METU Studies in Development, 21 (1) 1994, 113-141

Main approaches to the study of

foreign policy : A review
M. Fatih Tayfur*
Department of International Relations, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey

Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to present various approaches to the study of
foreign policy. In this general context, first, the nature and the definition of
foreign policy; second, the impact of main theories and methods of international
relations on foreign policy studies; and third, middle-range theories of foreign
policy, which are also grouped under the title of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA),
are discussed.

1. Introduction
The aim of this essay is to review the main approaches to the study of
foreign policy. Broadly speaking, foreign policy is the behaviour of states
mainly towards other states in the international system through their
authorised agents. Nevertheless, the study of foreign policy as a sub-field of
international relations can by no means be confined within the boundaries of
any given approach. What becomes clear in the field is that the study of
foreign policy requires inter- and/or multidisciplinary investigations. This
means that foreign policy can be examined at different levels of analysis and
be viewed from different perspectives of the family of social sciences.
Moreover, philosophical questions which potentially have always occupied
a central place in the study of foreign policy increase the complexity of the
field.

*
Political Science.
114 M. Fatih TAYFUR

The students of foreign policy are confronted with a phenomenon whose

boundaries are quite flexible and which allows various kinds of frameworks
for study. Accordingly, foreign policy studies undertaken up to now reflect
this diversity of interest among the researchers. However, before enumerating
these different types of interests, it might be useful to introduce the purposes
of foreign policy studies. First of all three broad considerations can be taken
into account in the studies of foreign policy. The researcher might employ
descriptive, explanatory or prediction-oriented studies or any mixture of these
three. In a descriptive study, while the main concern is to establish facts, an
explanatory study goes one step further and asks the 'why' question to explain
the facts established. A prediction-oriented study, on the other hand, seeks
to predict what is likely to happen next through extrapolating prevailing
trends into the future. Although a researcher may conduct his or her research
at one of these three levels of study, it seems that it is imperative for
explanatory studies to use facts, and for prediction-oriented studies to regard
both descriptions and explanations in order to predict. As far as descriptive
studies are concerned, they are mostly required to answer the 'why' question
after establishing the facts. Nevertheless, explanatory studies are given much
more weight than the others since the principle targets of foreign policy
studies are to understand and explain the external behaviour of states. The
explanation of foreign policy can range from the childhood experiences of
individual leader to the characteristics of international system depending on
the framework in the researcher's mind and what he or she wants to explain.
In this essay I shall first focus on the nature and the definition of foreign
policy. Then I shall briefly elaborate on the history and main schools of
foreign policy studies. Another concern will be the methodology question.
The next and the last step will be to look at the specific approaches that
search for an explanation of foreign policy.

2. The nature and the definition of foreign policy

Discussions on the subject matter and the title of a field serve the
necessary function of understanding the characteristics and clarifying the
boundaries of that field. In this respect, before elaborating on the studies of
foreign policy, one should first ask questions like 'What is meant by the term
foreign policy?' and 'What kind of activity is it?'.
What is foreign policy? In order to answer this question one should look
at where the field of foreign policy is located. First of all, it can be said that
foreign policy is a sub-field of international relations. Indeed, within the field
of international relations there are two main sub-fields; international politics
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 115

and foreign policy. International politics focuses on the structures and

processes of the whole international system. In other words, international
politics seeks to provide explanations to the working of the international
system. The subject matter of foreign policy, the second sub-field of
international relations, comes to the fore when one asks the question of 'Who
are the main actors of the international system?'. The system concept might
simply be described as an interacting group of interrelated and interdependent
units. And when it comes to the international system, states appear as the
main actors in it. As such, the behaviour of states in the system deserves
particular attention. It is at this point that the area of inquiry for the sub-field
of foreign policy becomes apparent. It focuses on the external behaviours of
governments and more specifically on their authorised representatives since
states act almost always through their official agents. To sum up simply,
while international politics focuses on international relations in the way that
macroeconomics deals with the aggregate behaviour of the entire national
economy, foreign policy focuses on the international relations in the way that
microeconomics deals with the behaviour of individual actors such as firms
and consumers (McGowan, 1973: 11-2). Yet, one should not overlook the
interaction between macro and micro perspectives. The influences of
structures and processes on the behaviour of individual actors in the
international system must be taken into account as well as the influences of
the individual actors on the working of the system of which they are a part.
In order to clarify further the concept of foreign policy, it might be useful
to look at it in a closer perspective. If foreign policy is a governmental
activity, what distinguishes it from other governmental activities? Is there a
clear-cut division between domestic policy and foreign policy, or are there
close interactions between the two? First of all, it can be said that the latter
is directed towards the external environment of a state. In other words,
foreign policy is a policy designed to be implemented outside the territorial
boundaries of a state. As Clarke and White put it, "foreign policy, like
domestic policy is formulated within the state, but unlike domestic policy is
directed and must be implemented in the environment external to that state"
(White, 1989: 5). Another way of differentiating foreign and domestic politics
can be associated with those studies that consider foreign policy as 'high
politics' and hence a very differentiated area of governmental activity. This
view equates foreign policy with the security and the fundamental values of
state in which domestic politics should not interfere. Some others like
Wallace see foreign policy as a boundary issue between domestic politics and
the international environment (Wallace, 1974: 12-7). According to Wallace,
foreign policy is a boundary problem in two respects. First, foreign policy
116 M. Fatih TAYFUR

plays the role of a bridge between the nation state and its international
environment. Second, it is the boundary between domestic politics and the
government (Political Science) and international politics and diplomacy
(International Relations). This means that an understanding of foreign policy
requires a mixture of knowledge which covers both political science
(domestic politics) and international relations (international politics). Here, the
problem is keeping foreign policy at the boundary line (White, 1989: 7). If
the researcher looks at it from the viewpoint of political science he or she
will pick up domestic determinants, whereas the researcher looking from the
perspective of international relations will pick up determinants from the
international environment in order to explain foreign policy phenomenon. If
we go one step further and investigate the boundary between foreign policy
and other academic disciplines the situation becomes more complex. In other
words, those who are studying the relationships between foreign policy and
its sources (e.g., personality of leaders, policy makers, governmental
structures, culture, economic development, geography, international system
etc.) will inevitably make use of any one or any mix of the following
academic disciplines; psychology, sociology, economics, public
administration, history, philosophy, and geography, depending on their units
of analysis.
Another issue is related to the term 'policy'. What does 'policy' mean in
the context of foreign policy? According to Jones, there is a difference
between 'policy as design' and 'policy as practice' (Jones, 1970: 11-32).
'Policy as design' means that policy is something that is deliberately created
to achieve specific objectives. In this sense foreign policy becomes a plan of
action. On the other hand, 'policy as practice' refers to actions taken to meet
practical problems when they emerge in the international system. In this
sense foreign policy becomes the action itself. Rosenau offers a similar
conceptualisation of foreign policy. According to Rosenau (1976: 16-7),
there are three conceptualisations of foreign policy; foreign policy as
orientations; foreign policy as plans and commitments; and foreign policy as
activities (behaviours). Orientations are the highest guides for action like the
constitution of an organisation. In this form, foreign policy refers to general
tendencies and principles that underline the conducts of states in international
affairs. They are embedded in the experiences, traditions and aspirations of
that particular society. Foreign policy in the form of plans and commitments,
similar to Jones's conceptualisation, refers to strategies and decisions directed
towards specific goals. They are seen as translations of orientations to actual
situations. In other words, they represent the translation of principles into
norms. Lastly, foreign policy as an activity, again similar to Jones's
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 117

