Foreign policy issues are the most
crucial area in the study of international relations. Their significance can be
judged by the fact that erroneous policy-making can lead to war and correct
policy-making leads to cooperation and peace. By erroneous, I mean that the
players that are formulating the policy do not accurately analyze the
parameters involved in a particular outcome; by correct, I mean that the
players analyzing the outcomes accurately comprehend the assumptions and
intentions of other players and make policies that suit the interests of both
the countries.
Graham and Morton rightly specify
that the foreign policy making is not a simplistic task. Although they identify
that the national governments are reduced to a unitary actor, however, they
suggest that there are multiple actors involved in the decision-making. They
make arguments so that the confusing and contradictory elements of the
alternatives are considered before making final decision.
This is an interesting point made
because they have deconstructed the entire chain of command in the process of decision-making
and maintain that the governmental decisions are not the consequences of
intentions and priorities of a particular entity, but a
"conglomerate" of large organizations and political actors work to
carve out a national policy. They also maintain that a set of procedures are
followed in the meetings of the officials that give the policy-making a
democratic outlook. They suggest these procedures to be "action
channels."
Lastly,
the terms provided by the authors are effective in understanding the nature of
the policy-making in the bureaucratic set-up, such as the term
"decision" they define as the use of designated authority by the
officials. The explanation of the term becomes self-explanatory. That is, it
describes that the authority used by the officials is not restricted to only
political actors who are elected, but also to the actors who work in the
bureaucratic structure.
I agree that the way the authors have deconstructed the chain of command is an interesting point because we tend to forget that decisions are a product of many actors and organisation rather than a result of a single entity and its interests.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a need to carefully assess the interests at every level of the government hierarchy in order to come to a holistic conclusion regarding foreign policy objectives, intended outcomes and the path taken to achieve those outcomes. However, the fact remains that it is impossible to be able to accurately gauge interests of all the actors involved, which will result in lots of assumptions being made about what individuals within the state machinery want. That I feel can be slightly problematic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that making policies is not a simple process, but rather complicated. Therefore, the motives behind the actions of political leaders need to be understood because at the end it is these people who make national policies.
ReplyDeleteI like that you defined what you think are correct and erroneous positions - this helps your readers understand exactly what you mean. As you note, Graham and Morton also define terms like "decision" in a way that makes it easy for the reader to follow their logic.
ReplyDelete