Running Head: FOREIGN POLICY 1

Chapter Three on ‘Levels of Analysis and Foreign Policy.’

Christophe Barbier

Norwich University
FOREIGN POLICY 2

Abstract

The Chapter Three on ‘Levels of Analysis and Foreign Policy,’ by Rourke, J. T, and Boyer,

M. A (2010) which are both professors in political science at the University of Connecticut

have illustrated the structural levels of actions and foreign policy that drive these forces on the

world stage. Human actions, behavioral decision-making, and powerful actors all play a vital

role on how to consciously and rationally make fundamental decisions that will have

repercussive consequences worldwide. Foreign policy is created by humans as a species and

foreign policy in itself is based on both rational and irrational behaviors. In this Chapter Three,

I will discuss, compare, and analyze the system-level analysis with other levels and bring about

a discussion on the disadvantage and advantages in the eye of examination in international

political observation with an analytical analysis on the inner-working of three levels:

individual-level analysis, state-level analysis, and system-level analysis. Foreign policy resides

within these three structural and organizational levels of analysis. There is a dynamic

polarization that tends to bring forces to international systems of governance from IGOs to

NGOs and others. Overall, the foreign policy process is complex and enmeshed into the world

of operative systems of analysis and realities that make the world of today and of tomorrow.
FOREIGN POLICY 3

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANALYSIS

From the first level, we can see that the root of individuality is based on the

understanding and clarification at the core of the decision-making process, and what it entails

to create a foreign policy initiative either as an individual or group level. One of the most

important aspects of the individual-level analysis is human species which is the core response

to the influences on foreign policy-making. In the psychology of human being, there are several

factors that can be added such as cognitive factors, emotional, behavioral, organizational,

personality, and mental state of mind. From the human’s perspective and cognitive thinking,

both authors expressed their limitations on the human mind and its capability to do well. From

the book ‘International Politics on the World Stage Brief,’ both authors have pointed out, “

Another ways humans deal with their cognitive limitations is by using heuristic devices.”

(Rourke, Boyer, p. 57, 2010). There seem to be some lacking substances when it comes to

gathering the necessary information before making any formal or informal decisions. It is

essential to gather all considerable information and facts before acting or enacting an important

decision.

MENTAL CONSISTENCY

An interesting analysis is known to be called, ‘Munich Analogy’ and is based on the

idea of similar situations with lesser, better, or lacking knowledge about the situation itself.

One example explains that “Think of the prelude to World War II…[and] all countries that

said, “Well, we don’t have enough evidence’…There were millions of people dead because of

the miscalculations,” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 57, 2010). This type of analogy has created during

previous wars serious miscalculations to human casualties, soldiers, and loss of life that had

proven to be unnecessary. Mental consistency from a human standpoint is implemented with

fallacy, shortcuts, and lack of evidence by making ill-fated or ungrounded decisions by lacking
FOREIGN POLICY 4

knowledge, understanding, and the situation in itself. In times of wars or conflicts, there have

been many decisions lacking concrete evidence which resulted in unnecessary human

casualties. Both emotional and behavioral factors have played a crucial role in the decision-

making process of individuals where personal experiences can change the politics of making

important decisions in foreign policy.

GENDER MATTERS

Both men and women have different cognitive, intuitive, and biological mechanisms

that lead to having men deciding for more war’s engagements and conflicts with others nation-

states than women do. From the same book, “Political scientists are just beginning to examine

whether gender makes a difference in political attitudes and actions. It is clear that a gender

opinion gap exists between men and women on a range of issues.” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 59,

2010). Women have a tendency to soften conflicting issues about, social unrest, wars, and civil

wars. “Supporting this view, one recent study found that women tend to adopt more

collaborative approaches to negotiation and conflict resolution, while men pursue more

conflictual ones. (Florea et al., 2003). From another sided approach, “Other studies, however,

have found more mixed results about the potential impact of women decision makers and

contend that a future world dominated by women “would not be as rosy as Fukuyama suggests”

(Caprioli, 2000:271; Boyer et al., 2009; Caprioli & Boyer, 2001). On both sides of the coin,

women can either be adopting a collaborative approach or women can also be more prone to

enter into risky engagement leading to conflicts, wars, and world domination by women.

STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS

In this level, the political structure plays an important part in influencing, guiding, and

directing policy-makers at deciding on their comprehensive knowledge of the policy. We have

a group of individuals as actors of states, state systems, and political structures that are
FOREIGN POLICY 5

intertwined and bound together by political forces from state’s actors. From the same book,

“These types range along a scale that has absolute authoritarian governments on one end and

unfettered democratic governments on the other.” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 65, 2010). In a democratic

institution, the foreign policy will be widely distributed and available for all citizens to benefit

from. In an authoritarian institution, the foreign policy will be highly restricted and homed in

a centered and specific segment of the society. There is a myriad of official actors such as

bureaucrats, interested groups, ministers, and government officials that play an important part

in the political system depending on which level of the system it operates.

THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF FOREIGN POLICY

It is important to note that the political structure at the state level also significantly

influence all decisions taken or made by policy makers as clearly stated, “ This concept

represents society’s widely held, traditional values and its fundamental practice that are slow

to change.” (Jung, 2002; Paquette, 2003). The country’s own foreign policy reflects directly

onward at the political culture of that country. When we take the United States and its foreign

policy at the domestic level, it has to reflect and integrate the social and economic impacts on

Americans and their way of life. From the same book, “Foreign trade is a classic example of

an intermestic issue because it affects both international relations and the domestic economy

in terms of jobs, prices, and other factors.” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 67, 2010). Americans, in general,

will feel the changes occurring through the domestic, foreign policy process and its domestic

impact on the daily life of citizens for food, gas, and others commodities. If there are any

changes in the intermestic policy, it will have direct cause-effect relations on American

consumers. The consumers themselves will be exposed to a significant price increase that will

affect their daily routine both physically, emotionally, and psychologically. It is an all-around

cause and effect mechanism that force consumers to make stricter and more restrictive choices

about their daily consumption of goods and services bought on the market.
FOREIGN POLICY 6

SYSTEM-LEVEL ANALYSIS

At this level, most countries around the world are free to make their own foreign

policies to achieve distinctive results and successes. The organization of authority and

sovereignty are based on the structural organization along with state actors and interactions

among them. There are two types of systems: hierarchical (vertical) to anarchical (horizontal).