conceptualisation of 'foreign policy as practice', refers to the concrete

behaviour of states vis-a-vis the events and situations in the international
system in accordance with the orientations, plans and commitments.
After reviewing briefly the nature of foreign policy, let us now look at
the definition of the concept. For the time being, putting aside those who
consider foreign policy as the pursuit of national interest in terms of power",
I shall introduce explicit definitions of the concept. In 1962 Modelski defined
foreign policy as the "system of activities evolved by communities for
changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their activities to the
international environment" (Modelski, 1962: 6). And according to Modelski,
states deal with this issue through their policy makers who are entitled to act
on behalf of their community. Holsti, on the other hand, describes foreign
policy from the point of view of the researcher; "the student who analyses the
actions of a state towards external environment and the conditions -usually
domestic- under which these actions are formulated is concerned essentially
with foreign policy" (Holsti, 1983: 19). McGowan in 1973 came up with the
following definition: "foreign policy could be defined as the actions of
national or central governments taken towards other actors external to the
legal sovereignty of the initiating governments" (McGowan, 1973: 12).
Wilkenfield develops the following definition: "foreign policy is those official
actions (and reactions) which sovereign states initiate (or receive and
subsequently react to) for the purpose of altering or creating a condition (or
problem) outside their territorial sovereign boundaries" (Wilkenfield et al.,
1980: 22). On the other hand, Russet and Starr define foreign policy as the
stuff of international relations: "People do not agree on exactly what should
be included here, but they are concerned with the policies that states declare,
the decisions taken within governmental circles, the actions actually taken by
governments, and consequences of the behaviour of governments and their
official representatives. Foreign policy is the output of the state into the
global system" (Russet and Starr, 1985: 191).
In sum, one can say that foreign policy is an official activity formulated
and implemented by the authorised agents of sovereign states as orientations,
plans, commitments and actions which are directed towards the external
environment of the states. Since foreign policy covers a very wide area it is
almost impossible to give a complete definition of it. Nevertheless, a
shorthand definition of foreign policy is given by Hill: "Foreign policy is the
sum of official external relations conducted by independent actors in
118 M. Fatih TAYFUR

international relations".1

3. Theories and methods of foreign policy

Since states are considered as the central actors by almost all perspectives
in the field of international relations, theories of foreign policy behaviour of
states are intermingled with the theories of international relations. Therefore,
let us now look at how major approaches in international relations explain the
phenomenon of foreign policy.

3.1. Traditional understanding

Passing through the long corridor of diplomatic history and law, a new
discipline known as international relations had begun to emerge steadily
between the two world wars. Consequently, immediately after the Second
World War the first coherent approach of the discipline of international
relations, and therefore of the field of foreign policy, came into existence as
what is called today the Traditional Approach. Nevertheless, the traditional
approach was divided into two schools of thought; idealism and realism.
Their central common point was their focus on the human nature and the
nature of international system. According to the traditional approach, "the
determinants of foreign policy are to be found in the nature of the
international political system" (Smith, 1986: 15). The idealists were thinking
that what causes conflict and tension is not human nature which is essentially
peace-loving, but political and social mechanisms. For the idealists, in order
to prevent the recurrence of conflicts and wars, mechanisms and institutions
that could generate peace and democracy should be built within the
international society. The activities directed to establish and sustain such an
international environment have presumably become the explanation of foreign
policy. Idealism was criticised by its opponents on the basis of its focus more
on moral principles rather than realities of international relations. In fact, it
is the latter perspective which is known as realism, and which has always
been identified with traditionalism in international relations. According to
realists, politics is governed by objective laws that have their own roots in
human nature (Morgenthau, 1978: 3-15). The central beliefs in this approach
were that the structural condition in the international political system -which

1
This de
Analysis lectures at the London School of Economics.
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 119

is made up of sovereign states- is anarchy, and just like a self-interested

individual these sovereign states pursue their national interests in an endless
process of maximising their power since interest is defined in terms of power.
Accordingly, this approach makes explicit assumptions about the foreign
policies of states (White, 1989: 10-1; Smith, 1986: 15). First of all, it is the
state and not any other entity that could conduct foreign policy. The
sovereign state is the prime actor in the international political system. Second,
realists assume that states or governments on behalf of states, are unitary
entities meaning that like any individual, states have objectives and act
purposefully in accordance with these objectives. The realist conception of
state and foreign policy assumes that states are rational actors, therefore they
do not act haphazardly but deliberately. Foreign policy action according to
realists is the product of rational behaviour; it is a kind of calculation,
calculation of means and ends and benefits of alternative courses of action
in order to maximise the benefits. There must be proportionality between the
rational interests and the power of a state in order to pursue rational foreign
policy. Thus rationality explains why states act as they do. In this realist
picture of international relations power becomes the driving force since, in
order to promote their interests, states seek to maximise their powers. This
means that foreign policy is nothing but a struggle for power between states.
Two other dimensions of realist thinking in relation to foreign policy
might be worth mentioning. The first point is that the realist approach views
foreign policy from the environment external to the state. The determinants
of foreign policy can only be found in the anarchic international environment
rather than in the domestic environment. Accordingly, the balance of power
in the international system, and the situation of a state in the system are the
fundamental determinants of foreign policy. Secondly, in realism it is 'high
politics' that dominates the foreign policy agenda of states. In other words,
while military and security issues are overemphasised, economic dimensions
of foreign policy, named as 'low polities', are de-emphasised. The realist
belief in the autonomy of political sphere is prone to overlook the interaction
between foreign policy and other spheres such as economics, law, and ethics.

