The Third World Policy Process

The term "Third World" refers to the group of developing countries that are generally
characterized by a low level of economic development, limited industrialization, and often
political instability. Undoubtedly, the way policies are made in developing countries is very
different from the way policies are made in industrialized countries. The organizations involved
in policy-making, the people participating in the process, the resources available to them, the
power of the government in the society, and the ability of the government to implement its
policies are all different in developing countries compared to industrialized ones. Additionally,
the topics addressed by policies, the scope of the government's policy-making activities, and the
specific content of policies vary between developing and industrialized countries.

Different Approaches in the Third World Policy Process

Bureaucratic Politics
One approach to analyzing the policy process in Third World countries is the "Bureaucratic
Politics" model. This model emphasizes the role of different actors within the government
bureaucracy, including ministers, advisors, and civil servants, in shaping foreign policy
decisions. In this model, the policy process is viewed as a complex negotiation process where
different actors with varying interests and levels of influence compete to have their preferred
policies adopted.
According to this model, different actors within the government bureaucracy have different
interests, preferences, and levels of influence that affect their ability to shape policy outcomes.
For example, ministers may be more focused on strategic or economic interests, while civil
servants may be more concerned with technical issues or human rights concerns.
The bureaucratic politics model suggests that policy decisions are not made by a single decision-
maker or a cohesive group, but rather by a complex negotiation process between multiple actors
with varying levels of power and influence. In this process, actors compete to have their
preferred policies adopted, using a range of tactics such as persuasion, negotiation, and
bargaining.
The outcome of this negotiation process is often shaped by factors such as the political climate,
the nature of the issue at hand, and the relative power and influence of the different actors
involved. For example, a minister with strong political backing may be able to push through a
policy that is opposed by civil servants or advisors. Here are some more real-world examples of
the Bureaucratic Model in foreign policy analysis:
India's Nuclear Policy: In the late 1990s, India faced intense pressure from the United States to
sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and abandon its nuclear weapons program.
However, India's bureaucratic establishment, including the military, intelligence agencies, and
the scientific community, lobbied for a different approach. The government eventually decided
to conduct nuclear tests in 1998, in part as a response to domestic pressures and to signal India's
strategic autonomy to the international community.

Pakistan's Foreign Policy: Pakistan's foreign policy is heavily influenced by its military
establishment, which has played a dominant role in the country's politics. The military, along
with other powerful bureaucratic actors such as the intelligence agencies, has pushed for a more
assertive foreign policy towards India, including support for militant groups in Kashmir. This has
often clashed with the views of civilian leaders, who have advocated for a more conciliatory
approach.
Venezuela's Oil Policy: Venezuela is a major oil producer, and its foreign policy in this area is
heavily influenced by the country's state-owned oil company, PDVSA. The company has
significant political power and has been involved in decision-making processes related to foreign
policy, including negotiating oil contracts with other countries. However, PDVSA has also been
plagued by corruption and mismanagement, which has undermined its effectiveness and led to
tensions with other countries.
In all of these examples, the bureaucratic model helps to explain how different actors within the
government have different interests, perspectives, and resources, and how they interact with each
other to shape foreign policy decisions.

