Historically the realm of International Politics and foreign
policy has been reduced to the actions of a single actor, ignoring the
existence of a bureaucracy: the "maker" of government policy; a
conglomerate of large organizations and political actors who differ
substantially about what their government should do on any particular issue and
who compete in attempting to affect both governmental decisions and the actions
of their government.
Graham et al present an alternative approach to the
understanding of decision making in foreign policy: Bureaucratic Policy Model
which focuses on “intra-national factors, in particular Bureaucratic Politics,
in explaining national behavior in international relation. Bureaucratic
Politics Model sees no unitary actor but rather many actors as players who
focus not on a single strategic issue but on many diverse intra-national
problems as well.”
An interesting avenue in this article refers to the notion
of senior and junior actors which can be made analogous to the idea of
hegemonic and weak states. Senior players are the “major political figures” who
“will dominate in decision games” whereas the junior players are “charged with
carrying out the decision”. Similarly, in bilateral relations, the dominating
states dictate the terms of foreign policy because they have the resources and
capability to be in that position, whereas the weaker states are obliged to
carry forth their demands. An example of this can be the drone attacks by the
US in northern Pakistan.
This model has provided us with an outlook of how to
interaction between states takes place, which is considerably different from
interaction between individuals. This aspect nullifies the position which tries
to personify states. Furthermore, it has negated the idea of a state having one unified national interest primarily because bureaucracies are not single actors but comprise of various actors and organizations with differing interests.
By coming up with the 'Bureaucratic Politics Model' the authors have come up with a framework to better understand foreign policy. However, I still think that simplifying scenarios and studying the people that are involved in making and implementing foreign policies cannot provide answers to how or why states behave in a certain manner.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this model is useful in understanding the different decision making processes that go into making policy. Policies are determined through an internal process of dialogue and debate - at least in the U.S. - and hence reflect this process of compromise.
ReplyDeleteBut if one agrees that states comprise of varying institutions that have actors with differing interests, the compromised decision will become the action of a state and determine how states behave in a particular scenario
ReplyDelete