3.2. Behaviouralism and the challenge of Decision Making Approach

The reaction to the realist interpretation of international relations and

foreign policy came from what is labelled as the Behaviouralist School. In
fact, the challenge of behaviouralists was more of a methodological
revolution rather than a challenge directed to the basic tenets of realism. The
behavioural challenge first came under the title of Decision Making
120 M. Fatih TAYFUR

Approach, and applied to foreign policy by Snyder and his associates in 1954
(Snyder et al, 1962). According to the decision making theory, foreign policy
was nothing but a series of decisions taken by the official decision makers.
Hence, the explanation of foreign policy was the explanation of the behaviour
of an individual or a group acting in a structured domestic machinery in order
to decide which course of action is going to be adopted. A cursory glance at
the decision making approach reveals the fact that it was strongly influenced
by the basic premises of the realist school. First of all, despite its
identification of state with official decision makers, the state remained the
only actor in the international system. Second, the rational actor model of
realism was translated into the Decision Making Approach as rational
decision maker or rational decision making process. Hence, like the abstract
state of realism, the concrete decision maker(s) began to calculate the pluses
and the minuses of alternative courses of action, and picked up the most
appropriate (beneficial) one that would lead to the achievement of the desired
goal(s).
Nevertheless, behaviouralism under the label of Decision Making
Approach brought very significant changes to the concept of foreign policy
(White, 1989: 13-5). First, it introduced the idea that states or governments
are all abstractions, and arc not able to behave by themselves. They can act
only through concrete individuals known as decision makers. Thus the
Behaviouralist School equated the state with the official decision makers
whose behaviours, unlike abstractions, can easily be observed and analysed.
Second, the Decision Making Approach challenged the 'objectivist'
perspective of realism by proposing a 'subjectivist' outlook. According to the
Decision Making Approach, the definition of the situation by decision makers
is the key to the explanation of the behaviour of states. What counts is not
the objective realities of the international environment but the subjective
perception of that environment by decision maker(s). Thirdly, the introduction
of the impact of the internal setting and societal factors on decision maker(s)
and decision making process showed the significance of domestic sources of
foreign policy as opposed to realists who focused almost totally on the
external sources of foreign policy.
Besides these important departures from the realist thinking, the main
controversy between behaviouralism and realism was methodological. The
common tendency of the traditional scholars was to study the foreign policies
of individual countries. Their beliefs were based on the uniqueness of the
foreign policies of states. According to traditionalists, foreign policy could be
studied by individualising rather than generalising. Consequently, they have
advocated detailed case studies of foreign policies of individual states which
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 121

usually employed historical-diplomatic method based on intuition and

insight. Yet, for behaviouralists the central aim was to study international
relations 'scientifically', and the main concern of the 'scientific' studies was
to reach generalisations rather than specifications. In order to achieve this
end, according to behaviouralists, one should look for patterns and
regularities in the behaviours of states which at the end would lead to theory
building. Inspired by positivism and empiricism used in other academic
disciplines, behaviouralists advocated the construction of hypotheses about
the behaviours of states and the collection of observable 'objective' data for
the verification of these hypotheses. Without having an observable data base,
according to behaviouralism, the discipline of international relations could not
reach a sound general theory. Hence, in order to evaluate the data
'objectively', behaviouralists began to employ quantitative techniques in the
explanation of foreign policy. The aim of behaviouralists was to introduce the
universal scientific method into the field of international relations.
The advent of the behaviouralist thinking was indeed a breakthrough in
the field of international relations and foreign policy. First of all, the
publication of David Singer's paper, "The Level of Analysis Problem in
International Relations", brought a new feature into the study of foreign
policy (Singer, 1961). According to Singer, foreign policies of states could
be explained at two different levels; either at the level of nation states or at
the level of international system. One could give priority to and
overemphasise the impact of either level of analysis in explaining the foreign
policy behaviour. Despite its several problems, it can be said that this
division has led to the enrichment of foreign policy studies. One of the
consequences of Singer's article was the emergence of system analysis which
gives priority to the systemic determinants of foreign policy. The aim of
these systemic studies were more than the explanation of the foreign policy
behaviour. Being loyal to the behavioural understanding of science, they tried
to predict the behaviours of states by creating different systemic models
(Kaplan, 1957; McClelland, 1966; Rosecrance, 1966). Nevertheless, their
understanding of the system was somewhat simple. The system, according to
those early system analysts of foreign policy, was the sum of its constituent
parts, and they only paid attention to the behaviours and interactions of a few
great powers, ignoring the lesser actors of the system. Secondly, at the state
level analysis the Decision Making School emphasised the domestic sources
of foreign policy. Its impact on the foreign policy studies was remarkable
(White, 1989: 14-7). One can say that the Decision Making Approach invited
psychology and sociology into the foreign policy analysis in order to
understand the subjective world of individual and group behaviour. It also
122 M. Fatih TAYFUR

fostered studies of important foreign policy decisions, namely the study of

crisis decisions. Thirdly, the Decision Making Approach led to the study of
decision making process. Furthermore, after studying individuals and the
governmental process of decision making, the Decision Making Approach
came to the point that states and governments are not monolithic entities, and
therefore it began to question the rationality assumption.

3.3. Comparative Foreign Policy Approach

Nevertheless, the most striking school of behaviouralism came under the

title of Comparative Foreign Policy Approach (CFP). The emergence of the
comparative study of foreign policy was the direct impact of the behavioural
movement of the 1950s. As mentioned, the central idea in the behavioural
movement was to establish social scientific methods of research which meant
systematic-empirical data collection, conceptualisation, hypothesis testing,
and theory building. The foreign policy studies which were under the strong
influence of diplomatic history and international law become acquainted with
this new orientation in the 1960s. Parallel to this scientificism, the ultimate
aim of CFP was to build a general theory of foreign policy through the use
of methods borrowed from natural sciences.
If one looks at the birth and the evolution of CFP (see Hermann and
Peacock, 1987) one can see that what stands at the heart of the school is the
decision making framework of Snyder (Snyder et al., 1962). The work of
Snyder was important for the comparative school in the sense that it was the
first attempt to conceptualise how foreign policy is made in a scientific mode.
For the first time in the study of foreign policy Snyder and his colleagues
were trying to explain the concept through human decision and a series of
variables that influence that decision, and moreover they were presenting an
operationalisable framework.
The publication of Rosenau's "Pre-theory" more than a decade after the
Snyder's framework, marked the foundation of CFP (Rosenau, 1966). In this
article Rosenau, after pointing out the lack of scientific studies in the field
of foreign policy, was calling for the construction of "if-then" hypotheses.
According to Rosenau, the foreign policy analysis has been suffering from
lack of testable generalisations of foreign policy behaviour. In other words,
foreign policy analysis was devoid of general theory. Having this in his mind,
he first identified a series of explanatory variables of foreign policy: (1)
idiosyncratic; (2) role; (3) governmental; (4) societal; (5) systemic . These
five categories of variables were considered as the main sources of foreign
policy behaviour. Nevertheless, according to Rosenau, the degree of the
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 12.3