Leadership Decision-Making
Another approach is the "Leadership Decision-Making" model. This model suggests that the
personality and beliefs of individual leaders play a crucial role in shaping foreign policy
decisions. According to this model, the policy process in Third World countries is often
personalized and centralized, with the leader exerting a significant influence over foreign policy
decisions.
The Leadership Decision-Making model is based on the idea that leaders in Third World
countries often have a significant degree of personal power and influence over the foreign policy
decision-making process. This is because in many cases, the political system in these countries is
centralized, and the leader has a great deal of control over the government bureaucracy and
decision-making process.
Leadership Decision-Making model also suggests that leaders may prioritize certain issues or
policy goals based on their personal convictions, ideological commitments, or strategic interests.
They may also be influenced by external factors such as global events, the actions of other states,
or the demands of international organizations.
In this model, the foreign policy decision-making process is often top-down, with the leader
giving directives to advisors and bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing the policy.
Advisors or trusted colleagues may be consulted for advice, but the ultimate decision-making
authority rests with the leader.
One key strength of the Leadership Decision-Making model is that it accounts for the influence
of individual leaders in shaping foreign policy decisions, which is particularly relevant in the
case of Third World countries where personalistic politics are often the norm. However, a
potential weakness of this model is that it may overemphasize the role of leaders at the expense
of other factors that shape foreign policy, such as domestic politics, international norms, or
economic interests.
Here are some real-world examples of the Leadership Decision-Making Model in foreign policy
analysis:
India's decision to pursue nuclear weapons: In the 1990s, India's government made the
decision to pursue nuclear weapons despite international pressure to abandon the program. This
decision was influenced by a variety of factors, including India's desire to establish itself as a
regional power and its perception of a growing Chinese threat. The decision was ultimately made
by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who consulted with a small group of advisors and
ultimately overruled opposition within his own government.
Venezuela's decision to align with Cuba: In the 1990s, Venezuela's government made the
decision to align itself closely with Cuba, despite the fact that this put it at odds with the United
States and many other countries in the region. This decision was influenced by the personal
relationship between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, as well
as Chavez's desire to build a pan-Latin American socialist movement. The decision was made
largely by Chavez himself, with little input from his advisors.
Tanzania's decision to nationalize its economy: In the 1960s and 1970s, Tanzania's
government pursued a policy of economic nationalism, nationalizing many industries and
implementing socialist policies. This decision was influenced by a desire to reduce the country's
dependence on foreign capital and to create a more equal society. The decision was made by
President Julius Nyerere, who consulted with a small group of advisors but did not seek
widespread input from the public.
In all of these examples, the Leadership Decision-Making Model helps to explain how individual
leaders shape foreign policy decisions based on their personal beliefs, values, and interests, and
how they interact with other actors in the decision-making process.

Groupthink
Finally, the "Groupthink" model is another approach that can be used to analyze the policy
process in Third World countries. This model suggests that foreign policy decisions are often
made in groups, and the decision-making process can be influenced by conformity, group
cohesion, and a desire for unanimity. In this model, the policy process in Third World countries
is characterized by a lack of dissent and debate, which can lead to poor decision-making.
According to the Groupthink model, group members in the policy process may develop a strong
sense of cohesion and loyalty to the group, which can lead to a narrowing of perspectives and a
reluctance to consider alternative viewpoints. This can result in a failure to fully consider all
relevant information, leading to suboptimal or even disastrous policy decisions.
In the context of Third World countries, the Groupthink model may be particularly relevant
when there is a high degree of centralization or when the decision-making process is dominated
by a small group of actors. In these situations, group members may be more likely to prioritize
conformity and consensus over critical thinking and alternative viewpoints, leading to policy
decisions that are based on incomplete or biased information.
To mitigate the risks of groupthink, the Groupthink model suggests that policymakers should
actively seek out diverse viewpoints and encourage open and honest communication among
group members. This can help to ensure that all relevant information is considered and that
policy decisions are based on a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.
Here are some real-world examples of the Groupthink Model in foreign policy analysis:
The economic policies of Zimbabwe: The economic policies pursued by the government of
Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe in the 1990s and 2000s were influenced by a group
of advisors who became trapped in a groupthink mentality. These advisors were convinced that
land redistribution and other socialist policies were necessary to address inequality and promote
economic growth, despite evidence to the contrary. Dissenting views were ignored, and the
group became insulated from outside perspectives.
The decision to invade Somalia in 2006: In 2006, Ethiopia's government made the decision to
invade Somalia to overthrow the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and establish a pro-Ethiopian
government in the country. This decision was influenced by a group of advisors who were
convinced that the ICU posed a threat to Ethiopia's security and that military action was
necessary to protect Ethiopian interests. Dissenting views were ignored, and the group became
insulated from outside perspectives.
The decision to support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia: In the 1970s, China provided
support to the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, despite the regime's brutal human rights
abuses and genocidal policies. This decision was influenced by a group of advisors who were
convinced that supporting the Khmer Rouge was necessary to counterbalance Soviet influence in
Southeast Asia and to advance China's geopolitical interests in the region.

REFERENCES
Groupthink: The Role of Leadership in Enhancing and Mitigating the Pitfall in Team Decision-

Making Northwestern University | School of Education & Social Policy. (n.d.).

https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/masters-learning-and-organizational-change/

knowledge-lens/stories/2012/groupthink-the-role-of-leadership-in-enhancing-and-
 mitigating-the-pitfall-in-team-decision-making.html#:~:text=Examples%20of

%20groupthink%20can%20be,the%20Enron%2DArthur%20Anderson%20scandal.

Horowitz, D. L. (1989). Is there a third-world policy process? Policy Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136319

Korany, B. (1984). Foreign Policy in the Third World. International Political Science Review,

5(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251218400500102