Review Essay

Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy

Analysis
Marijke Breuning
Division of Social Science, Truman State University, Kirksville, MO 63501, USA.
E-mail: mbreunin@truman.edu
The Foreign Policies of the Global South
J.A. Braveboy-Wagner (ed.)
Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 2003. 221 pp.
$ 49.95 hardcover
Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making
A. Mintz (ed.)
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2003. 175 pp.
$ 45.00 hardcover
Good Judgment in Foreign Policy: Theory and Application
S.A. Renshon and D.W. Larson (eds.)
Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2003. 352 pp.
$ 65.00 hardcover, $ 28.95 softcover
International Politics (2004) 41, 618628. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800062
Introduction
Foreign policy analysis is an eclectic field of study. As has been detailed
elsewhere (Hudson, 1995; Gerner, 1995), the field has both yielded distinct
theoretical threads of scholarship as well as evolved distinct substantive
research foci over time. The early study of foreign policy included not only
efforts such as the events data sets of comparative foreign policy, but also
theorizing about and the empirical analysis of the foreign policy decision-
making process and the foreign policy context. Each of these theoretical and
substantive efforts continues in contemporary foreign policy research,
although the emphasis has largely shifted away from events data towards
various forms of case study research. In addition, the field has gravitated
towards efforts at theory-building that are more self-consciously mid-range,
conditional, and bounded (Gerner, 1995, 11; Hermann, 1995, 252). This is far
from problematic. Rather, it demonstrates that the seminal early works have
become a paradigmatic umbrella a core set of assumptions, expressed in
a basic organizing framework, which unifies a diverse set of efforts. Their
International Politics, 2004, 41, (618628)
r 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1384-5748/04 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/ip
continued relevance is well stated by Valerie Hudson (2002) in the opening
chapter to Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited). She holds that the
re-issue of this classic is precisely what is needed now in IR theory (Hudson,
2002, 3).
Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Snyder et al., 1962; see also Snyder et al.,
2002) was innovative in placing the individual decision maker at the heart of
the theoretical framework, while also recognizing that the individual operates
within a context.
1
Today, actor-centered approaches are varied and many.
Researchers have each claimed their slice of the larger framework. The books
under discussion in this essay are no exception. Jacqueline Anne Braveboy-
Wagners volume The Foreign Policies of the Global South positions its
arguments primarily at the state level of analysis. Although she recognizes that
the global south is too diverse for one explanation to be offered for these
nations behavior (p. 187). Yet, she also argues that the Global South is
sufficiently differentiated from the North as to merit greater study (p. 183).
The other two volumes focus on the individual level of analysis, albeit in very
different ways: whereas Good Judgment in Foreign Policy, edited by Stanley
Renshon and Deborah Larson, seeks to develop a theory about good
judgment, Alex Mintz Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign
Policy Decision Making endeavors to demonstrate the complementarity of
cognitive, or psychological, and rational approaches. Although the decision-
making process plays an important role in the arguments presented in both
volumes, the theory presented in the latter book is purely about the process,
whereas intuition and instinct compete with process in the former (Larson in
Good Judgment, 7, 10).
Taken together, the books discussed in this essay provide a small window on
the heterogeneity of research foci that are captured under the large foreign
policy analysis umbrella. They also point to the interconnections and
complementarity of these diverse efforts. These volumes are indicative not
only of the accomplishments of foreign policy analysis as a field, but also point
to neglected areas that demand our attention.
Linking Cognition and Reason
In Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision
Making, Alex Mintz and colleagues present case studies, an overview of
experimental studies, and comparisons with alternative models of decision
making. The book is the product of an ongoing research project headed by
Mintz, which revolves around his poliheuristic theory.
2
This theory posits that
leaders simplify their choice problems according to a two-stage decision
process (pp. 12). This permits the merging of cognitive and rational elements:
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
619
International Politics 2004 41
the initial stage approximates the former and the second stage the latter.