explanatory power of these variables might well change in relation to the

state(s) under investigation. In other words, certain variables could explain
the foreign policy of a state better than the others, depending on the typology
of the state under investigation. Accordingly, Rosenau introduced three
variables into the construction of a typology for states: (1) size; (2)
development; and (3) political accountability. Although this study marked the
foundation of the school, a clear indication of CFP as a field of inquiry came
in with Rosenau's other well-known article: "Comparative Foreign Policy:
Fad, Fantasy or Field?" (Rosenau, 1968). According to Rosenau, the field of
foreign policy analysis had been occupied by non-comparable, non-
cumulative single case studies for decades. Even the Decision Making
Approach had not considered the possibility of comparing the perspectives
of decision makers of different countries, but improved the quality of the case
histories. What is needed, argued Rosenau, was not to enumerate foreign
policy variables or discuss them as if they operate identically in all states,
rather generate a comparative analysis that could allow relevant
generalisations. According to Rosenau, the attraction of CFP was due to two
developments; first, the reflection of the increasing importance of
comparative studies in the analysis of domestic politics and the foreign
policy, and, second, the rapid increase in the number of nation states between
1945-65 and the emergence of worldwide problems. Another important
argument concerned the meaning of comparison and comparative foreign
policy. In CFP, a comparison had to be conceived in methodological terms
rather than in terms of subject matter: comparison was a method. One could
investigate foreign policy phenomena in different ways, and the comparative
method was only one of them. It was a suitable method to generate and test
hypotheses about the foreign policy behaviour which was applicable to more
than one state. Thus the aim of the CFP was basically to identify similarities
and differences in the foreign policy behaviour of more than one state in
order to reach generalisations. Furthermore, it also became possible to study
the foreign policy of a single state across different periods (longitudinal
study) comparatively. Another important issue that needs to be discussed is
the outlook of CFP on the nature of the foreign policy. In the CFP school,
foreign policy was regarded as the composite of national and international
politics. Studies of foreign policy, therefore, had to focus on the association
between variations in the behaviour of nations and variations in their external
environment. The inquiry of the association between these two sets of
variations was the key point in the study of foreign policy and it should be
examined and assessed under a variety of conditions if it were to be well
comprehended. Given the national and international dimensions, the subject
124 M. Fatih TAYFUR

matter of foreign policy, according to CFP, would naturally overlap with the
other fields of social sciences. When a foreign policy analyst is interested in
the sources, contents and consequences of foreign policy as a totality, such
analysis would inevitably overlap with other fields of inquiry. In relation to
the question of rationality CFP regarded foreign policy behaviour as a
purposeful behaviour. Yet the meaning of the term "purpose" in CFP was
presented somewhat differently from what is being conventionally accepted.
Being purposeful in CFP meant that officials do not act randomly. They
always act with some goal in mind, but these goals might not necessarily be
highly concrete or rational, or a part of a plan. They might be unrealistic, but
they are formulated so as to achieve something. It was in this sense that the
foreign policy behaviour is purposeful.

3.4. CFP and Events Data Approach

Because CFP was regarded as a scientific approach based on empirical

inquiry, data collection in explaining the behaviours of states has become the
primary concern for the researchers. Hence, it is not surprising to find a
distinct approach to the process of data gathering in CFP known as Events
Data Approach (Kegley, 1975). The Events Data Approach was based on the
positivist understanding that in order to explain a phenomenon and to reach
empirical generalisations one needs evidence. This approach was a reaction
of CFP to the unverifiable hypotheses of the traditional school based on
insights and judgements. The growth of scientific knowledge, according to
CFP, depended on observational data which could be verified. Starting from
this point, CFP contended that in order to explain foreign policy scientifically
and comparatively, one must systematically observe the phenomena and
classify different patterns of foreign policy actions. These systematic
observations and the classification of data derived from these observations
would lead to generalisations in the foreign policy behaviour of states. The
Events Data Approach, therefore, can be defined as a specific approach that
translates the external behaviour of states into an observable level in order to
reach generalisation in the field of foreign policy. According to this approach,
foreign policy could not be defined in terms of motives and intentions of
foreign policy makers since it is not easy to make them observable. Secondly,
the foreign policy acts of states had to be operationally defined in order to
classify and measure each act. This would make any foreign policy act
recognisable and comparable when it occurred. In other words, these
operational definitions would lead to the conceptualisation of behaviours
under comprehensive groupings. Thus, the data in the Events Data Approach
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 125

had to be both observable and comparable in order to be counted as verifiable

data.
Being informed about the nature of the data that was used in the Events
Data Approach, we can now turn to the 'events' side of the story. What are
'events'? First of all the term 'events' means the foreign policy
behaviour/action of states. It is what the states do and say to other actors of
the international system. Each event is an observable piece of foreign policy.
They are the empirical referents of foreign policy and therefore, are
considered as units of comparison among foreign policies. Nevertheless, it
should be kept in mind that events are identified only with observable
actions; they have nothing to do with the measure of national interests,
national goals, or the content of the national foreign policy orientations.
Secondly, events are regarded as official behaviours. In other words,
unofficial actions are excluded from the Events Data Approach unless they
are implemented on behalf of the government. Thirdly, events are non-
routine foreign policy acts. In order to be counted as an event, a foreign
policy behaviour must be extraordinary and, thus, be newsworthy. The
routine foreign policy behaviours are not regarded as 'events'. Fourthly, the
underlying motivation behind the 'events' is to influence the behaviour of
other state(s), and hence they are essentially political behaviours. Fifthly and
lastly, events are purposeful, goal directed behaviours. They are rational,
deliberate behaviours undertaken to achieve specific results.
To sum up, one can say that CFP is a reaction to historical, non-
comparable, non-cumulative studies of foreign policy. In CFP foreign policy
is regarded as a phenomenon common to all states, and hence it searches for
common patterns in the behaviours of states. Accordingly, the central
argument of the school is to build up a scientific study of foreign policy by
adopting comparative methodology. Using extensive cross-national or
longitudinal comparisons, the aim is to arrive at generalisations of foreign
policy behaviours of states which in turn would lead to verifiable theories of
foreign policy.

