So far we have seen some of the main developments prescribing the transformation of world politics which results in a series of implications for national foreign policy machineries. One of the core assumptions in the literature of world politics transformation is that traditional notions of the state as the fundamental unit of international society are challenged. State centric perspectives have come under attack as forces of transformation woven in processes of globalisation and
regionalisation, accelerated by information technology have entangled states in dense networks of interdependencies with a number of state and non-state actors. At this critical juncture for world politics, it is useful to attempt an overview of where we have reached in the study of foreign policy. In this light, we explore what FPA, traditionally eclectic and the most obvious source of theories for the study of foreign policy has to offer to the understanding of contemporary foreign policy and its organisation. For this purpose the thesis explores the development of FPA from traditional formulations to the contemporary form of what Manners and Whitman (2000) term ‘transformational’ FPA and the behavioural model of the foreign policy system (FPS) (Clarke and White, 1981; 1989) for purposes of facilitating the conceptualisation of a Greek FPS. The central underlying ontological questions concern the changing meaning of the notion of foreign policy and its implications for foreign policy studies.
In seventeenth and eighteenth century European states, foreign policy came within the prerogative of the Crown. For new states, such as the United States of America, writing their constitution to guard against the dominance of monarchical power which they saw in Europe, executive control over foreign policy and defence was considered essential to effective government (Wallace, 1971: 9-10). The view of foreign policy as a separate area of public policy linked to security, territorial integrity and the fundamental values of the state retains much of its force today. However, the emphasis on national security and military strategic considerations was elitist as it presupposed the monopoly of power by a small group of persons. Even the foreign policy budget –largely military- had until the late 1970s been immune to domestic considerations and separate from expenditure on foreign aid for instance (Cooper, 1974: 153). Based on these assumptions, a conventional definition of foreign policy referred to actions taken by governments directed at other governments in the environment external to their state (White, 2004: 11; Webber and Smith, 2002).
Such conceptualisations of foreign policy capture the centrality of states and governments and perceive the foreign policy process as insulated from other areas
of governmental activity. Until recently, this had been translated into conceptual boundaries between foreign and domestic politics based on the state’s territorial frontiers which separate external and domestic politics. According to earlier definitions, ‘foreign policy is the area of politics which bridges the all important
boundary between the nation-state and its international environment’ (Wallace,
1971: 7).
White (1981: 4) adds that foreign policy is made within the frontiers of the state but is directed and must be implemented within the environment external to the state. […] For earlier thinkers ‘foreign’ suggested not only the direction but also a particular type of policy which referred to the area of government concerned with the vital security interests of the state and that foreign policy as security policy should be shielded from the ‘cut and thrust’ that characterised domestic politics (White, 1981; Rosenau, 1967).
Traditional approaches to foreign policy assumed that government is unified35 and that foreign policy is insulated from domestic governmental action due to its inherent connection to diplomacy and defence, high politics and international security. Thus, foreign policy in this sense was distinct from day to day management of the broader domain of contemporary external relations (Wallace, 1974: 2). Rosenau (1967: 34-40), distinguished foreign and domestic policy based on a number of assumed parameters36 such as elitism, limited public involvement and its secretive nature due to its remoteness from the public. Such assumptions arguably find limited applicability in contemporary world politics. The way that politics are conducted globally with patterns of horizontal networks and transboundary action which cut across states and societies renders the rigid differentiation between domestic and foreign policy environments obsolete.
35
As Webber and Smith (2002:35) argue, the idea of a unified government has been under pressure since the 1980s with one source of this pressure being the growth of government itself.
36
For the boundaries of foreign policy as an issue area see also Rosenau, (1974), Tracing the Outlines of a Field in Barber, J. and Smith, M., The Nature of Foreign Policy: A Reader, (Holmes McDougall in association with the Open University Press, Edinburgh and Milton Keynes)
In this light, a number of questions are raised concerning the conceptualisation of foreign policy based on action beyond the state and targeted at civil societies across borders. Influenced by such developments in the course of the last four decades, different attitudes towards foreign policy have developed moving away from traditional views which held that states were the sole recipient of another state’s foreign policy. Indicative is the definition provided by Manners and Whitman (2000: 2) who view foreign policy as ‘attempts by governments to influence or
manage events outside the state’s boundaries’.
In the same context Gustavvson (1999: 75) sees foreign policy as government
action which is targeted beyond the territory of the state to the external environment37. What is characteristic in these definitions is that they imply the transition from the state to the government and imply wider governmental participation targeted to unspecified external audiences. Such images of foreign policy challenge narrower previous approaches which saw foreign policy as defined only by what foreign ministries do38 (Groom, 2007: 197).
