CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. DEFINITION, DIMENSIONS AND EARLY MODELS OF FOREIGN POLICY CHANGE
Over the past three decades we have been observing dramatic foreign policy changes in line with the shifting dynamics of domestic and international politics. Dissolution of the Soviet bloc, triumph of capitalism, rise of political Islam, European integration, rise of East Asia, conflicts over the natural resources and proliferation of non-state security threats precipitated the changes in the course of foreign policy. These developments inspired a number of scholars such as James Rosenau66, Kalevi Holsti67, Charles Herman68, Jerel A. Rosati69 and Jakob Gustavvson70 to study the underlying reasons of foreign policy change and realignment, which had been mostly neglected throughout the Cold War. During the bipolar strategic rivalry, students of foreign policy devoted much energy to systemic and static analysis but little attention was devoted to the dynamics of change.
After the 1980s, a growing array of analysts began to focus on analysis of change in line with tectonic transformations in domestic politics and the international system. These scholars presented various definitions of foreign policy change that ranged from restructuring to realignment. Among them, Jerel A. Rosati defines change as “foreign policy phenomena that experience broad alteration, ranging from more modest shifts to major foreign policy
66 James Rosenau, The Study of Political Adaptation F. Pinter; Nichols Pub. Co, New York,1981.
67 Kaleve Holsti, Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Postwar World Allen & Unwin
Pty,Australia, 1982
68 Charles F. Hermann, "Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly , 3-21, 1990.
69 Jerel A. Rosati, JD Hagan, and MW Sampson, Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change, Univ of South Carolina, 1994
restructuring”.71 He defines continuity as “broad patterns in foreign policy that tend to persist over time, encompassing more micro and incremental changes”.72 For James Rosenau, foreign policy is an adaptation instrument to the changes in international politics.73 He maintains that the “political organism is always experiencing both continuities and change, and thus it is always in motion, slipping behind, moving ahead, holding fast, or otherwise adjusting and changing in response to internal developments and external circumstances”.74 Therefore, he argues that studying dynamics of political adaptation is essential to comprehend the foreign policy redirection. Volgy and Schwarz define the concept of realignment as “a fundamental and comprehensive change in foreign policy orientation of a nation, over a very short time, as manifested through behavioral changes in a nation’s interactions with other actors in
international politics.”75 (p.24). Holsti and his associates define restructuring as “the dramatic wholesale alteration of a nation’s pattern of external relations”.76
A growing array of analysts concur that the scope of foreign policy change ranges from adjustment change to reorientation.77 Charles Herman identifies four major types of foreign policy change. First, adjustment changes refer to the shift in efforts and methods to achieve certain goals.78 Second, program changes indicate qualitative changes in methodology and
71 Jerel A. Rosati, "Cycles in Foreign Policy Restructuring; The politics of Continuity and Change in the U.S.
foreign policy", in Jerel A. Rosati , Joe D. Hagan and Martin W. Samptson, (eds), Foreign policy restructuring: how
governments respond to global change , University of South Caroline Press, South Caroline, 1994, 72 ibid, p.225
73 James Rosenau, The Study of Political Adaptation F. Pinter; Nichols Pub. Co, New York,1981 74 Ibid, pp. 1-2
75Ibid, p.24 76 Ibid, (p.ix)
77 Charles F. Hermann, "Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly , 3-21, 1990; Holsti, Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Postwar World;
Rosati, "Cycles in Foreign Policy Restructuring," Foreign policy restructuring: how governments respond to global
change ,1994; Gustavsson, "How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change?.", Volgy and Schwarz, "Foreign
Policy Restructuring and the Myriad Webs of Restraint," Foreign policy restructuring: how governments respond to