3.5. Case Study Approach

In sharp contrast to the regularity-seeking nature of CFP in explaining

the foreign policy behaviour, the Case Study Approach insists on the
uniqueness of the foreign policies of each state. According to the Case Study
Approach, there is no state whose foreign policy is the same as others. Each
state has its own unique foreign policy since each state has its own unique
history and culture. Therefore, it is not possible to explain the foreign policies
126 M. Fatih TAYFUR

of states through a common methodology and a common approach. Rather,

what one needs is different approaches and methodologies. In the Case Study
Approach, history is the place where the foreign policies of individual states
are to be studied. One can explain foreign policy only through the detailed
analysis of the individual histories. The central belief in this approach is that
any explanation of foreign policy behaviours through generalisations would
cause the loss of unique factors that make up a foreign policy action. In other
words, creating patterns, models and theories, and trying to fit the foreign
policy behaviours of states into these ignore the essence of the foreign policy
that is being explained. Another point that concerns the distinction between
CFP and the Case Study Approach is that CFP is regarded basically as the
American outlook to the study of foreign policy whereas the Case Study
Approach is dominated by the British scholars (Smith, 1985).

3.6. The decline of CFP

Nevertheless, comparative studies of foreign policy began to decline in

the mid-1970s. The reasons for this decline stemmed both from changes in
the international environment and from the problems within the discipline
itself (Smith, 1986: 19-22; Rosenau, 1987: 2-4). First of all, in the mid-
1970s the role of the economy in international relations and in the conduct
of foreign policy increased remarkably. With the advent of nuclear stalemate
and the increasing demands of the Third World for economic welfare, the
central concerns of foreign policy which were traditionally focused on the
political-military matters began to be challenged. As the issues of economic
interdependence and political economy became dominant in the global
agenda, the traditional assumptions on the role and the limits of the state
began to diminish.
The students of foreign policy who used to equate the state with its
government or decision makers, when faced with the non-governmental
actors both in and outside the state, began to consider the role, competence,
and autonomy of the state. The role of the state in international relations as
an actor began to decline with the emergence of competent non-state actors
in global affairs. Furthermore, with growing interdependence at the global
level, the distinction between domestic and foreign policies declined
considerably. These changes in the international system naturally created
problems for the state-centric and politics-dominated assumptions of the
existing approaches.
A second reason for the decline in CFP came from within the CFP itself.
In the mid-1970s it became apparent that the ultimate aim of CFP which is
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 127

to arrive at a general theory of foreign policy behaviour, was not close.

Although a number of CFP-oriented research works were undertaken it could
not be managed to generate a theory, and this led to a relative decline of the
CFP studies. Nevertheless, CFP continued to survive after the mid-1970s.
The projects of Interstate Behaviour Analysis (Wilkenfield et al., 1980) and
Comparative Research on the Events of Nations (East et al., 1978) were the
remnants of the CFP approach. In the framework of the CFP approach, these
two projects appeared as data collection projects using developed
quantification techniques (Smith, 1986: 21). The last collection of the CFP
thinking came in 1987 by introducing some modifications in order to
compensate for the relative decline of the school (Rosenau et al., 1987). In
the introductory chapter of this work, Rosenau, after discussing the problems
that CFP confronted in the mid-1970s, comes up with the 'new directions' for
the school. According to his 'new directions', it seems that what remains
intact is the commitment to scientific methods and comparative analysis. Yet,
what seems to have been modified is twofold: (1) the CFP understanding of
theory and data; and (2) the interaction between theory and data. In contrast
to the early CFP thinking which envisaged cumulation of data in order to
reach a general theory of foreign policy, the late CFP argues for theory
development that permits empirical investigation. In other words, one might
well start from theory construction (rather than collecting observable data to
test hypotheses) as long as the theory can be investigated empirically. On the
one hand, this shift means that the task of CFP is no longer to construct a
general theory of foreign policy. On the other hand, as for the data
concerned, events data are by no means the most appropriate or the only data
source. Since Events Data count for observable actions, it cannot be used for
decisions that do not undertake action, and cannot cover any complex
dynamic or any decision of non-governmental actor that affects foreign
policy, such as the influence of any global structure or any decision taken
by GAIT. Therefore, taking the problems with the Events Data Approach
into consideration, it seems that the late CFP, on the one hand, disengages
itself from the CFP studies devoted to almost nothing but the quantification
of foreign policy behaviours, and gives more emphasis to the influence of
non-state actors and interdependency on the foreign policy behaviour, on the
other.

3.7. Changes in the agenda and new approaches

As mentioned above, by the advent of the detente period in superpower

relations and by the emergence of the non-governmental actors in the
128 M. Fatih TAYFUR

international system in the mid-1970s, the agenda of the field of international

relations and hence foreign policy began to shift from political-military
issues to economics and political economy. The main characteristic of this
shift was the dissatisfaction with the state-centric outlook of the existing
approaches. Thus the field of international relations and foreign policy came
under the influence of what is known as the Complex Interdependence
Approach. The main point of this school was centred around the complex
nature of the world politics which could best be characterised by transnational
relations (Keohane and Nye, 1971; 1977). According to the Complex
Interdependence Approach, the role of non-governmental or non-state actors
in world politics was as significant as that of states. In other words,
transnational corporations and transgovernmental organisations were playing
significant roles in world politics. Nevertheless, their roles were somewhat
different from those of states; they were involved in economic rather than
political-military issues. In the period of detente, according to the Complex
Interdependence School, world politics could not be confined solely to the
realist view of politics among states. Economic issues arising from the
complex web of transnational relations have become important in world
politics. Thus, with the increasing importance of economic issues and their
interaction with politics, the world has entered into a state of complex
interdependence. The challenge of the Complex Interdependence School hit
the existing frameworks of foreign policy studies which were basically based
on state-centric and politics-dominated assumptions. Nevertheless, the
Complex Interdependence Approach remained a contributor rather than
becoming a distinct framework to be studied. In other words, either the other
approaches tried to integrate its challenge into their own frameworks as it is
seen in CFP, or its major proponents tried to synthesise it with realism
(Keohane, 1984).
As the Complex Interdependence Approach did not lead to an overall
revolution, some new approaches began to offer some advanced frameworks
for the study of international relations and foreign policy. The most striking
examples of these new approaches, which came under the general title of
structuralism, were Neo-realism and World System Analysis. Inspired by the
early system theories and the Complex Interdependence Approaches, these
new approaches focused on aggregates (systems) rather than particulars
(states) in explaining foreign policy behaviour.
The Neo-realist Approach of Waltz (1979) tried to explain the foreign
policy behaviours from a structural-systemic perspective. Waltz's systemic
perspective was different from those of the early systemic theorists.
According to the early system theories, a system was defined as a totality
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 129

