Foreign Policy Decision Making
Introduction
People make decisions concerning their lives and those of their loved ones every day. The decisions affect their lives differently. In the same way, leaders of a given nation make decisions concerning the country, some of which affect the nation on the international platform. Such decisions are known as policies (Olsen, 1972). Foreign policy decision-making refers to the choices made by individuals, coalitions, or leaders within the arms of the government. Eventually, these decisions affect the country’s stand on international platforms (Mintz and DeRouen, 2017). Unlike the choices made by ordinary people with no positions within the government, policies made by states are based on various theories. Various theories influence foreign policy decision-making, including the rational actor model (Graham Alison), bounded rationality (Herbert Simon), bureaucratic politics and organizational politics (Graham Alison), prospect theory (Kahneman et al.), and the poliheuristic theory (Mintz) (Hargitai, 2013). The main focus of this essay will be on the three theories by Graham Allison (the rational actor model, the organizational behavior model, and the government politics model) as the writer tries to illustrate which model out of the three is most useful in explaining the concept of foreign policy decision-making. Illustrations will be made using case studies of countries such as Malaysia and Syria. However, it would be hard to separate the three models and identify the most useful ones as they go hand in hand. According to Allison and Zelikov (1999), foreign policy decisions are arrived at by working with all three approaches. One model alone cannot therefore explain how policy is made.
Alison’s Three Models of Foreign Policy Decision Making
The three models of Foreign Policy Decision Making (FPDM) include the rational actor model, the organizational behavior model, and the government politics model (Kafle, 2011). Before discussing in detail the three models and illustrating which of them is most useful, it is important to point out some issues, such as the determinants of Foreign Policy Decision Making (FPDM), who makes them, and the possible outcomes.
Foreign policy decisions are made by state leaders, and they are full of uncertainty and characterized by high risks (Mintz and DeRouen, 2017). Some of the choices include whether a country should go to war with other states and the decision to manufacture deadly weapons such as nuclear bombs (these two may be termed as high-risk policies). Other decisions, such as those of becoming a member of a world organization or even making peace with other nations of the world, are less likely to cause any harm. According to Mintz and DeRouen (2017), the decision-making plan highly affects the eventual results. The four determinants of FPDM include identifying the problem, looking for answers, settling for the right answer/alternative, and working with the chosen alternative (Mintz and DeRouen, 2017).
Rational Actor Model
The rational actor model is one whereby the decision maker is required to come up with the best policy after having evaluated all other alternatives (Hargitai, 2013). This model/theory is based on cost-benefit analysis. Various assumptions are in line with the rational actor model, and they include the following: the actors are expected to undertake actions that will only quench the quest for the goals put forward, the actors maintain consistency in their decision-making criteria, and they have to maximize utility (Hargitai, 2013). In this particular phase, the decisions that a state makes are determined by the situation being faced and the phases it is passing through.
The Rational Actor Model comprises four components, with the first one being the basic unit of analysis (Kafle, 2011). The concept mentioned in the latter statement states that the actions undertaken by the government are choices. These actions are selected according to their importance in maximizing the government’s set goals and initiatives (Alison and Zelikov, 1999). The second component falls under organization, and Alison and Zelikov split it into three minor components. The first concept under the organizing concept is known as the unified national actor, whereby the state (unitary decision maker) is known as the agent (Kafle, 2011). The second concept is described as the problem that prompts the nation to act after facing threats and opportunities on the international stage. The third concept under organization describes the action taken in the previous concept as the rational choice, which must involve the four assumptions of RAM (Kafle, 2011).
The third major component of Alison’s paradigm is known as the dominant interference pattern, whereby the action taken must be selected as the most suitable to achieving the objectives set by the actors (Kafle, 2011). The fourth component is referred to as evidence, and it gives in detail the behavior of the actor, statements by the state’s officials, and the nation’s papers that were used during the decision-making plan (Alison and Zelikov, 1999). The RAM theory aims to examine and bring out the link between purpose and action. The latter is achieved by observing behavior. Tor’s or the state’s behavior. In normal circumstances, one can tell what a person’s actions will be by learning their behavior, and one can also tell the actions by studying the goals of a given individual.
Organizational Behavior Model
The organizational behavior model becomes largely associated with the constraints placed on decision-makers' choices by the organizations. This theory believes that targets and objectives that are set have been well established and are satisfying. This specific model was used in explaining the confrontations that happened in October 1962 between America and the Soviet Union (Kafle, 2011). Organizations are sometimes mandated with making decisions, and it is the organizational behavior model that explains the decision-making process and the implementation of the same choices. Any organization has standard operating procedures (SOPs), which allow the organization to limit the choices of its employees (Alison and Zelikov, 1999). Every organization owns a charter that governs how it carries out its function, and these charters are not fast to change, unless in cases of severe budgetary famine or uncontrollable performance failure (Kafle, 2011). The advantages associated with this model include efficacy and performance, well-established targets and objectives, emphasis on available options, and acknowledging domestic issues during the national decision-making process.