Morse (1970: 371-372) in his discussion of world politics transformation, summarises the impact of such transformation on our understanding of foreign policy under three general sets of conditions. The first set of conditions concerns the breaking down of the classical distinction between foreign and domestic
37
This definition is the evolution of Wallace’s definition because the recipient could be an actor other than a government. Rosati’s definition in the same article is even more progressive as he defines the recipient as an environment.
38
More specifically the author (2007:199-200) argues foreign policy could be described differently viewed in realist, pluralist or structuralist terms. In a realist context foreign policy is a prime consideration. Foreign policy is about the management of interstate relations in anarchical society in which each major power has ambitions to establish a system of global governance which reflects its values and interests. Since it does not wish to be subject to a system reflecting the values and interests of another great power it will cooperate with other states in a balance of power to ensure that they will not lose if they cannot win. In pluralist terms foreign policy is understood as
encompassing a wider range of actors beyond states, such as public opinion, the civil society, NGOs and international organisations, multinational corporation, churches and others. The pluralist framework in its traditional formulation is like a cobweb38 rather than a billiard ball model which belongs to the sphere of realism and will be discussed in the following section. It is concerned with the movement of goods, services, ideas and various forms of interactions. […] Here foreign policy becomes less important than the external relations of a wide range of actors. (See Groom, 2007: 199-200). Likewise, structuralists start with the notion of transactions. The patterns of transactions create structures, which in due course become autonomous and then have an independent influence upon the actors.
affairs39. The second relates to the distinction between high policies40 (those associated with security and the state) and low policies (those pertaining to the wealth and welfare of the citizens) which has become less important as the latter has assumed an increasingly large role in today’s societies. The third set of conditions refers to the increasing inability of states to control events in an interdependent environment despite the significantly developed instruments at their disposal.
The eroding distinction between the domestic and foreign policy environments has been repeatedly addressed from a number of viewpoints (Hocking, 2004; 2004b; Hill, 2003; Langhorne and Wallace, 1999; Keohane and Nye, 1989; East, 1984; Sundelius, 1980; 1984a; 1984b; East and Salomonsen, 1981; Katzenstein, 1975; Cooper, 1974; Goodwin, 1974; Morse, 1970; Wallace, 1974; Vital, 1968; Birnbaum, 1965). Whether due to globalisation, regionalisation or localisation, or a combination of all three, the historical divisions between domestic and foreign policies, sectors and issues have been blurred and spanned (Bátora, 2003: 122; Featherstone, 1996; 2005; Allen, 1999: 209; Newhouse, 1997: 73).
Based on the above, the study of contemporary foreign policy must reconceptualise the nature of boundaries (Rosenau, 1974b: 160) and the intermeshing of foreign with domestic policies (Cooper, 1999: 44; Vital, 1968: 71). In a globalised, networked environment, the very differentiation between domestic and foreign policy milieus makes less sense as both have to be seen as part of a seamless and enmeshed web of actors and actions (Hocking, 2007: 10; Rosenau, 1974: 25) where a number of new linkages are created (Rosenau, 1974b). In networked policy milieus, which need no common territory, foreign policy does not need to hold on to territorial definitions (Metzl, 2001: 80). Instead, foreign policy is going through a process of ‘vertical disintegration’ (Underdall, 1987: 169) and a simultaneous horizontal proliferation through which it spans the whole of the
39
Even though as the author suggests the myths associated with sovereignty and the state have not broken down (Morse, 1970: 371)
40
According to Groom (2007: 199) high politics are concerned with issues of war and peace, disarmament and alliances
governmental apparatus, involving numerous domestic departments (Hill, 2003; Webber and Smith, 2002; Sundelius, 1984b).
From traditional to ‘transformational’ foreign policy analysis
As discussed above, foreign policy in its traditional formulation has been linked to concepts of statehood, national sovereignty and the primacy of the state as a world politics actor. For Kissinger (1969) foreign policy began where domestic policy ended. Such concepts were encapsulated in ‘state-centric’ realism’s main assumptions (White, 2004: 24; 1999: 39; Webber and Smith, 2002: 12; Waltz, 2001; Keohane and Nye, 1989; Banks, 1985: 13). The assumptions of state-centric realism lay on the sharp distinction between domestic and foreign policy making and in the fact that foreign policy is viewed as pursued by governments on behalf of a unitary state. National interest is defined in terms of independence and security and is often pursued at the expense of other nation states. Therefore the international environment in which states were pursuing their interests, their so called ‘national interest’ (Wallace, 1974: 12) is hostile and competitive.