composed of its parts. In other words, the international system was composed
of nation states and their interactions were central to the system studies. Yet,
for Waltz, although a system was still composed of interacting units it was
indeed more than its parts. Other than the nation states, according to Waltz,
the international system has a structure which is distinct from its constituent
units. In this way he has clearly established the distinction between the
system level and the other levels of analysis. The structure was the system
level component of the international system and operating as the organising
engine. And it is this structure of the international system that determines the
behaviours of states. In Waltz's structuralism, since it seems that the form of
the prevailing balance of power in the international system accounts for the
understanding of the foreign policy, the balance of power becomes the major
reference point of the structure.
The second approach under the general heading of structuralism came
from the World System Analysis. Like Waltz, the World System analysts
regarded the international system as a totality greater than its parts. The
major proponent of this approach is Wallerstein (see Thompson, 1983). For
Wallerstein the behaviour of states in the international system is determined
by the world system structure and its processes. In this perspective, the world
economy is the most important structure in determining the behaviours of
states. In other words, there is one single economy in the world system, and
the foreign policies of states are determined by the way the states are
involved in this economic structure. Yet, in order to understand the foreign
policy of any state, one should not only look at the position of the state in
the world economy but also the point where this economic structure is
standing at the time in the cyclical process in which it continuously
circulates.

4. Middle range theories of foreign policy analysis

Having presented the main theories of the discipline of international
relations and their intermingled characteristics with the field of foreign
policy, now let us look at the middle range theories of the foreign policy
analysis.

4.1. Decision making and rationality assumption

At the heart of the foreign policy analysis lies the decision making
approach. Broadly speaking, the decision making approach focuses on the
principal individuals that take part in the foreign policy making and the
130 M. Fatih TAYFUR

processes in which decisions are reached and become policies. On the other
hand, if decision making is at the heart of foreign policy analysis, the issue
of rationality is at the centre of the decision making approach. Before turning
to how the decision making approach handles the phenomenon of foreign
policy, it might be useful to remember the rationality assumption in foreign
policy. First of all, it should be repeated that what distinguishes rationality
assumption of the decision making approach from the traditionalist thinking
of rationality is its focus on concrete decision makers acting on behalf of the
state rather than the abstract state as an actor by itself. According to the
rational actor model, those who act in the name of government are monolithic
units speaking with one voice, holding one view and having one set of goals.
The rational actor first sets the goals through careful calculations and
identifies possible alternatives to reach these goals. Then, the rational actor
compares the consequences of each alternative and decides on the best one
that matches the goal or goals. In other words, those who act in the name of
the government get full information; take every opportunity into consideration
and then decide on the best policy decision (for more information, see Verba,
1969). Nevertheless, as research went on, it has become apparent that
rationality assumptions have some serious shortcomings, and hence decision
makers could not act rationally, at least in the form that the rational actor
model suggested. First of all, there was the impossibility of getting the full
information and considering all the alternatives. Accordingly, the rational
actor model began to be criticised on the grounds that decision makers do not
maximise but satisfice (Simon, 1957). In other words, it was argued that
decision makers do not review all the alternatives but decide when they find
an acceptable choice, and this was called as 'bounded' or 'limited' rationality.
Armed with a concrete reference point in explaining the foreign policy
phenomena, the decision making approach inevitably began to study the
human element and its interaction with the environment. Accordingly, in
covering a variety of perspectives ranging from individualistic to
organisational influences, the decision making approach used insights from
psychology, sociology, and public administration in studying foreign policy2.

2
Since the central
of foreign policy, the application of game theoretical models to the field, which may be
taken into account in specific studies assessing logico-deductive behaviours in strategic
'rational' decision-making process, is not discussed here. Indeed, it is not surprising to find
out direct references to game theory in general foreign policy texts and articles; see Hill and
Light (1985: 156-73), Jensen (1982), and Clarke and White (1989). However, the emphasis
in this article is placed both on the decision-making theory/rational behaviour and on the
main approaches explaining foreign policy decision-making at the individual, group and
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 131

Let us start with the relationship between foreign policy and the individual.

4.2. Individual decision maker, "perception and misperception"

Do the individual characteristics of different decision makers make a

difference in the foreign policy of a particular state? The first step to
investigate the relationship between the individual and foreign policy is to
refer to the personal characteristics of top level individual decision makers
or leaders. The kinds of personality traits he or she has may become an
important variable in assessing foreign policy decisions. Certain character
traits make individuals behave in certain ways. For instance, when faced with
a situation to deal with, leaders who have an authoritarian personality will act
differently from those who have a democratic personality. Therefore, the
personality of a leader - authoritarian or democratic; open minded or close
minded; excitable or calm etc. - will most likely influence the nature of his
or her policy decisions. Moreover, there might be many motives and drives
such as self-satisfaction or self-actualisation, which will easily affect the
behaviours of an individual decision maker. Another important personality
characteristic of an individual decision maker is related to his or her policy
making skills. The intellectual capacity and talents of handling information,
analysing it and turning it into concrete policies, will all affect the individual
in the process of policy decision making. Therefore, researchers may find
significant points in the personality characteristic of leaders or top level
decision makers in explaining the certain foreign policy behaviours of states.
On the other hand, it can be said that the impact of individual decision maker
on the foreign policy matters if one takes into consideration the fact that an
individual acts in his or her environment parallel to his or her definition of
the environment. Different individuals can derive different meanings from the
events occurring in the same environment; can characterise them differently;
and hence, behave differently. If an individual can make a difference in the
foreign policy of a given state it will stem from how he or she sees the
world. Hence, those who study the relationship between the individual and
foreign policy will focus on the images, perceptions, beliefs and values of the
individual decision maker. In other words, it might seem to the researcher
that it is not the power position of a specific state, its domestic conditions,
or its position in the international system that determine the choice made in

organisational levels. The readers interested in game-theoretical models and their criticisms
are referred to Morgan (1988:183-6; 198-200), Jones (1970: 48-52), and Hallis and Smith
(1991: 119-42).
132 M. Fatih TAYFUR

