Chapter 5

Rationality in Foreign Policy

The chapter by Christopher hill examines what rationality means in the context of foreign policy
in greater depth, with a focus on the many constraints that have been thoroughly examined in the
specialized literature. Any hope for clear sighted foreign policy thinking is an illusion; the
important task is to show that responsible agency can still exist in unpredictable, multifaceted,
and deeply politicized settings.

Hill raises certain issues of rationality as procedure versus substance, the individual versus
collective, efficiency versus democracy, and normative versus positive. The problems of
uncertainty, complexity and information overload that are faced by the policy makers make it
difficult for them to apply rational method. So, the theory of bounded rationality is explained in
this context, and the term “ satisficing” is used which indicated that we do not know about the
consequences and cannot imagine all the possible options. There is an issue with satisficing ,as
usually an uncertain environment, one cannot predict change. So author comes up with the
concept of “Disjointed Incrementalism” that policy can be changed by small steps rather than
grand transformations. It points out the benefits of group policy making with the criticism on
this theory that it can criticize the direction of foreign policy. Another theory related to bounded
rationality is “Cybernetic decision making” which shows how organization and the mind works
in the context of foreign policy. So the main argument is that due to human mind being unable to
cope with the information overload, it can monitor only a limited number of variables, so this
leads to issues where the ends and means are blurred together. Rational approach is flawed to
some extent due to factors associated with it.

The author argues that foreign policy analysis should never ignore the importance of time. So, it
is necessary to keep historical importance in mind which can bring opportunity for real changes
and which can help policy makers avoid the previous historical mistakes. The idea of non-
decision is important in foreign policy analysis because it allows us not just to question how and
by whom but also why and with what consequences.
The power of historical thinking is needed for a balance between being nonchalant about the past
and being dominated by it. It is not really rational either expecting to wipe the slate clean or to
ignore the need for any change. Foreign policy actors pursue different goals with different
degrees of self-consciousness and clarity. Decision makers should be able to differentiate and
prioritize among objectives. As they should have a sense of time frame, explicit goals, values at
stake and specific target of actions. One should know how seriously the policy was being
pursued , in what time frame and on what criteria.

Considering the constraints on decision makers in terms of the bureaucratic , political, economic,
psychology and external aspects, the decision makers can’t behave completely rational but
instead policy makers are recognizing the dual responsibility to citizens and to international
society. Decision-makers aim for “rational” approach in terms of how best to translate their
values into achievements. Thus the notion of rationality does not need to be abandoning
altogether.