Session 8: The Decision Games.

In the past, the domain of international politics and foreign relations was limited to the analysis of the history of the interaction between states. Similarly, International Relations theorists treated national governments as entities unified under the ambit of a nation state. In their attempt to explain international events, chart out the trajectory of foreign politics, and propose possible foreign policy paths, theorists have often fallen prey to oversimplification of the international order into states, completely disregarding the role of individuals within the governments of each state. Therefore, the basic purpose of Allison and Halperin’s article “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications” is to introduce individuals into the realm of international Politics.  

Prior to Allison and Halperin’s contribution to the social science, interactions between states were thought to be analogous to interactions between individuals. The actions of the states were thought to be determined by rational, self-interests which were presented as a collectivized, ‘national interest’ of a state. Challenging this notion of a national interest, the authors prescribe a framework which focuses primarily on the interests and interactions of individuals within the government in order to ascertain government actions in international politics. 

The Bureaucratic Politics Model places emphasis on “outcomes” that key actors within the government hope to achieve and the “action channels” that these senior and junior players take in order to reach their desired goals. While senior players dominate the decision making processes, junior players are heavily involved in the organization and implementation of policies. However, critical to the analysis of international politics, is the awareness of the wide array of interests, present at every level of the government. According to Allison and Halperin, when an issue of national/international concern arises, each player involved in policy making and implementation will arrive at a different “face of the issue”. Consequently, based on every individual’s interests, there will be a different action path that is to be taken. Therefore, in order to ascertain a state’s collective interests, and to determine the actions of the states, one cannot reply upon an “agreed upon calculus” of strategic interests. Rather, there is a need to call attention to the internal processes in each nation, and debate and discuss competing interests in the government hierarchy in order to help paint a more holistic picture of the states’ foreign policy objectives and subsequent actions.