Importantly, Mintz argues that the initial phase in the decision process is
characterized by the noncompensatory principle. By this he means that
if a certain alternative [course of action] is unacceptable on a key dimension
... the alternative is eliminated (p. 3). Hence, Mintz demonstrates that
normative suppositions that people should be willing to trade a high value
on one attribute for a low one on another (Larson, 17, in Renshon and
Larson), are not accurate during the first of the two-stage process. By
separating the decision-making process into two phases, Mintz theorizes that
the selection of alternatives is subject to different decision rules than the
subsequent analysis of those alternatives. The set of alternatives that is
established on the basis of this noncompensatory process is, during the second
phase of the decision process, subjected to a process that more closely
resembles rational analysis.
This model is tested in the four case study chapters, two of which investigate
US foreign policy: Karl DeRouen discusses Eisenhowers decision not to use
force at Dien Bien Phu in a well-done traditional case study. Michelle Taylor-
Robinson and Steven Redd revisit the 1954 US-led coup in Guatemala. Their
study presents an interesting take on a well-known case as it traces the
conditions under which a third party in this case the United Fruit Company
can have influence on foreign policy making. The remaining two case studies
focus on Syria and Pakistan, respectively. Allison Astorino-Courtois and
Brittani Trusty investigate the effect of Israeli policy shifts on Syrian peace
decisions in a sophisticated analysis which employs the systematic coding of
textual materials. Kanishkan Sathasivam details Pakistans decision to test a
nuclear weapon is less explicitly tied to the framework than the other case
studies.
Redds analysis of a series of experimental studies lends further empirical
support to the poliheuristic theory. Interestingly, he finds that both processes
and outcomes are influenced by how, and in what manner, leaders obtain
information from advisors. Redds findings thus point to the importance
of understanding the advisory system. In doing so, his chapter demonstrates
the interconnectedness of various threads of the foreign policy analysis
tapestry: whereas the poliheuristic theory focuses on the dynamics of
generating options and making decisions, others have sought to understand
more fully the advisory process (e.g. Hoyt, 1997; t Hart et al, 1997;
Garrison, 1999; Preston and t Hart, 1999). Redds conclusions remind us
that the various efforts, each presenting and testing theories of small slices of
the foreign policy decision-making process, are all part of that overarching
paradigm.
The boldest feature of the volume is the inclusion of two chapters that
compare the poliheuristic theory to models of rational choice and cybernetic
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
620
International Politics 2004 41
decision making. Of these, Vesna Danilovics chapter is especially noteworthy.
She observes that Mintz theory successfully links disparate analytical concepts
and fruitfully employs a wide range of techniques to enhance the validity of
empirical analyses which test the theory. Yet, she also cautions that the two-
stage model requires a more precise specification of the point at which decision
makers switch from the first, cognitive, to the second, rational, stage and,
additionally, suggests incorporating interdependent choice into the second
stage. Both are valid points. Both will also present substantial challenges.
The inclusion of these critical assessments demonstrates both Mintz faith in
his model and his preparedness to engage in an intellectual exchange with
colleagues in the field. This makes it unfortunate that the book is less accessible
to those who lack familiarity with the work that preceded the current volume
(e.g. Mintz, 1993, 1997; Mintz and Geva, 1997). Mintz opening chapter
summarizes the theory in less than 10 pages. A somewhat more detailed
introduction and review of the central principles and propositions of the theory
would have made the book accessible to a wider range of readers. This might
have served to more easily facilitate the intellectual discussion which Mintz so
clearly invites. The poliheuristic theory deserves to be debated: efforts to build
bridges between cognitive and rational approaches are rare and yet could do
much to enhance our understanding of foreign policy decision making.
Good Judgment: Intuition or Reason?
Research on foreign policy decision making is motivated not only by scholarly
curiosity, but also by a desire to provide useable knowledge knowledge that
can improve the odds of good decision making. Unfortunately, defining this
concept has proved quite problematic (see, e.g., Tetlock, 1992). The Renshon
and Larson volume underscores the difficulties involved in the study of good
decision making.
Although the books subtitle claims that the volume includes both theory
and application, the books preface specifies that the book is about theory
building. Indeed, the case studies are less tests of a model than they are vehicles
for developing a theory of good judgment. The editors as well as the
contributors to this volume struggle especially with the problem that good
judgment is often assumed when a favorable outcome has materialized. The
contributors to this volume view this as problematic. For instance, Richard
Haass rightly notes there is an element of tautology in equating good
judgment and successful outcomes (p. 249). Larson echoes this concern in her
concluding chapter, writing that we should not evaluate the quality of past
judgment by their outcomes (p. 311).