For realists, international society is a system of billiard ball41 states in intermittent
collision (Groom, 2007: 199; Hudson, 2005: 2; Banks, 1985:12; White, 1981: 6). In this context, foreign policy positions are seen as being primarily determined by the interplay of international forces (White, 1999: 422; Hill and Margot, 1985: 157). As Webber and Smith (2002: 12) argue, given these assumptions it was not difficult to establish a notion of foreign policy which was closely related to ‘national security policy’ in the context of which military security was the main aspect of policy making. This notion is referred to in the thesis as traditional foreign policy. Not surprisingly, this had an enormous impact on both the actors who made foreign policy and on the ways in which foreign policy was made. Even though realism
41
With the ‘billiard ball’ model, or as often termed ‘black-boxing’ the state, theory of actors-in- general or actor-general-theory, we refer to a given type of state interaction. More specifically this approach is related to theoretical work in IR which suggests that whatever decision making unit or system is involved can be approximated as a unitary rational actor and therefore be made
was the best known approach in IR with which both practitioners and academics have described international relations42 it failed to probe into decision-making processes or other domestic sources of international behaviour (Hill, 2003: 6; Rosenau, 1971).
FPA, albeit viewed by many as fitting best in the realist tradition due to its state- centred focus, has also grown out of reaction to classic realist assumptions that the state is a monolithic actor with clear and rationally calculated national interests (Groom, 2007: 198; White, 2004: 24; 1999: 39; Light, 1994). As a result, work undertaken in the context of FPA challenges many of the ideas inherent in realism such as rationality. As FPA developed, even though it retained the state as an important actor it gradually accommodated a range of other actors. Since the 1950s, FPA has developed and responded by adapting its analysis to the challenges of transforming world politics (White, 2004: 24). Thus, despite its limitations, FPA as a method of enquiry has been dynamic and transformative in itself. In this light, Manners and Whitman (2000: 12) who argue that there is no necessary link anymore between FPA and classical realism, developed the idea of ‘transformational’ FPA thus marking a distinctive line between traditional and current accounts of FPA.
Transformational FPA is understood by Manners and Whitman (2000) as eclectic and enhanced, examining various newly added aspects of foreign policy under its analytical lens. Transformational FPA is concerned with the involvement of a wider range of policy actors, state and non-state, domestic and international, encourages the exploration of linkages between foreign and other areas of governmental policy-making and investigates a much wider set of issues beyond high politics and their inherent military and security connotations. As a result, transformational FPA informs a research agenda which touches upon issues of intra-departmental cooperation thus abrogating the insulation of foreign policy as a distinct
42
Some characteristic writings of this school are by Carr, E. H., (2001), The Twenty Years’ Crisis:
An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan); Morgenthau, H., (2005), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead)
governmental policy area and extends to issues traditionally falling under domestic policy areas.
Simultaneously, its analytical capacity is further strengthened by provisions for eclectic pre-theoretical approaches such as behavioural models of decision making and foreign policy systems approaches, which are discussed below. Hill (1974: 150-151) reinforces the argument for eclectic approaches under the heading of FPA and argues that it should not be concerned only with decision making in a narrow sense. There are a lot of questions that are raised regarding foreign policy processes which fall outside the usual framework of the different stages of policy making or the impact of the policy makers. These questions seek to address changing diplomatic techniques, foreign policy instruments and institutions, processes and (re-)organisation of the entire foreign policy machinery, which constitute the focus of the present thesis.
A transformational FPA research agenda extends the enquiry to issues such as the influence of leaders over institutions in the foreign policy process, the role of domestic bureaucratic structures and cultures and the impact of external influences on individual member states (White, 1999). In doing so it employs organisational devices, such as the FPS (Clarke and White, 1981: 1989), and analytical models such as the bureaucratic politics models conceptualised by Allison (Allison and Zellikow, 1999; Allison and Halperin, 1972).
The latter model offers significant explanatory insights to cases where bureaucratic bargaining among players positioned hierarchically in the government have determined the actions of governments in given circumstances. At the same time it has received criticism on the grounds that it has been developed from the US experience which involves a certain cast of actors, each pursuing divergent foreign policy goals, with the interplay of their competing influence determining the policy outcome (Gyngell and Wesley, 2003: 39).
Added scepticism regarding the applicability of behaviouralist models in the study of foreign policy process rests on the argument that they isolate individual policy
decisions and examine the influence of certain actors over others thus imposing specific requirements on the process. In this context Gyngell and Wesley (2003: 39) argue that involvement of actors can be gauged only when there are conflicting ‘stakes’ and competition between self-interested sections of bureaucracy and political leadership and even most importantly, a high degree of bureaucratic independence is presupposed. Such assumptions may be justifiable for the foreign policy making system of the US where competing bureaucracies with their own vested interests generate controversy over policies but not necessarily for systems where foreign policy making is heavily concentrated in the executive - as is the case with most European states. For the purposes of this thesis the FPS approach will be further elaborated. The FPS approach investigates systematically foreign policy structures and processes thus adding explanatory value to FPA (Smith et al., 2008: 12).