global change , 1994
78 Charles F. Hermann, "Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly , 3-21, 1990.
instruments of statecraft. Third, problem/goal changes imply the redirection of the goals and aspirations of the state’s foreign policy machinery. Fourth, International orientation change, is the most fundamental shift in foreign policy direction. Throughout the reorientation process states redefine their allies, policy priorities, purposes and the methods to achieve these goals. In Skidmore’s view, change in foreign policy bifurcates into “evolutionary” and “sporadic”.79 For him, the degree of change associates with relative power of the state within the international system and level of support from domestic constituents. Evolutionary changes are more common in weak states, whereas strong states only experience sporadic changes in foreign policy
orientation. Rosenau concurs that domestic and international developments can mutually
reinforce each other, and foreign policy shifts “when the developments at home give rise to new needs and wants with respect to their environment, or when developments abroad give rise to political threats to their essential structures.”80
Gilpin81, Rosenau82 and Rosati83 conceive foreign policy restructuring as a cyclical process that combines continuity, transition and change. The cyclical models entail long-term observation of single cases studies to identify the drivers of change. As seen in figure 2.1, Rosati argues that the “interaction of the state, the society, and the global environment produces a dialectical process where governmental foreign policy evolves through different cycles or phases
79 David Skidmore, "Explaining State Responses to International Change; The Structural Sources of Foreign Policy
Rigidity and Change", in Jerel A. Rosati , Joe D. Hagan and Martin W. Samptson, (eds), Foreign policy
restructuring: how governments respond to global change , University of South Caroline Press, South Caroline,
1994
80 Ibid, p. 42
81 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983
82 James Rosenau, "Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy," in Barry Farrell (eds) Approaches to comparative and international Politics, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1966
83 Jerel A. Rosati, "Cycles in Foreign Policy Restructuring; The politics of Continuity and Change in the U.S.
foreign policy", in Jerel A. Rosati , Joe D. Hagan and Martin W. Samptson, (eds), Foreign policy restructuring: how
over time; from a period of stability in which continuity in policy tends to prevail to a period of transition.”84
Figure 2.1: Rosati’s cyclical model of foreign policy change
For Rosati, the periods of transition may produce four major outcomes: i)
“intensification”, ii) “refinement’, iii) “reform”, and iv) “restructuring”.85 Intensification refers to strengthening of existing posture and lack of change in policy objectives and procedures.
Intensification is more likely when the status quo powers face no major challenge. Refinement means minor alterations when the government and the society undergo cyclical continuity and change patterns. Reform indicates moderate amendments in the party program and orientation of foreign policy. Restructuring is the most dynamic process where governments make profound changes in foreign policy programs and orientation. States may realign to overcome major challenges in foreign policy practice.
84 Ibid., p.223 85 Ibid. FP Continuity Stability & Equilibrium Transition Disequilibrium Adjustment FP Change Restructuring Transition Disequilibrium Adjustment
In addition to domestic cycles of change, various foreign policy analysts put emphasis on cycles of stability and transition in the international system. Robert Gilpin argues that the
challenge of strong revisionist powers leads to turbulence and may overturn the stability in the international system.86 Foreign policies of both revisionist and status quo powers may undergo tumultuous changes during the transition process. The world experiences an era of
disequilibrium until a new international system is established. Jerel A. Rosati acknowledges that international organizations, agreements and commitments function as instruments of the status quo, whereas crises may overturn the stability in the international system.87 For him, states redefine foreign policy priorities and partnership strategies as the system builds upon new balances of power.
Kalevi Holsti advanced the study of foreign policy restructuring with his prolific works throughout the 1980s. Most notably, in Why Nations Realign, Holsti differentiates incremental foreign policy change and restructuring, and notes that restructuring occurs more abruptly and fundamentally than sporadic change.88 Holsti identifies four major types of restructuring; i) “isolation”, ii) “self reliance”, iii) “dependence”, and iv) “diversification”.89 He investigates foreign policy change in 25 countries and claims that the developed countries are less likely to restructure foreign policy because they are more satisfied with the existing patterns of relations in the status quo. On the flipside, the states at the periphery are more prone to reorientation as they are not content with the international distribution of power. Holsti acknowledges that foreign policy restructuring at the periphery does not propel significant reaction from the major
