Suchergebnisse

Kaarbo, J.: Foreign policy analysis in the twenty-first century: back to comparison, forward to identity and ideas. - S. 156-163. Foyle, D.: Foreign policy analysis and globalization: public opinion, world opinion, and the individual. - S. 163-170. Schafer, M.: Science, empiricism, and tolerance in the study of foreign policymaking. - S. 171-177. Garrison, J. A.: Foreign policymaking and group dynamics: where we've been and where we're going. - S. 177-183. Stern, E. K.: Crisis studies and foreign policy analysis: insights, synergies, and challenges. - S. 183-191

There has been a large effort among scholars who study small group decision-making to find the means to ameliorate the negative aspects of group interaction. It is our contention that the specific content of the offered prescription is a logical outgrowth of the underlying assumptions that the author makes regarding the nature of group interaction. Thus, understanding whether the author sees the group as characterized by member consensus or dissensus and whether the group is perceived to be internally focused on group maintenance or externally focused on problem-solving is central to understanding the basis of the offered prescription. Based on this typology, we examine the prescriptions to group dysfunctions offered from three sets of literature, foreign policy analysis, social psychology, and business decision-making. The prescriptions offered are then classified as to the underlying view of group interaction which drives the proposed remedy. In doing so, we seek to understand the bases and implications of prescriptions already existing in the literature. Ironically, the effort to solve one set of decision-making troubles may lead the group to exhibit the problems associated with an alternative form of group interaction.

The global climate change agreement completed on December 12, 2015 in Paris set a collective target to cap greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius with a goal to get as close as possible to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. These goals were to be accomplished through a "bottom up" mechanism for national policy approaches in which states made their own choices about how they would meet climate targets. This paper examines why and how an agreement was possible in 2015 when it had not been before. What was different in Paris, or leading up to Paris, so that the parties involved successfully came to an agreement when it was not possible in Copenhagen? This paper presents a problem definition and issue framing perspective to examine the shift in the discussion in Paris from the burdens of climate action to opportunities climate action offered for economic and development models. It provides a road map to understand the role of key stakeholders, including governments, the business community, civil society, and subnational actors in the making of the climate agreement.