SUMMARY AND COMMENTARIES ON ‘LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND FOREIGN POLICY’ From the book “International Politics on the WorldStage, 12e, John T. Rourke”1 SUMMARY This chapter is divided into three major parts; each discusses a level of analysis regarding a state’s foreign policy. A. Individual-Level Analysis This level of analysis looks at the people who make the policy. This level of analysis involves understanding on how is the process of policy making. The basic question regarding this level of analysis is on how do basic human traits influence policy, which is a discussion on human as a species. There are clearly several factors that determine how a human being takes a certain policy. Among them: 1. Cognitive factors. Human beings are bounded by a certain limitation cognitively in making certain decision. There are external boundaries, which include missing or unknown information; and internal boundaries, that include human physical frailties. In coping with this problem decision makers tend to seek cognitive consistency by discounting ideas that contradict their existing views. Another way is self-justification or conviction that the choice will eventually succeed, or known as wishful thinking. The third way is to use what is known as heuristic device, which allows us to avoid gathering considerable information and thorough analysis. Some examples of these heuristic devices would be stereotypes and analogies (a certain comparison between new situations and an earlier situations someone had experienced). 2. Emotional factors. This is one factor that determines the condition of the decision maker in making decision. While it is easy to imagine that the decision maker would be rational enough in taking the decision, in reality decision maker will find him/herself under pressure, sad, angry, or depressed. 3. Psychological factors. There are psychological traits shared by humans that explain why their feelings and decisions are usually less than fully rational. 1 John T. Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage, 12th Edition (New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2008). mistrust. 4. 4. . We tend to see the behavior of others as more planned and coordinated than our own. The comparison between animal and human behavior that often used in explaining the way humans act is ethology. We find it hard to understand why others dislike. how the United States are really alarmed by North Korean nuclear threat). that “territoriality – the drive to gain. The ancient debate on perceptions is philosophical. Biological factors. which states that aggressive behavior is closely related to sex. and gender is behavioral.One of the approaches is frustration-aggression theory. Perceptions. 12-14). 2 The author has managed to distinct the idea of sex and gender. and defend the exclusive right to a piece of property – is an animal instinct. and fear us. We tend to see opponents as more threatening than they may actually be (e. to determine whether there is an objective world or whether everything is only what we perceive to be. which argues that individuals and societies that are frustrated sometimes become aggressive. which tries to explain the relations between physical nature and political behavior of human. The script for a role is derived from a combination of self-expectation (how we expect ourselves to act) and external expectations (how others expect us to behave). p. One example of this ethology is as mentioned by Ardrey (pp. Human beings play a variety of roles based on attitude about the status we have and the behaviors we adopt in them. 69. in which sex is biological. This is the discussion of organizational behavior. This gender problem has derived manliness.g. Others and we tend to have similar images of one another. maintain. 2. While controversial. Another common characteristic of human is that human beings tend to think and act differently in collective settings than they do as individuals. 5. 3. See Rourke. There are four common characteristics of perceptions: 1. One of them is biopolitics.” The difference may also be caused by gender2 differences. The issue of this gender differences have created the gender opinion gap that political scientists are just beginning to examine. there are various theories that explain how human decisions are often not fully rational. 5. behavioral patterns.When people give advices and make decisions within an organization. The most well known scheme will place political personality along an active-passive scale and a positivenegative scale. Under this factor scholars examine a leader’s basic orientations toward self and toward others. while passive leaders are reactors. A leader’s ego and personal ambitions can also influence policy. 2. and attitudes about such politically relevant concepts as authority. yet negative personalities are prone to assume that opponents are enemies). Perceptions form an operational reality. There are five of many possible factors to consider: 1. even abused. they not only have to consider that they think but also how others will view their opinions and decisions in the organization. Perceptions and operational reality. A leader’s physical and mental health can be important factors in decision making. 3. Active leaders are innovators. Decision maker’s images of reality constitute a fifth idiosyncratic element that influences their approach to foreign policy. . by political criticism. D. who was arguably suffer from ailments from a mixture of illness and medications. How physical health proved to be important was as the example of F. 4. Roosevelt. Ego and ambition. that is. who was ill from hypertension while was at the office of the presidency. whether they are accurate or not. policy makers tend to act based on perceptions. while negative personalities are apt to feel burdened. that studies how each leader’s personal characteristics help shape his or her decisions. In groups as such. the image of a devil’s advocate is a rarity. Decision makers are also affected by their personal experiences. This is the discussion of leaders and their individual traits. Political history and personal experiences. Physical and mental health. Positive personalities enjoy the contentious political environment. The calculation tends to promote groupthink. How psychological problems proved to be important was as the example of Adolf Hitler. in part because those who take this approach get forced out. Personality. The third approach to individual-level analysis focuses on idiosyncratic analysis. The worst combination is said to be the active-negative combination (since active leaders receive more criticism. Human decisions are mixtures of rational and irrational inputs. 2002). the more likely it is that foreign policy will be centered in a narrow segment of the government. in which countries are the most important. Each country’s foreign policy tends to reflect its political culture. the situation. Some important factors regarding to the political executives are chief executive’s formal powers (grants of authority given by constitution and laws). How foreign policy is decided also varies according to the nature of the issue area involved. informal powers. Jung. 2003. Type of policy and the foreign policy process. 