It comes as no surprise, then, that Renshon stakes out a position in favor of
a process definition of good judgment, noting that good judgment (defined as a
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
621
International Politics 2004 41
good decision making process) will not guarantee a good outcome. Never-
theless, he argues that good judgment improves the chances of good outcomes,
just as bad judgment improves the possibilities of poor outcomes (p. 46). In
keeping with a focus on process, Renshon defines good judgment in terms
of the quality of analysis, reflection, and ultimately insight that informs
the making of consequential decisions (p. 26). This is mirrored in the
contributions of Stephen Wayne and Alexander George. Wayne proposes that
a good judgment is one in which realism, reflection, and rationality dominate
the decisional process (p. 105). Although George stops short of using the term
good judgment, he argues that decision making is effective when the
policymaker deals reasonably well with trade-offs between quality, support,
and time and other resources (p. 266). Bruce Jentleson and Andrew Bennett
furthermore remind us that foreign policy decision making is, in its essence,
judgment under uncertainty (p. 220).
Larson reiterates this in her concluding chapter, adding that outcomes
always depend on the actions of other states (p. 310). For her, this entails that
we refrain from evaluating good judgment on the basis of outcome and that we
instead consider the range of possibilities and considerations as they appeared
to the decision makers at the time (p. 310). Interestingly, historian Barbara
Tuchman (1984) used a similar criterion in her book The March of Folly. It is
also the perspective that is at the heart of the foreign policy decision-making
paradigm (e.g., Snyder et al., 2002, 71).
Although it seems wise to move away from a focus on outcomes in evaluating
good judgment, the book demonstrates that defining the elements of a good
decision-making process is not straightforward. Several of the authors argue
that one element is the ability of leaders to transcend narrow perspectives.
David Welch, in a well-crafted case study of Argentinas invasion of the
Falklands/Malvinas, concludes that we do have before us historical examples
of leaders who made serious efforts to put themselves in other peoples shoes,
who strove to see the world from different perspectives, and who asked hard
questions about the accuracy and wisdom of their own beliefs and judgments
(p. 208). Renshon agrees that while it may be impossible for leaders to predict
outcomes, it is reasonable to expect from them the capacity to understand and
anticipate a range of possible or likely ones (p. 47, italics in original). With that
expectation, Renshon places his work within one of three perspectives on good
judgment identified by Tetlock (1992). However, it is unclear whether all of the
volumes contributors subscribe to the same notion of good judgment, because
the books arguments do not reference Tetlocks typology (even if they do cite
his work).
Larsons closing chapter undermines the process definition of good
judgment when she argues that exercising good political judgment does not
require a well-structured, organized policymaking system or even good advice
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
622
International Politics 2004 41
(p. 313). She goes on to elaborate that good political judgment depends on the
personal qualities, experience, and interests of leaders in particular subject
areas (p. 313). In her opening chapter, she stresses that decision makers
frequently do not analyze a problem extensively but instead use their gut
instincts (p. 10). It is no surprise, then, that she holds that good judgment is
not necessarily associated with academic knowledge or theoretical expertise,
but instead resides in the experience and intuition of the decision maker (p. 7).
In her case study chapter, Larson goes on to argue that Truman reached
decisions through intuitive rather than analytical methods when making the
decision that the US would stay in Berlin in defiance of the Soviet blockade in
194849 (p. 144). This begs the question as to what informed Trumans
intuition: he had a lifelong habit of reading history and had held a number of
political offices prior to ascending to the presidency. Truman may not have
been able to verbalize the reasoning behind his decisions, but attributing them
to intuition places them beyond the grasp of systematic empirical analysis and
renders good judgment highly idiosyncratic. I doubt that this is what Larson
intended.
The Global South as a Decision Context
The emphasis of Braveboy-Wagners edited volume The Foreign Policies of the
Global South is less on the decision process than on the decision-making
context. She rightly notes that scholarly focus today is less on the foreign
policies of the states of the global south and more on issues of terrorism, trade,
and development. The book is an effort to rectify this, proceeding from the
thesis that much can be learnt from the study of third-world foreign policy
because it brings greater comparative perspective to foreign policy research
and, by doing so, helps determine the boundaries of generalizability of various
propositions.
