Level of Analysis 34

One of the most interesting debates in social science during recent years has concerned the relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ (McAnulla, 2002; Wendt, 1987 and 1999; Friedman and Starr, 1997; and Cerny, 1990). In its simple terms, the debate has been about whether agents (those who are capable of action, or actors) are shaped by structure. Structure, broadly speaking, are “the set of factors which make up the multiple environments in which agents operate, and they shape the nature of choices, by setting limits to the possible but also, more profoundly, by determining the nature of the problems which occur there, by shaping our very life-worlds” (Hill, 2003: 26). It is worth noting that structure exists at all levels, from the family to the international system. In foreign policy, structure does not only refer to the international system. As Martin Hollis and Steve Smith (1986) excellently demonstrated in their work, domestic system, bureaucracy and social structures are all of vital importance to the foreign policy making process. Moreover, FPA generally does not treat structures as static and concrete entities. Hill has suggested that structures are “as much conceptual as concrete entities because they often represent processes, or patterns of interaction” (Hill, 2003: 26). Furthermore, since structures

are constantly influenced by agents, they are always not regarded as fixed units with precise and easily definable qualities.11

Agents, for their part, are the entities capable of decisions with actions in any given context. They may be a single individual or collectives. Their decisions may be made by conscious intentions or by behaviour that at least in part does not result from deliberation. In the context of foreign policy, decision-making choices may be restricted, and may also result from misperception and miscalculation during the assessment and evaluation phases.12 _{As discussed in the previous section, FPA is more}

interested in human actions in foreign policy decision-makings, as opposed to the state under realist assumptions in IR theory. Therefore, I concur with Hill that the term ‘actor’ is preferable to that of ‘agent’ (Hill, 2003: 27). In the case of China, for instance, actors in China’s foreign policy decision-making generally consist of the Politburo Standing Committee and the Foreign Affairs Small Leading Group.

The problem with the structure and agency debate in IR theory, as introduced by Alexander Wendt, is the one originating from two truisms: “(1) human beings and their organizations are purposeful actors whose actions help reproduce or transform the society in which they live; and (2) society is made up of social relationships which structure the interactions between these purposeful actors” (1987: 337-8). If one follows his line of thought on human beings in society, the problem is that we lack “a self-evident way to conceptualize these entities and their relationship” (Wendt, 1987: 338; see also Hollis and Smith, 1991: 393-4). This appears to be an ontological                                                                                                                

11 _{Fuller treatment on the dynamic relations between structure and agency are provided in ‘Towards A}

Constructivist Approach’ section.

12 _{See Jarvis (1976), an excellent and comprehensive study on perception and misperception in}

international politics. His later works (1986; and Jarvis et al., 1985) went further to investigate the psychological impact on perception and judgement in FPDM.

problem of how to clearly conceptualise one entity, namely, structure or agency. In other words, according to Wendt, it seems that conceptualisation of structure cannot exist separately from that of agency, and vice versa. Although quite a number of well-developed theoretical threads in IR covering the phenomena such as institutions, systems, group dynamics, domestic politics, attempts at integrating multiple theoretical points-of-departure are typically absent or even resisted (Hudson 2002: 4). In the context of FPA, it can be argued that the ‘level-of analysis problem’ occurs when many theoretical efforts posit that phenomena can be best explained by a focus on a certain level of analysis, either domestic politics or the international system. In order to address this concern, FPA scholars have conducted extensive research into both micro and macro levels of analysis, with some even integrating the two together (Zhao, 1996).

Dual-­‐Aspect  Setting13  

The groundbreaking work in FPA by Snyder, Bruck and Sapin views foreign policy decision makers as “operating in dual-aspect setting so that apparently unrelated internal and external factors become related in the actions of the decision-makers” (Snyder et. al., 2002: 75).] Decision-makers operating within this dual-aspect setting must simultaneously play a ‘two-level game’. Robert Putnam (1988) has likened the decision makers to players simultaneously playing on two linked game boards: the game board of domestic politics and the game board of international politics. What happens in international politics cannot fail to have an effect on domestic politics; outputs of domestic politics certainly have an impact on international politics.

Similarly, James Rosenau (1967), regarded as the pioneer of FPA14 _{and the first}

academic to conceptualise the domestic sources of foreign policy, also agreed that scholars shall systematically and scientifically break down the divide between internal and external factors in analysing a nation state’s behaviour. Furthermore, he added that to “recognize that foreign policy is shaped by internal as well as external factors is not to comprehend how the two intermix or to indicate the conditions under which one predominates over the other” (Rosenau, 1966: 98). It must be stressed that in this dual-aspect setting, there is a two-way flow arising from the distinction between the foreign and the domestic. In other words, as Hill puts it, “foreign policy has its domestic sources, and domestic policy has its foreign influences” (2003: 39).

Within this dual-aspect setting, numerous research pathways were developed to theorise all aspects of foreign policy decision making (FPDM), such as small groups dynamics (Snyder et al., 2002; Janis, 1982; Hermann, 1978; and Vertzberger, 1990), organisational and bureaucratic processes (Allison and Zelikow, 1999; Halperin, 1974; and Allison and Halperin, 1972), and psychological and societal settings of FPDM15

(Sprout, H. and Sprout, T., 1956; and 1965; Jarvis et. al., 1985; Jarvis, 1986; and Cottam, 1977). These works are very significant in terms of having laid a sound theoretical foundation for FPA practitioners to build their empirical studies upon. Nonetheless, as this research is not wholly centred on the theorisation of FPA, more prominent concentration will be placed on the three theoretical elements that appears to routinely be faced by foreign policy decision makers; namely domestic politics- foreign policy, action-reaction-interaction,16 _{and national/culture-foreign policy.}

14 _{According to Hudson (2008: 14).}

15 _{Hudson (2007: Ch 3) provides a good summary of the literature on group decision–making: small}

group dynamics and bureaucratic politics.