2. . and opposition parties. and then setting aside domestic politics and personal factors and concentrate on strategic. Culture also determines the foreign policy making. This concept represents a society’s widely held. Crisis policy making is likely to be dominated by the political leader and a small group of advisers. This view of how individuals and groups make policy choices is called poliheuristic theory. public opinion. realpolitik considerations. 3. and the type of policy determines making foreign policy. 1. The type of government and the foreign policy process. By contrast. The type of government. There are some policy-making actors: 1. Policy is made differently during crisis and non-crisis situation. This underlines how policies are actually mixtures of rational and irrational factors. This theory depicts decision making as a two-stage process. The type of situation and the foreign policy process. Heads of government and other political executives. traditional values and its fundamental practices that are slow to change (Paquette. Foreign policy making in democracies is much more open with inputs from legislators. State-Level Analysis Policymaking is significantly influenced by the fact that it occurs within the context of a political structure. Issues that have little immediate or obvious impact on citizens of a certain country can be termed pure foreign policy. the use of shortcuts to eliminate unacceptable policy options. foreign policy that has an immediate and obvious domestic impact on citizens of a certain country is called intermestic policy. B. The more authoritarian a government is. the media. System-Level Analysis While countries are free to make any foreign policy decision they want. yet it still constrained by several factors: extensive legal powers. However. 4. Two of particular relevance to this analysis is on the organization of authority and the scope and level of interaction among the actors in the system. in which there is no higher authority than the states. frequency. There are several kinds of interest groups. Interest groups are private associations of people who have similar policy views and who pressure the government to adopt those views as policy. Interest groups. Another structural characteristic of any political system is the scope (range). the scope. the international system is largely anarchic. Yet it does not mean that all legislatures are powerless. Most systems tend to be hierarchical. economic groups. 2. In all countries. Every system has its own structural characteristics. and intensity (level) of interactions among the actors. and for conducting other authoritative tasks in a system can range from hierarchical (vertical) to anarchical (horizontal). Legislatures. the belief that a unified national voice is important to a successful foreign policy. . practically they have to make choices that are reasonable within the context of the realities of the international system. Legislatures play a larger foreign policy role in democracies. bureaucrats often do not agree with the country’s foreign policy. Yet. giving recommendations. The structure of authority for making and enforcing rules. In the international system.and leadership capabilities. 3. yet the role is more complex in democracies. 1. 2. the foreign policy role of legislatures play a lesser role compared to the executive branch. and implementation. The organization of authority. Public opinion is a marginal factor in authoritarian regimes. among them: cultural groups. and intensity of interactions. The public plays a highly variable role in foreign policy. Thus. C. and legislators tend to focus on domestic policy. tradition. They try to influence the policy themselves by filtering information. level. Scope. and transnational interest groups. issue-oriented groups. for allocating assets. The people. the international system is mostly horizontal. System-level analysis contends that the economic realities of the international system help shape the choices that countries make. 4. this is the same in systems from the global to local level. The international system has been defined in part by how many powerful actors each has (Wilkinson. 2. Another book. the states/blocs will seek to become hegemonic. concerns the aggregations of individuals within states that influence state actions in the international arena. The individual level. Natural resource production and consumption patterns also influence the operation of the system. International Relations. Such an actors can be a single country or empire. 2009: pp. Eighth Edition (Joshua S. and level of interaction among the actors have grown extensively during the last half-century. The global level. choices. The domestic (or state or societal) level. 17-19) added some levels of analysis: 1. These poles are particularly important to the realists in relations with the balance of power. 3. Goldstein and Jon C. . Pevehouse. The conduct of the international system is heavily influenced by power considerations such as the number of powerful actors and the context of power. and the others will try to block such effort. concerns the influence of the international system upon outcomes. and actions of individual human beings. concerns the perceptions. Countries are restrained by the realities of power in the international system. seeks to explain international outcomes in terms of global trends and forces that transcend the interaction between states itself. It is hard to accept that norms exist in a world in which horrendous things sometimes happen. Interdependence is one of the economic facts of life that influences states’ behavior. The second factor that determines the policy making under this analysis is the power relationships. mainly due to economic interdependence. Again. global IGOs. Norms influence the actions within the international system. The interstate (or international or systemic) level. yet it would be far to say that there is anything near a universal standard of behavior. Power relationships are also determined by the context of power. It underlines the theory that all states are power seeking. Commentaries This elaboration on levels of analysis should have been elaborated more with some other levels of analysis.frequency. 2004). or regional IGOs. And to compare. or how the current president.Among many other level of analysis. Matthew Hanzel Department of International Relations. Indonesian leaders can be judged by many of their individual traits. 2009 043 2009 0015 . the individual-level analysis could be one of the most interesting. how the charismatic Soekarno ignited the spirit of Indonesians on the international politics of Konfrontasi. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s attitude on politics which created quite a weak stance on dealing with interstate conflict. To say the least. For example. as in the 2010 conflict with Malaysia. I personally see that Indonesian politics is mostly related to leaders’ individual traits.
Report "The Three Levels of Analysis in International Relations"