Organizations are made up of people who come together to carry out a united action. Organizations help a lot in undertaking actions that would otherwise have been impossible if undertaken by one person (Alison and Zelikov, 1999). The programs existing within an organization help to constrain certain behaviors. Alison explains the organizational behavior model by using the organizational behavior paradigm. In this paradigm, Alison argues that international politics are a result of organizational undertakings, an aspect he terms a basic unit of analysis (Kafle, 2011). The latter concept is further illustrated in their senses. Senses. The number one sense states that the real occurrences on the international politics platform are a result of organizational output, such as the case whereby the American military intervened during the Persian Gulf (Kafle, 2011). The next sentence states that the state has options to solve any problem, those of which are provided by the organizations. The third concept is concerned with the organizational output and how much output tasks the various leaders to come up with informed decisions by use of the information provided (Kafle, 2011).
Governmental Politics Model
The governmental politics model exhibits that government actions are politically driven (Alison and Zelikov, 1999). The political drives come from features such as competitive games, whereby parties with different opinions struggle and compete amongst themselves to come up with the main policy (Kafle, 2011). Decisions made about the governmental politics model are solely the responsibility of the games played by political leaders. This model explains why some given governmental decisions were arrived at and the players who took part in the procedure. Key players hold key positions in the government, and this aspect makes them influential during the decision-making procedure (Alison and Zelikov, 2011). The key players may either be of like mind or unlike mind, thus creating a perfect ground for a power struggle, as each has a different policy opinion from the other. Alison also points out that these key persons could also be in different organizational positions, and it prompts bargaining (Kafle, 2011). The result of such bargaining is compromise whereby alternatives are selected based on the force and support behind such alternatives. Eventually, the policies made are not fair, and they, in rare circumstances, represent the needs of all present.
Illustrations Showing the Usefulness of the Three Alison’s Models
The three models cannot be applied separately and for results to be achieved, they must all be incorporated into foreign policy decision-making (Huda, 98). Some scholars such as Winston Churchill believed that one person is in a position to shape their future individually; which can be associated with the rational actor model (Iaydjiev, 2011). However, Alison warns that the RAM model cannot be used alone as it is very powerful. Alison suggests that RAM should be treated as one part of the three models (Iaydjiev, 2011). The case study of Syria in association with the foreign- policy incoherence illustrates that the three models are to be applied while making decisions. In 2013, Syria crossed the red line and defied the United States (Hegseth, 2013). Hegseth assumes that it is the president’s and his administration’s task to decide to go to war with Syria (2013). However, such a call would call for inputs from various organizations and other rational actors, thus involving the three models.
Malaysia is another nation that has made use of the three models in its foreign policy decision-making process process. Malaysia link politics with personality politics and the exterior environment while formulating policies, an aspect that saw the country normalize with China (Abdullah, 2015). Malaysia links its external and internal factors with the personality role to be in a position to relate with the international domain. The exterior environment, which could best be described as the organizational behavior model, is the most important aspect in creating the relationship between Malaysia and the international domain (Abdullah, 2015).
The Cuban Missile Crisis by Allison himself also explains that the three models are useful during the Foreign Policy Decision Making process. According to Allison (1999), the three models apply to the Cuban Missile Crisis; however, their intensity is varied, with the RAM model having more weight (Huda, 1998). The three models can still be viewed together as in the case of WWII which saw the three models get applied in various foreign policy decisions. America is observed to replace its neutrality and begin to take part in military arms agreements with other states (Huda, 1998). Organizations such as the War Labor Board and War Information Office were also seen to play major roles during World War II (Huda, 1998).
Conclusion
Making decisions is an everyday practice by human beings. Allison came up with three models, namely, the rational actor model, the organizational behavior model, and the government politics model. The writer has discussed the three models and has concluded that none is more useful than the other. For the FPDM process to be complete and successful, the rational actor, the government, and the organizations must work together, thereby incorporating all of Allison’s theories. These models have been discussed in detail in the course of this article. The three models, as it has been seen, cannot be applied separately, and if this were to happen, crises such as the Cuban missile crisis and the Syria crisis would occur. Allison points out that the RAM model can cause trouble if depended on and therefore requires the inputs of the political class and the organizations to stabilize. There are instances whereby the three models were applied, and they worked for the good. Malaysia is one state that applies the three models in all its undertakings, and it’s hence able to normalize with states such as China. Therefore, it can be concluded that the three models are equally useful during the foreign policy decision-making process, and none can be depended on solely.
References
Abdullah, R. 2015. China-Malaysia Relations and Foreign Policy. London: Routledge.
Allison, G and Zelikov, P. 1999. Essence of Decision; Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd Edition. New York: Longman
Hargitai, T. 2013. ‘The six dominant theories of foreign policy decision making.
Hegseth, P. 2013. ‘Syria: A case study in foreign – policy incoherence.’ The Corner.
Huda, J. 1998. ‘Conceptual Models of Foreign Policy Behavior’.
Iaydjiev, I. 2011. ‘Decision Makers, Personal Belief, and Foreign Policy
Kafle, T, R. 2011. ‘Making a Difference; Allison’s Three Models of Foreign Policy Analysis.
Mintz, A and DeRouen, K. 2017. ‘Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making.’ Cambridge catalogue.
Olsen, J, P. 1972. ‘Public Policy-Making and Theories of Organizational Choice.
Ratings
