The ‘Hard Core’ of Foreign Policy Analysis

A review of the article titled Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations by Valerie M. Hudson

In her article on foreign policy analysis, Hudson (2005) endeavors not only to give us the cornerstone of this subfield but makes a case of how relevant it is in providing the basis for all international relations theory. She builds on this by taking us through the actor-specific theory and contrasting it with what she calls actor-general theory as well as identifying the ground of international relations where contemporary theories tend to focus more on states at the expense of individuals or to the very least make it look like everything is about states.

The author asserts that when it comes to international relations (IR) as a field of study, whatever goes on between states is grounded in “human decision makers acting singly or in groups” hence it is critical to understand how such individuals interpret and react to the world around them in addition to how they shape or are shaped by that very world. Therefore, the article’s central thesis is that foreign policy analysis (FPA) with its actor-specific theory provides what is required to engage the ground of IR by assuming that actions of human decision makers form the ground of all that takes place in international relations and such actions of decision makers cannot simply be generalized into states (Hudson, 2005, p.2). 

In discussing the nature of foreign policy analysis, Hudson comes up with six hallmarks that include multi-factoral and multi-level factors that influence foreign policy decision making and decision makers, the second aspect being its multi-disciplinary component that incorporates  psychology, sociology, anthropology, organizational behavior and economics, it also integrates information across various disciplines and levels of analysis with the fifth being the agent-oriented theory emphasizing how it is human beings and not states who are agents because it is them that possess the ability to act on policies. Last but not least of the hallmarks is actor specificity which delivers specific and tangible information on those privileged to be decision makers by assessing their characters, identity and cultural influence among other qualities.

Finally, it is also important to note that the author reminds us how the process of foreign policymaking carries the same weight as its outcome since you cannot have any achievements without undertakings. She picks out the writings of Snyder et al., Rosenau and the Sprouts to hit the nail on the head, calling such works paradigmatic then goes ahead to document the evolution of foreign policy analysis.

Is it the Individual or the State?

In writing about foreign policy analysis, Hudson unintentionally makes a case for liberalism since it is common knowledge that the unit of analysis for liberal theorists is the individual. On the other hand, it is realism that actually glorifies and elevates the state as a unit of analysis. However, she goes further on the need to understand this individual and the process that leads to certain decisions being made than liberalism or other contemporary theory could attempt. 

Hudson states that the process is just as important as the outcome something she argues out well. The only question that can be raised is whether we can be interested in the process and the decision makers without an occurrence.  In other words, without a war, peace or trade agreement, what is that we are going to have the impetus to analyze?  One can argue that it is the event that acts as a catalyst in trying to understand who got us there? how did we get there? and perhaps why we got there?

It is also vital to point out as well the predictive value of a theory. Whereas the actor-specific theory helps to zero-down on specific information about human decision makers, it is quite difficult to predict individual decisions as Herbert Kelman argues that individuals differ significantly when it comes to their roles, interests and skill to influence final decisions (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff Jr, 1971). In as much as Hudson does not appreciate generalizing actions of individual decision makers, going down to the individual level is still a complicated venture.

In conclusion and despite the above concerns, Hudson has made a good case that at the end of the day it is individuals who have the ability to act and they together with foreign policy processes cannot be treated as strangers in international relations. Yes, it is human beings who are in a position to put to action foreign policy decisions because as the author puts it, states are simply abstract.

References

Dougherty, J.E., & Pfaltzgraff Jr, R.L. (1971). Contending Theories of International Relations. NY: J. B. Lippincott Company.

Hudson, V.M. (2005). Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. US: Blackwell Publishing.