Graham Allison and Morton Halperin provide an excellent insight into the bureaucratic model of understanding politics and how to predict nations behaviors. By dividing the levels of understanding, the authors provide a lucid understanding of foreign relations. What is interesting is the description of how actions in the international arena are dictated not by one factor, but by many. It is this intricate web of underlying factors which ultimately shapes the 'game' being played and moulds the environment of global arena.
An interesting way to understand this theoretical model is to look at the Cold War where ultimately it was the 'actions' of either camp that shaped the way the states interacted. This is in line with Allison and Halperin's argument that outcomes are what essentially lead to a degree of predictability. The players involved in the game in the Cold War epoch had the resources to manipulate and coerce different countries into being pawns in the game and gain a comparative advantage over the other.
This brings to fore another pivotal aspect of why states involve themselves into these military excursions: interests. Territory, protection and mere glorification are common reasons why states enter into wars and conflicts and it is their interests that provide a road map to attain these interests, whether they are resources or some sort of policy concessions. How do the states manage to do this? Allison and Halperin provide an explanation of this by introducing senior and junior players. Senior players are those that ultimately have the resources and capabilities to achieve their interests and hence are able to manipulate the junior players because of their subordinate position. Not only do countries have tangible means of achieving these aims, but they also are able to influence organizations such as the United Nations to achieve their aims.
The model provided by Allison and Halperin is excellent in terms of understanding the way that states act and react in the international realm and shows how unitary analysis is important to gain insight into the actions of the different states.
An interesting way to understand this theoretical model is to look at the Cold War where ultimately it was the 'actions' of either camp that shaped the way the states interacted. This is in line with Allison and Halperin's argument that outcomes are what essentially lead to a degree of predictability. The players involved in the game in the Cold War epoch had the resources to manipulate and coerce different countries into being pawns in the game and gain a comparative advantage over the other.
This brings to fore another pivotal aspect of why states involve themselves into these military excursions: interests. Territory, protection and mere glorification are common reasons why states enter into wars and conflicts and it is their interests that provide a road map to attain these interests, whether they are resources or some sort of policy concessions. How do the states manage to do this? Allison and Halperin provide an explanation of this by introducing senior and junior players. Senior players are those that ultimately have the resources and capabilities to achieve their interests and hence are able to manipulate the junior players because of their subordinate position. Not only do countries have tangible means of achieving these aims, but they also are able to influence organizations such as the United Nations to achieve their aims.
The model provided by Allison and Halperin is excellent in terms of understanding the way that states act and react in the international realm and shows how unitary analysis is important to gain insight into the actions of the different states.
I was in agreement with your analysis right up until the last sentence: Allison and Halperin are trying to provide a more complex model than unitary analysis, hence their focus on the decision-making process that goes into bureaucratic politics. I think you know that, but what you wrote is different from what I think you meant.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to add to what you have already mentioned about countries using means to influence organizations to aid in accomplishing their aims. An example of this would be of United States of America in relation to UN. Since US finances a greater extent of UN's programs, UN is bound to pay heed to the demands of US. If it refuses to do so, it will face itself in a highly undesirable situation.
ReplyDelete