In their assessment of the current state of foreign policy research, Braveboy-
Wagner and Snarr note that one is struck by how little work has been done on
the global south states (p. 19). As a partial explanation, they offer that
research on the foreign policy decision-making process depends on data that
are often not available or difficult to obtain. In addition, however, foreign
policy analysis has thus far failed to attract scholars with the language skills
and area expertise to surmount these difficulties. Howard Lentner comments
precisely on this issue in his chapter: The serious student of foreign policy must
become expert in specific countries, gaining an acquaintance with the culture,
politics, and economics of the states whose foreign policy he or she wishes to
explain (p. 174).
Further, there has been a substantial emphasis on crisis decision making in
the north, while researchers in the south have focused more often on critical
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
623
International Politics 2004 41
(and system level) perspectives such as imperialism, dependency, and world
systems theories (Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr, 13, 17). To remedy this
situation, Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr advocate the adoption of a political
economic view of foreign policy in order to have a more complete under-
standing of why decisions and policies are enacted (p. 21, italics in original).
As the title of the book suggests, their concern is primarily with the study of the
foreign policies of developing countries, which makes it all the more intriguing
that these recommendations are mirrorred by Mintz, whose Integrating
Cognitive and Rational Theories is focused on the decision-making process.
He calls the study of international political economic decision making a
neglected yet promising area of research (p. 161). In other words, he states in
general terms what Braveboy-Wagner and Snarr conclude regarding the study
of the foreign policies of a specific subset of states, namely the third world.
The Foreign Policies of the Global South includes two interesting chapters by
Siba Grovogui and Randolph Persaud, which are interpretive and postmodern
in their approach to their subject matter. Grovogui argues that the experience
of colonialism and the emergence as independent states has left post-colonial
societies with a specific legacy that affects their foreign policies. Perhaps so, but
this is a proposition that must be left to empirical work to support or disprove.
Persaud, too, presents arguments that could be tested systematically: he
contends that in the third world, the discourse of otherness is framed in terms
of the larger forces of history or abstract moral values rather than in terms of
specific enemies. The value of these chapters is to encourage students of foreign
policy to step out from under their paradigmatic umbrella to find that the
context of foreign policy decision-making matters and, specifically, that culture
and history matter. This is not new in itself, but the manner in which these
authors suggest these variables matter is: the experience of colonialism has
been largely examined through the paradigm of dependency, not from the
perspective of its historical legacy for foreign policy making. The specific
framing of otherness which Persaud posits also differs from more traditional
treatments of this concept in the study of identity politics. Both ideas deserve
further investigation.
Chapters by Mohammad-Mahmoud Mohamedou, Paul Adogamhe, Andre s
Serbin, and Rita Giacalone each focus on a region of the global south: the
Arab world, Africa, and Latin America. The last continent is represented by
two chapters, whereas coverage of (south) Asia is missing. Lastly, Braveboy-
Wagner addresses small states in a chapter that dovetails well with a recent
book on small state foreign policy (Hey, 2003). She notes that as
interdependence has increased, almost all nation-states have become permeated
states, though small states are especially unable to keep out external influences
(p. 156). Small states, in other words, are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, it
is wise to approach their foreign policies as intended to secure the resources
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
624
International Politics 2004 41
needed to overcome or reduce various key vulnerabilities resulting from size
(p. 160). Although I agree that vulnerability, in its material, relational, and
cognitive senses (Braveboy-Wagner, 157) is a core concept, I am not entirely
convinced that it is the province of small states alone. Consider, for instance,
the resource vulnerability of Japan (Sylvan et al, 1990). In the final analysis,
vulnerability matters more than size although it is important to acknowl-
edge that small states are more prone to experience such vulnerability.
In the final analysis, the value of The Foreign Policies of the Global South lies
not solely in its explicit subject matter. Rather, the foreign policies of third-
world states become an argument for greater attention to historical and
cultural variables, specifically in the postcolonial context, and to economic
foreign policy making. That the latter is also a recommended direction for
future research in the concluding chapter to Mintz volume only underscores
that the time may well be ripe for a widening of the foreign policy research
agenda which has been largely dominated by crisis and US foreign policy
decision making.