86 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983
87 Jerel A. Rosati, "Cycles in Foreign Policy Restructuring; The politics of Continuity and Change in the U.S.
foreign policy", in Jerel A. Rosati , Joe D. Hagan and Martin W. Samptson, (eds), Foreign policy restructuring: how
governments respond to global change , University of South Caroline Press, South Caroline, 1994
88 Kaleve Holsti, Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Postwar World Allen & Unwin
Pty,Australia, 1982
powers because it does not radically change the global balance of power. However, reorientation of the major powers is more likely to “exacerbate international tensions and the result in a variety of coercive, punitive and violent responses by the former hegemons.”90
According to Charles Herman, foreign policy change is driven by four different factors; leaders, bureaucratic interplay, domestic realignment and external shocks (See figure 2.2).91 Leader driven change is mostly experienced in autocratic regimes where leaders demonstrate strong proclivity to unilateralism and domestic opposition is weak. In this type, subjective calculations, threat perceptions and the world vision of the leaders underpin the shift in the course of foreign policy. Bureaucratic advocacy driven change refers to a multilateral process in the institutional domain. In this approach change is the product of constant bargaining among the organizational leaders. Revisionist and pro-status quo leaders develop coalitions and
constituencies to gain the upper hand in the bureaucratic bargaining process. Domestic
restructuring indicates major shift in postures of politically awakened segments of society. The most common form is transformation of the agents of stability into agents of revision. Domestic realignment intensifies when the public is highly discontent with the dominant political
paradigm. Ultimately, external shocks precipitate the incentives to redirect foreign policy. The external shocks may be in the form of military encroachment, economic crisis or major energy supply disruptions. The government’s failure to respond to these changes stimulates the incentives to shift the traditional course of foreign policy. For Herman, the primary change agents can be mutually reinforcing. For example, external shocks may have profound implications on domestic politics and may even spark a process of regime change.
90 Ibid, p.218
91 Charles F. Hermann, "Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly , 3-21, 1990.
Figure 2.2: Charles Herman’s model of foreign policy change
Andriole, Wilkenfeld and Hopple argue that comprehensive foreign policy investigations should employ five levels of analysis; i) “individual, ii) “group”, iii), “composite group” or “state”, iv) “inter and/or multistate”, and v) “global systemic”.92 For them, even though the foreign policy behavior of states take place at the fourth level, a foreign policy analyst should take into account the developments at all the levels, because an overwhelming driver might come out of any of these spheres. For Charles Herman, the foreign policy decisions emerge as a
response to problems.93 The response of the compartmentalized decision makers at three levels - predominant leader, single group, and coalition- may be fundamentally different from each other.
92 Stephen J. Andriole, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, and Gerald W. Hopple, "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of
Foreign Policy Behavior," International Studies Quarterly, Vol.19 No.2, 1975
93 Charles F. Hermann, "Avoiding Pathologies in Foreign Policy Decision Groups," Diplomacy, Force and Leadership: Essays in Honor of Alexander L. George, Westview Press, Boulder, 1993; Charles F. Hermann, CW
Kegley, and JN Rosenau, New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy, Allen & Unwin Pty., Limited, Australia, 1987; Charles Hermann, "Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy."
If the decision maker is a predominant leader, the analysts need to identify whether the leader is more prone to multiple advocacy or unilateralism. The analysts should investigate the power and characteristics of the key constituents if the leader is more prone to multiple advocacy. Herman notes that the single leaders are less prone to domestic opposition, whereas the pluralist
democracies are more concerned with domestic constituencies. Figure 2.3: Gustavvson’s model of foreign policy change
Jakob Gustavsson’s model offered a more promising analytical framework.94 As seen in figure 2.3, Gustavsson argues that foreign policy change is driven by complex array of
international and domestic developments that open policy windows towards more favorable environments. For Gustavvson, international factors refer to “power relations and the traditional military aspects of national security” that are examined thoroughly by the realist school of international politics.95 The domestic factors bifurcate into economic and political aspects. The political aspect refers to “the support from voters, political parties, and societal actors to uphold a
94 Jacob Gustavsson, "How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change?," Cooperation and Conflict 34, no. 1, 1999. 95 Ibid, p.83
certain foreign policy”.96 The economic aspect focuses on “GDP growth, the rate of inflation, and the level of unemployment in addition to institutional conditions influencing the relationship between the state and the parties of the labor market”.97 Foreign policy makers deliberate on international and domestic factors and ultimate decisions are made through constant pulling and hauling among competing policy alternatives. Gustavsson believes that the actions of the
individual decision makers are socially constructed and cyclical feedbacks in internal and external environment can have determining impact on the decision making process.
Gustavvson argues that foreign policy change will be a turbulent process when policy entrepreneurs face substantial opposition from pro-status quo leaders. Both revisionists and status-quo groups develop coalitions with compatible constituents to bring about the preferred outcome in the governmental bargaining process. Political identities, threat perceptions and cognitive elements define the nature of reformist and anti-reformist coalitions. As well as the power of these coalitions, the level of institutionalization and volume of internal/external crisis and social feedbacks might significantly affect the level of change in the course of foreign policy.
2.2. THREE SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES TO FOREIGN POLICY CHANGE
2.2.1. SECURITY APPROACH
According to the security approach, the primary goal of the state is survival in an anarchic international system. Partnership and alliance strategies are built upon rational calculations of
96 Ibid, p.83