It is important to note that international system is known to be anarchic as explained, “As such,

the international system is a state-centric system that is largely anarchic; it has no overarching

authority to make rules, settle disputes, and provide protection.” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 70,

2010).The anarchical structure itself has a significant impact on any issues for national security

and its domestic policy process. In today’s ever-increasing globalization of the world, more

countries are trading and exchanging goods and services than in the past. The exportation of

goods and services are crucial to one’s country economy and its domestic market stability.

Many resources are becoming the life force of countries that exports their goods and services

to stabilize and thrive on their own economy. As noted by both authors, “Without extensive

exports, the U.S. economy would stagger because exported goods and services account for

about 15% of the U.S. GNP.”(Rourke, Boyer, p. 71, 2010). This can be seen as an advantageous

economic model of economic growth and a disadvantageous one by weakening the country's

own domestic fabrication of goods and services, and as a result, crippling its economic

turnover.

NUMBERS OF POWERFUL ACTORS MATTER

In this power and role relationship with major state actors, it is paramount to examine

the polarization and depolarization from the international system’s point of view and

perspective. The balance of power politics come to play an important role such as international

organizations, empires, nation-states, countries, and transnational organizations. There is a

FOREIGN POLICY 7

political and powerful stigmatization when it comes for one country to dominate the other in

the balance of power politics. The ultimate goal is for that one country to acquire the hegemonic

power of domination, economic stature, and ascertain its existence as the prominent country

on the world stage. From the same book, “As an example of how these rules work, note that in

a unipolar system, which exists in many ways today, with the United States as the single pole,

the hegemonic power tries to maintain control.” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 72, 2010). As we have seen

international relations, the hegemonic power does not come from a level of superiority or

dominance, but from both internal and external pressure that is exerted on the international

system of governance to keep on a global scale stability, order, and peace. The United States

has been known to be an unipolar system, but recently, the hegemonic power of the U.S. has

declined due to others powerful actors such as Russia and China on the world stage. Now we

see a world of a bipolar system in which there are more hostilities and instabilities. As noted

in the book, “The argument is that an unipolar system will be peaceful, “ but only as long as

the hegemonic power acts like one (Wohlforth, 1999:23). The real concern comes from the fact

that some scholars in international relations worry that if the U.S. retrieves itself from its

leadership role in the world, there will be more violence, internal conflicts, civil wars, and more

economic uncertainties.

MULTIPOLAR WORLD LEADS TO INSTABILITY AND LESSER PEACE

One important point about the multipolarity of the world is illustrated as block quote:

“What will occur, the argument continues, is a “power vacuum…an era of

‘apolarity,'leading to “an anarchic new Dark Age: an era of waning empires and

religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten

region; economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified

FOREIGN POLICY 8

enclaves” (Ferguson, 2004:32). This view is akin to Barber’s (1996) image of

tribalism, as discussed in Chapter 2.

It is largely debatable among scholars who have two types of thinking: for one, the

retrieval of the United States militarily will not destabilize the international system on the world

stage. Others refute that idea and ask why the United States’s hegemonic power in relation to

its real motive and intention on how they are conducting themselves on the world stage.

According to both authors, “Amid all these sharply divergent views about the U.S. global role,

though, there can little doubt that changing the power equation changes the way the system

operates.” (Rourke, Boyer, p. 74, 2010). From an international relations ‘standpoint, there can

be no doubt that as soon as the world becomes a bipolar, tripolar, or multipolar system, there

will significant changes, and perhaps a new world order will emerge as a result.
FOREIGN POLICY 9

Conclusion

The Chapter Three on ‘levels of Analysis and Foreign Policy’ has demonstrated in my research

on the subject in which individuals, states, and systems that there are significant economic

relations, powerful relationships, interactions, and power play from global leaders on the world

stage. There are economic realities happening every day in our globalized world, and more

countries are becoming interdependent in order to avoid conflicts with others countries, and in

turn establish cooperation, support, and adhere some mutual respect and prosperity. We have

seen the bilateral relations between China and the United States, as China is becoming one of

the most powerful and economic countries in the world. It is better to be allies than being

enemies. Both countries benefit from each other from imports & exports, trades, goods and

services that they mutually share among the two nations. Natural resources, production, and

consumption are vital elements for powerful nations to sustain their economic level of market

economy and stability. Unfortunately, as we have seen, increasing tensions in the Middle East

and especial on the case of the five years civil war in Syria has thwarted the Middle East into

economic turmoil. Russia has entered the world stage and the relations between the United

States, and Russia has been bittersweet. European economic sanctions against Russia has

reduced the economic viability of Russia by all-time low oil prices, and that has had a direct

result felt by most Russians for food, gas, and others commodities. As a result, life in Russia

has become more expensive. It is important to understand that these levels of analysis and

foreign policy have a direct impact on any world economy, on the international conduct as the

world becomes more and more uniform and these foreign policies reflect human behaviors both

rational and irrational decision-makers and how these policies operate on the world stage.
FOREIGN POLICY 10

Reference

Rourke, J. T., & Boyer, M. A. (2010). International politics on the world stage BRIEF’.

Chapter 3:55-79.(8th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.