Arranging a Hundred Flowers
The eclecticism of contemporary foreign policy analysis research has been
noted by others. Hudson references the former Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tungs
hundred flowers campaign in her 1995 essay on the past, present, and future of
the field (Hudson, 1995, 222). Hermann (1998) makes a broader observation
about the eclectic nature of international studies as a whole and urges the field
to engage in dialogue. For her, the issue is how to achieve coherence as a field
of study, while simultaneously maintaining appropriate recognition for a
diversity of approaches (Hermann, 1998, 617). Within the subfield of foreign
policy analysis there has been some recognition of the interconnections
between various research foci, although there has also been ample stereotyping
of the approaches of others such as the straw man rendition of rational
choice models by those who advocate more actor-centered approaches or the
rejection of case study research by those who advocate the use of statistical
analysis of larger data sets.
The books under consideration in this essay do not escape such attitudes
altogether, but they do provide hopeful signs of a greater preparedness to
understand the merits of various theoretical propositions and methodological
approaches. The volume edited by Mintz stands out not only as an attempt to
build a theoretical bridge between rational and cognitive theories, but also in
the heterogenous effort to test the resulting poliheuristic theory: the book
includes case studies as well as data from experimental studies. Although the
Renshon and Larson volume positions itself clearly in within the political
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
625
International Politics 2004 41
psychological approach, Renshons argument that framing decisions are
crucial to decision makers understanding of the problem creates an opening
for connection between the work on good judgment and Mintz poliheuristic
theory (Renshon, 2627).
The contribution of the volume edited by Braveboy-Wagner lies primarily in
the reminder that the generalizability of theories built and tested largely on
data from American foreign policy will remain in doubt. In his contribution to
the latter book, Adogamhe points out that the foreign policy processes of
developing countries are as complex as those of developed countries even
though they differ in content and processes (p. 79). At the heart of the neglect
of especially third-world foreign policy making (but also small state foreign
policy making and, to a degree, non-US foreign policy making more generally)
is perhaps an implicit judgment about the sort of foreign policy content thats
most worthy of attention. As Astorino-Courtois and Trusty note in their
chapter in the Mintz volume: foreign policy decision making in the absence of
crisis-related factors has gone largely unexplored (p. 29, italics in original).
Both Mintz and Braveboy-Wagner (as well as several of their volumes
contributors) point to the need to bridge the gap between the study of
international political economy and foreign policy decision making.
In sum, then, the three books collectively suggest future directions for the
field of foreign policy analysis:
(1) The field would do well to turn its attention to a broader array of subjects
than the predominant narrow focus on crisis decision making. Particular
mention is made of the inclusion of foreign economic policy making, which is
especially relevant in a world in which states are ever more interconnected as
globalization progresses. Foreign economic policy making is particularly well
suited to analyze relationships that are characterized by inequality. Moreover,
the Grovogui and Persaud contributions in Braveboy-Wagners volume
provide a reminder that such relationships must be understood in the context
of their historical development across time.
(2) Foreign policy analysis would benefit from a more conscious effort at
understanding the interconnections between the various threads of research. At
times, researchers act like the blind men and the elephant, presuming they each
know what the elephant looks like after having touched just a small part of the
whole. Even if there is a recognition that there is a larger whole, the field
collectively has not moved very far in the direction of weaving the specific
research threads into a coherent theoretical tapestry.
(3) Related to the previous point, foreign policy analysis (like the field of
international relations as a whole) would benefit if researchers employing
various research strategies case studies, statistical methods, mathematical
models, experimental studies would develop a greater positive appreciation
for the ways in which their strategies complement one another.
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
626
International Politics 2004 41
(4) Foreign policy analysts must be encouraged to acquire the language and
area expertise that would facilitate the examination of a broader array of cases.
Such empirical investigation would permit greater insight into the usefulness of
our theoretical propositions.