foreign policy, but how all these factors are perceived by the decision maker.
There is a distinction between what Sprout and Sprout (1956) called the
psychological and operational environments of a decision maker. In the
operational environment there is objectivity. In other words, in this realm
objects and events stand as they actually are and as they actually occurred.
Yet, in the psychological environment, on the contrary, objects and events
depend upon how the decision maker imagines them to be. There is
subjectivity. Individual decision makers select, organise and interpret the
incoming stimuli according to their established images, and then act
accordingly. Therefore, in order to explain the relation between the individual
and foreign policy, and how an individual affects foreign policy, the
researcher should go into the psychological world of the decision maker. He
or she should collect information about the biography of the decision maker
under investigation, searches for facts about his/her world view, values,
opinions and personality.
Nevertheless, if a researcher is going to focus on the subjective world of
the individuals, he or she is faced with the question of on what criteria one
can assume that individual decision maker acts rationally. Indeed, the
problem is not only related to the inner worlds of the individual decision
makers; there might well be problems outside of them. These problems are
relatively independent from the individuals but significantly affect the policy
decisions taken by them. First, there is the problem of information; even the
most efficient intelligence or information systems are not able to know all the
relevant factors in relation to a situation, and hence a decision maker cannot
be informed perfectly. On the other hand, there may well be situations where
decision makers are confronted either with abundant information or too little
information about a situation. Thus, decision makers may have difficulties in
selecting the relevant information among many in the former case, and may
suffer from lack of information in the latter. Moreover, there might occur
problems in the process of information flow due to lack of time, faulty
communications, censorship, and lack of competent advisors.
The problem of perception by itself can decrease the power of rationality
assumption even if there is perfect information about the external world. It
is primarily due to the fact that the interpretation of information will depend
on the images and belief systems of the decision maker. In other words,
under the same conditions different decision makers can act differently
because of their different mental pictures of any phenomenon. There are
several problems in relation to perception. The most important is the problem
of cognitive consistency. This means that when new information contradicts
with the established images of a decision maker, he or she tends to ignore or
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 133

reshape it in order to avoid inconsistency. Decision makers tend to perceive

what they expect. Hence, they are simply prone to distort and misperceive the
incoming information. Jervis gives us a clear picture of misperception in
international politics (Jervis, 1976). According to Jervis, there are common
patterns of misperception in foreign policy. One of them is the tendency of
seeing adversaries as more hostile than they actually are. Decision makers
also consider the other states as single-minded and as rational actors.
Another common misperception, according to Jervis, is the tendency among
decision makers to overestimate their own role in other states when they
behave in the way they want. But if the other states do not behave
accordingly they tend to consider it not to be their faults. These are some
important patterns of misperception in the conduct of foreign policy at the
individual decision maker level. Lastly, as far as the relationship between the
phenomenon of foreign policy and the individual decision maker is
concerned, there appears to be some general propositions on the impact of
individual factors on foreign policy (Greenstein, 1967; Jensen, 1982). We can
enumerate the important ones as follows: The impact of individual
characteristics on foreign policy increases; (1) the higher the interest of a
decision maker in foreign policy matters; (2) the greater the decisional
freedom permitted; (3) the higher the charisma of the leader; (4) the higher
the decision making structure; (5) in non-routine situations; (6) in situations
highly unanticipated and remote; (7) when information is overloaded or too
sparse; (8) in long range planning rather than in current situations.

4.3. "Groupthink"

Now let us go one step further and try to understand how foreign policy
phenomena are analysed at the level of top decision makers as a group. The
way individuals act in the context of a small group decision unit is another
concern for the students of foreign policy. How can membership of a small
group affect the perceptions and the behaviours of the individual? How are
policy decisions reached among the members of a small group? Because
sometimes important decisions are taken in these small groups, the study of
foreign policy decision making has an interest in these questions. According
to those who have studied group dynamics, there are strong pressures on
individual group members to act in conformity with the other group members
and not to oppose to the view of the group even if that view clashes with his
or her personal view. Janis's work Groupthink is the most famous study in
this area (Janis, 1982).
Janis's study focuses on five case studies in the history of the US foreign
134 M. Fatih TAYFUR

policy all of which resulted in policy failures. The main concern of Janis is
to show that foreign policy decisions taken in small groups are prone to result
in fiascos since the group blocks critical thinking in favour of groupthink. He
defines groupthink as follows: "the more amiability and esprit de corps
among the members of a policy making group, the greater is the danger that
independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink which is likely
to result in irrational and dehumanising actions directed against out-groups"
(Janis, 1982: 13). In other words, the decision making process in small
groups demands blindly devoted unity among the group members, and tends
to neglect information or ideas which do not fit in the prevailing consensus
on the definition of the situation or the action that is going to be
implemented. Thus, group members are forced to suppress their doubts on the
feasibility or the success of the decision or the action plan taken by the
groupthink since critical thinking is not going to be tolerated. Janis (1982:
174-5) enumerates eight common symptoms of groupthink: (1) an illusion
of invulnerability which creates excessive optimism and encourages extreme
risk taking; (2) an unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality; (3)
collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings; (4) stereotyped
views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate;
(5) self censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus; (6) a
shared illusion of unanimity concerning the judgements that conform with the
majority view; (7) direct pressure on any member who expresses strong
arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments,
making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all
loyal members; (8) the emergence of self-appointed-mindguards-members
who protect the group from adverse information (see also Smith, 1984).

4.4. "Bureaucratic politics"

A third important middle range theory in the foreign policy analysis

focuses on the relationship between organisational and governmental
frameworks and foreign policy. It is known as the bureaucratic politics
model. The bureaucratic politics model in foreign policy analysis can be
considered as the next step after groupthink because this model focuses on
the role played by many bureaucrats in the foreign policy making process.
The arguments of the bureaucratic politics model start from the point that in
the foreign policy making process and during its implementation governments
heavily rely on their bureaucrats. They argue that since governments and
politicians are temporary, and politicians mostly lack knowledge and
expertise on foreign policy, reliance on more permanent and expert
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 135

