Suchergebnisse

Although foreign policy analysis (FPA) has long been a major subfield within the subject area of international relations, it has received relatively little coverage in the literature in the past couple of decades. Author Carlsnaes proposes to produce a monograph as a key part of a project aimed at reviving interest in FPA, especially as it relates to the broader concerns of international relations, and providing an overview of the current state of this subfield. Toward the latter end, he seeks to provide a historical context by reviewing developments in IR from its establishment in the U.S. after World War II to the end of the millennium, as well as analyzing factors contributing to its decline in the 1980s and early 1990s. He also plans to discuss the current domain of FPA as well as key perspectives and concepts relevant to the field. Adapted from the source document.

Preface -- Why study foreign policy comparatively? -- Do leaders shape foreign policy? -- How leaders make sense of the world -- Leaders are not alone: the role of advisors and bureaucracies -- Leaders in context I: domestic constraints on foreign policy making -- Leaders in context II: international constraints on foreign policy making -- Who or what determines foreign policy? -- Glossary -- Bibliography -- Index

The past decade has witnessed the investment of considerable energy and ingenuity in the refinement of the categories of foreign policy determinants proposed in James Rosenau's famous essay, "Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy." A sizable literature on foreign policy behavior is now developing, based upon empirical tests of the explanatory power of such variables as size, wealth, degree of political accountability, decision-maker attributes, environmental stimuli, etc. Surprisingly little attention in the field of comparative foreignpolicy, however, has been directed at specifying more precisely and in operational form the concept ofissue area—an important component of Rosenau's "pre-theory" and an analytic concept that has received much attention in the public policy field. Moreover, among those scholars who do employ the concept there is little consensus as to the merits of a content based as opposed to a process oriented treatment of issue area or to the implications for empirical research of selecting one approach over the other. This essay seeks: 1) to review the foreign policy literature that attaches major importance to issue area; 2) to assess the merits of alternative treatments of the concept in terms of their contribution to the development of a theory of comparative foreign policy; and 3) to specify the conditions under which different issue area approaches can be used most profitably in comparative foreign policy research.