The comparative study of foreign policy found an untimely death when the
events data sets did not yield the hoped-for results. Perhaps it is time for the
development of a new comparative foreign policy. This would entail a greater
emphasis on cross-national comparisons, placing area expertise in the service
of theoretically informed investigation. Methodologically, it would entail a
focus on theory-testing using small-N studies as well as larger-scale
comparisons. Substantively, the focus would not only be on cross-national
investigation, but also on a larger array of subjects to facilitate comparisons
across issue areas. Such a new comparative foreign policy would serve to
fulfill the vision of Snyder et al. (2002, 1962) and others of the first generation
of foreign policy research. Its most significant value, however, would be to
enhance our understanding of the degree to which our theoretical propositions
are conditional and bounded, or more generally applicable. By building the
theoretical blocks of foreign policy decision making from the specific to the
general, perhaps the subfield of foreign policy analysis can help the study of
international relations move beyond the endless arguments between realism,
liberalism, and other grand theories.
Notes
1 Other seminal early works include Rosenau (1966), Sprout and Sprout (1956, 1957, 1965), and
Brecher (1972).
2 See http://www.yale.edu/unsy/phresearch.htm for more information on the project.
References
Brecher, M. (1972) The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Settings, Images, Process, New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Garrison, J.A. (1999) Games Advisors Play, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Gerner, D.J. (1995) The Evolution of the Study of Foreign Policy, in L. Neack, J.A.K. Hey and
P.J. Haney (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hermann, C.F. (1995) Epilogue: Reflections on Foreign Policy Theory Building, in L. Neack,
J.A.K. Hey and P.J. Haney (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second
Generation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hermann, M.G. (1998) One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for Dialogue,
International Studies Quarterly 42(4): 605624.
Hey, J.A.K. (ed.) (2003) Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hoyt, P. (1997) The Political Manipulation of Group Composition: Engineering the Decision
Context, Political Psychology 18: 771790.
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
627
International Politics 2004 41
Hudson, V.M. (1995) Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, Mershon
International Studies Review 39: 209238.
Hudson, V.M. (2002) Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Touchstone for International Relations
Theory in the Twenty-First Century, in R.C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and B. Sapin (eds.) Foreign
Policy Decision-Making (Revisited), New York: Palgrave.
Mintz, A. (1993) The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Non-compensatory Theory of Decision Making,
Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(4): 595618.
Mintz, A. (1997) Foreign Policy Decision Making: Bridging the Gap Between the Cognitive
Psychology and Rational Actors Schools, in N. Geva and A. Mintz (eds.) Decision Making on
War and Peace: The Cognitive Rational Debate, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Mintz, A. and Geva, N. (1997) The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making, in
N. Geva and A. Mintz (eds.) Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive Rational
Debate, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Preston, T. and t Hart, P. (1999) Understanding and Evaluating Bureaucratic Politics: the Nexus
Between Political Leaders and Advisory Systems, Political Psychology 20(1): 4998.
Rosenau, J.M. (1966) Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy, in R.B. Farrell (ed.)
Approaches in Comparative and International Politics, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Snyder, R.C., Bruck, H.W. and Sapin, B. (eds.) (1962) Foreign Policy Decision-Making, Glencoe,
IL: The Free Press.
Snyder, R.C., Bruck, H.W. and Sapin, B. (eds.) (2002) Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited),
Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1956) Man-Mileu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International
Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1957) Environment Factors in the Study of International Politics,
Journal of Conflict Resolution 1: 309328.
Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1965) The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs with Special
Reference to International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sylvan, D.A., Goel, A. and Chandrasekaran, B. (1990) Analyzing Political Decision Making
from an Information-processing Perspective: JESSE, American Journal of Political Science 34(1):
74 123.
Tetlock, P.E. (1992) Good Judgment in International Politics: Three Psychological Perspectives,
Political Psychology 13(3): 517539.
t Hart, P., Stern, E.K. and Sundelius, B. (1997) Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and
Foreign Policy-Making, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Tuchman, B. (1984) The March of Folly, New York: Knopf.
About the Author
Marijke Breuning (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Associate Professor of
Political Science at Truman State University. She has research interests in
comparative foreign policy, with a special emphasis on development coopera-
tion, ethnic politics, and regional integration. Her work has appeared in
International Studies Quarterly, Comparative Political Studies, International
Politics, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Political Communication, Acta Politica,
and other journals. With John T. Ishiyama, she authored Ethnopolitics in the
New Europe, published by Lynne Rienner in 1998.
Marijke Breuning
Bringing Comparative Back to Foreign Policy Analysis
628
International Politics 2004 41
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.