bureaucrats in the foreign policy making process becomes inevitable for

governments. In other words, the bureaucratic politics approach asserts that
foreign policy is mainly formulated by the bureaucrats rather than by the key
decision makers, and this formulation takes place in an organisational
process. The top level policy makers are affected by the bureaucratic values
and traditions, because they rely on organisational sources of information and
they are expected to act in the framework of traditional forms of behaviour.
In case of non-conformity with the existing bureaucratic traditions, there
might appear resistance from the bureaucracy that could jeopardise the
implementation of the policies taken up by the top level policy makers. The
organisational process is important in the formulation of foreign policy in the
bureaucratic politics model. Even if one accepts that the chief policy makers
and even their immediate advisors are transitory and it is indeed the
bureaucracy that has acquired experience and essential skills to deal with
foreign policy issues, the question as to how this bureaucracy handles foreign
policy issues and comes up with policies at the end, becomes an important
point to be explained. According to the bureaucratic politics model which
was pioneered by Allison and Halperin, policy decisions or choices are
usually made as a result of bargaining between several governmental agencies
(Allison, 1971; Halperin, 1974). The members of those different
governmental agencies try to impose their own views in the process of policy
formulation. Thus policy decisions formulated by bureaucrats cannot be seen
as unitary decisions. On the contrary, they are the products of various
clashing interests of different bureaucratic sections; they are reached through
rivalries, bargainings, compromises and adjustments among these
governmental units. Naturally, the issue of bureaucratic politics is closely
related to the size and the specialisation of the bureaucracy itself. The larger
and the more specialised the bureaucracy is, the more the governmental units
will be involved in foreign policy decision making. The significant increase
in the size and importance of the non-foreign policy bureaucracies in the
ministries of defense, economy, trade, labour, agriculture, etc., increases the
significance of the bureaucratic politics model in the making of foreign
policy.
Nevertheless, the rational model of decision making comes under great
attack in the bureaucratic politics model since the decisions are subjected to
endless rounds of bargaining and discussions between various agencies
concerned with the making of foreign policy. On the other hand, the accuracy
of the bureaucratic politics model in explaining foreign policy can also be
questioned on the grounds that the bureaucracies are not the major architects
of foreign policy, and hence their impacts on the final policy decisions are
136 M. Fatih TAYFUR

not significant. Accordingly, it can also be argued that bureaucracy deals only
with ordinary decisions but not with critical ones. It is suggested that the role
of bureaucracy should not be exaggerated since leaders and key decision
makers select their advisors and the advice they want to hear should confirm
their own views. Furthermore, those top level decision makers create different
information gathering and processing centres in order to act independently
from the governmental bureaucratic structures. (For a recent criticism of the
internal logic of Allison's bureaucratic politics model, see Bender and
Hammond, 1992.)

4.5. Role theory, incremental decision making and standard operating

procedures

Besides these middle range theories of foreign policy, researchers who

have studied foreign policy in the context of decision making and
bureaucratic-organisational model have also pointed out some other
dimensions of the decision making process. One of them is the impact of the
decision maker's position on his behaviours. In other words, it is argued that
the role played by the individual in the foreign policy process is likely to
affect his or her perceptions and behaviours. An individual decision maker
is expected to act in conformity with the requirements of his or her role
which is assumed to be played by any occupant of that position. This view
brings significant constraints on the role of individual predispositions in the
formulation of policy decisions. Furthermore, it reinforces the view that
individuals belonging to different governmental organisations see different
sides of the situation which usually cover the narrow interest of his or her
organisation. Another important dimension of the decision making process is
analysed by the incremental model of decision making (Lindblom, 1959).
Incremental decision making asserts that decision makers usually do not act
radically but try to build their policies on the existing ones. In other words,
they are prone to adjust existing policies rather than formulate new ones. A
third significant dimension of decision making process and bureaucratic-
organisational model is known as standard operating procedures. It is argued
that most decisions are made in a mechanical fashion. Organisations have
written and unwritten rules which give clear-cut prescriptions to decision
makers about how to handle the job in hand. Hence, in many situations
decision makers follow these rules in dealing with foreign policy issues.
METU STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 137

4.6. "Cybernetics"

Taking these cognitive and organisational processes into consideration

Steinbruner has developed a foreign policy decision making model known as
the cybernetic decision making process (Steinbruner, 1975). According to
Steinbruner, decisions are taken through a programmed and automatic
process. Decision makers mostly simplify the complex and uncertain world
around them, and create stable images of the world. When a stimulus comes
from the complex environment, the decision maker .concentrates on this
stimulus according to his programmed images in his brain and ignores the
complexity of the environment, and then responds automatically through
organisationally operating procedures. In other words, decision makers create
programmed decisions and operating procedures and put them into practice
in case of policy making. Yet, in this process they behave very selectively
and concentrate on only one issue, that is, solely on the incoming stimulus.

4.7. "Crises"

The last area of interest, in relation to middle range theories in foreign

policy studies is the study of crisis situations. Crises are situations where an
(unanticipated) threat is directed to high priority goals of a state which in turn
require action in a short time. Crisis situations force decision makers to make
important choices such as whether to go to war or not. Hence, the study of
crisis situations attracts special attention. Basically, during crisis periods
decision makers are under great stress and this affects their perceptions and
ability to act differently than under normal conditions. The leadership factor
and the personal characteristics become very important, and usually the
situation is personified by the leaders. Moreover, since crises mostly become
turning points either in the history of individual states or in the working of
the international system, they occupy an important place in the study of
foreign policy.

5. Conclusion
In this essay, I tried to introduce briefly the nature of the foreign policy
phenomenon and the main and middle range theories in the study of foreign
policy without getting into the discussion of other determinants of foreign
policy. Other than the theories and approaches that have been introduced
here, researchers are interested in other internal and external factors that
might influence the foreign policies of the states. Some are interested in the
138 M. Fatih TAYFUR

influence of political structures on foreign policy. They try to find out general
foreign policy trends in both authoritarian and democratic structures.
Therefore, they search for the relationship between democracy and
authoritarianism and foreign policy. They simply look at whether
communism, capitalism, or belief systems of different states play significant
roles in foreign policy. Another group of researchers wants to understand the
impact of various interest groups on the formulation of foreign policy.
Equally, some view the foreign policy behaviour from the point of external
environment and put emphasis on how the international system (both in
political and economic terms) or the structure of that system shapes the
foreign policy of individual states. Some other researchers try to understand
the foreign policy behaviour by stressing the study of national capabilities.
According to these researchers, geographic conditions and location of states,
their size (area and population), military and economic powers are the most
important factors that determine the foreign policy. In fact, since the
phenomenon of foreign policy stands at the crossroad of many academic
disciplines, it seems impossible to reach a clear-cut explanation of it. What
influences and what explains foreign policy depends on the situation at hand,
on the one hand, and on how the researcher perceives and formulates his
explanatory framework, on the other. In other words, different approaches and
variables explain the phenomena best in different contexts because what
determines the foreign policy behaviour is a complex set of variables and
only one or some of them can become dominant in different situations.