exercise responding
situation. For eg- US president can declare war anytime but later approve from senate. The
authority to make decision and formulate policy is based on their protocol, skills and leadership
abilities, public image, their persuasive skills, their ability to set clear vision, level of intelligence
etc.

Bureaucracies and legislatures

The nature and functioning of government depends upon bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is functioning
as well planning body of the government. They are involved in filtering the information which
affects the policy as decision makers depends on staffs for information. Similarly, Bureaucrats
involves in recommending the policy in reference to situation and positions of the agency. Finally,
the decision and policy is functioned and implemented by bureaucrats. For example, after 9/11
attack, it is clear that the implementation of anti-terrorism policy of US had flaws.

Legislature comparatively more influential in democratic regime for foreign policy decision
making process than in authoritarian. For instance, The national congress of china as less
importance in policy making. Legislatures are responsible check and balance of the policies
taken by head of government, raise common voice, unified and national voice for successful
foreign policy and effectively formulate domestic policy that is essential for framing foreign
policy.

Interest group and people

Interest groups and people are most influential as it act as watch-dog while formulating foreign
policy by head of the states and government. The different pressure groups can be civil society,
women groups, environmentalist, culture, economic, issue-oriented, transnational interest groups
who pressurize the government in making policies favorable to each interest groups. Human right
promotion, women empowerment issues, environmental issues, economic welfare are the agendas
of these interest groups that is need to be included while formulating policies. Public opinion is
also very influential in policy making process. However, in authoritative government it is marginal
factor. But, in democratic government they play a key role in influencing the foreign policies.

For eg- Public opinion towards Indian blockade towards Nepal in 2015 led KP Sharma oli to
take stand on nationalism and no-amendment of constitution.
Media and Intelligence group
Media is 21st century has become not only become information source to government rather it has
become catalyst and watch dog in political affairs. Therefore media has essential role triggering,
acting as catalyst and performing watch-dog activities in policy making process by government.
Eg- CNN Effect that led US withdraw from Vietnam war.

Intelligence group and military are also very responsible state organ that involves in policy making
processes. The CIA, ISIS, RAW etc are few intelligence agency that works cross border to collect
very confidential information of states so that they can assist in taking particular policy countering
others policy. They generally involves in security and defense policy making process.

3. SYSTEM-LEVEL ANALYSIS

The achievement of successful foreign policy of any country depends upon their choices made on
the basis of the realities of the international system. The international system responsive policy
can only led country to pursue its interest. Therefore System level of analysis prioritizes the
external restraints of foreign policy. Those restraints of state behavior can be explained in the
characteristics of the system structure, its economic realities, its power relationship and norms.

Structural characteristics
Structure is key element of any system. Structure of the international system can be best understood
by the organization of authority and level of interactions among actors within systemic framework.

The organization of authority

Sovereignty is basic foundation of international system therefore it is state-centric. The
organization of authority is vertical and horizontal in system. In vertical system, it is regulated by
higher levels of authority. In horizontal, the power is fragmented because of lack of superior
authority and therefore international system becomes anarchy. This system therefore pressurizes
for realist approach of militarily aggression for self-survival. But currently organization of
authority is maintained by intergovernmental organizations like UN through which every state
organizes its power under certain rules and regulations.
Scope, level and intensity of interaction
The Scope, frequency and level of interaction among the actors in the international system has
extensively increased during the last half century. This growth in interaction level is because of
globalization and economic interdependence. For example, US dependent on foreign markets,
oils from middle East and other countries in US for goods, services, technologies.

Power Relationship
Countries policies are restrained by number of powerful actors and the context of power in
international system. The powerful actors in the international system can be a single country as or
empire, an alliance or a global International Governmental Organization such as United Nations
or European Union. When analyzing power relationship the picture comes into mind is the number
of poles that exists in system and their interaction. Similarly, The context of power is another
characteristic that deals with the applicability of power in proper situation.

Economic realities
The economic policies of country is determined by the economic realities present in the
international system. The age of economic interdependence has brought states interaction more
increased and peaceful. The availability of economic resources also influences the state’s behavior
and its policy. For example, US engagement in middle-east is said to be for oil.

Norms
With growing interdependence there also arises a situation of conflict and aggression that needs to
be minimized in international system. So, while formulating plan and policies countries needs to
respond the international norms and values. Such as nuclear non-proliferation, assist in
humanitarian crisis, promoting human rights, peace and order are international norms that should
be strictly followed by the states organized by UN.

***