Conceptual Approaches to Foreign Policy and Application to African Countries

Magu, Stephen M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62930-4_2

Stephen M. Magu²

414 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses the pertinent question of approaches to understanding foreign policy-making. Scholars have long debated whether the theories that explain foreign policy, overwhelmingly developed in western countries, are likely to explain the same phenomena elsewhere, especially in the Global South. Theories and approaches such as Almond’s Mood theory, domestic audience costs, bureaucratic politics, Groupthink, poliheuristic theory or foreign policy approaches that explain foreign policy in democracies have limited explanatory power over African countries, OAU and AU’s institutional foreign policy. This chapter examines the existence, absence, role and the sources of foreign policy in Africa—elites, bureaucracies, citizens, domestic audiences and the external stakeholders in the making of foreign policy. Foreign policy is a more recent area of growth in scholarship in global politics, and theory-testing around who the key actors, ideas and approaches continue to evolve. Though Africa’s post-colonial foreign policy was partly informed by colonial experiences and residual colonization, limited educational and political participation during colonialism impacted the ability of citizens to direct foreign policy and gave elites much latitude in crafting foreign policy. Still, once-consensus national, regional and Pan African goals were swept up in personality disagreements and regional vendettas. Still, understanding foreign policy from a theoretical perspective is invaluable; this chapter examines approaches that are more, or less likely, to explain foreign policy in Africa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Helen V. Milner and Dustin Tingley, Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 1.
2.
Larry N. Gerston, American Federalism: A Concise Introduction (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2007), 35.
3.
Some scholars, e.g., Acharya and Buzan (2001) the preponderance and overwhelming source of western and absence of Global South IR theories, even though the major powers have inordinate influence on world affairs.
4.
Janet Johnson and H. T. Reynolds, Political Science Research Methods (Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2015).
5.
Yaqing Qin, “Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?” In Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, Eds., Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia (London: Routledge, 2010), 26.
6.
Cynthia Weber, International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2001), 2.
7.
Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, “Introduction: Appraising Progress in International Relations Theory.” In Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, Eds., Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge: BCSIA, 2003), 1
8.
Scott Burchill, “Introduction.” In Scott Burchill, Richard Devetak and Andrew Linklater, Eds., Theories of International Relations, 2nd Ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 13.
9.
Milja Kurki and Colin Wright, “International Relations and Social Science.” In Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Eds., International Relations Theories (London: Oxford University Press, 2013).
10.
Other attributes include empirical verification, falsifiability, non-normative research, cumulative nature of research, its explanatory function, prediction, probabilistic explanation and parsimony (Johnson and Reynolds, 2015).
11.
Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” In Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, Eds., Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia (London: Routledge, 2010).
12.
Acharya and Buzan, “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory?” (2001), 2.
13.
Acharya and Buzan, “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory?” (2001), 2.
14.
Gunther Hellmann and Ursula Stark Urrestarazu, Theories of Foreign Policy (Oxford Bibliographies, 2013), n.p.
15.
Glenn Palmer and Clifton Morgan, A Theory of Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 2.
16.
Derek Beach, Analyzing Foreign Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2012), 6.
17.
Steve Smith, “Theories of Foreign Policy: An Historical Overview.” Review of International Studies, Vol. 12 (1986): 13–29.
18.
Smith, “Theories of Foreign Policy”, 14
19.
Valerie M Hudson, Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 8.
20.
Norwich University, “5 Key Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis.” Diplomacy (Norwich University Online, 2017). https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/resources/5-key-approaches-to-foreign-policy-analysis.
21.
Karen A. Mingst and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft, Essentials of International Relations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2016).
22.
Alex Mintz and Amnon Sofrin, “Decision Making Theories in Foreign Policy Analysis,” Oxford Research Encyclopedias (World Politics), (October 2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.405.
23.
Steve Yetiv, Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making and the Persian Gulf War (Baltimore: JHU Press, 2004).
24.
Evoked set defines situations in which “actors are prone to think that the matters that worry them and/or they are focused on, are the main focus of attention of other actors” (de Castro 2009: 34).
25.
See Jervis’ 1976 work titled Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Jackson and Sørensen also address components, processes and outcomes of perception, including, e.g. cognitive consistency and interactions, assimilation of information, and common misperceptions, etc.; see also Tang (2013).
26.
Robert H. Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
27.
Jackson and Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations (2013), 254.
28.
Jackson and Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations (2013), 254.
29.
Jackson and Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations (2013), 254.
30.
Jackson and Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations, 255.
31.
Mintz and Sofrin, “Decision Making Theories in Foreign Policy Analysis,” (2017).
32.
Mintz and Sofrin, “Decision Making Theories in Foreign Policy Analysis,” (2017), n.p.
33.
Mary Zey, Rational Choice Theory and Organizational Theory: A Critique (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997), 1
34.
Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science (New Haven: Yale, 1994).
35.
Marijke Breuning, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 3.
36.
Elinor Ostrom, “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, APSA, 1997.” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 1 (March, 1998): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585925.
37.
Joe Oppenheimer, Principles of Politics: A Rational Choice Theory Guide to Politics and Social Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 15.
38.
Lina Eriksson, Rational Choice Theory: Potential and Limits (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 17, and Oppenheimer, Principles of Politics, 14–19.
39.
Zey, Rational Choice Theory and Organizational Theory, 3.
40.
Mintz and Sofrin, “Decision Making Theories in Foreign Policy Analysis,” 2017.
41.
Ostrom, “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action,” 1998.
42.
Stephen D. Krasner, Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), and Steve Yetiv, Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making in the Gulf Wars (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 2011).
43.
W. David Clinton, The Two Faces of National Interest (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1994), 52.
44.
Steven Kendall Holloway, Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2006), 52, and Joseph Frankel, National Interest (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1970), n.p.
45.
Krasner, Defending the National Interest, 44.
46.
Krasner, Defending the National Interest, 44.
47.
Krasner, Defending the National Interest, 45.
48.
Krasner, Defending the National Interest, 43.
49.
Holloway, Canadian Foreign Policy, 12.
50.
Ole R. Holsti, “Theories of International Relations.” In Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson, Eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 54.
51.
Holloway, Canadian Foreign Policy, 12.
52.
Krasner, Defending the National Interest, 44.
53.
Goldman, David, “GoK Must Protect National Interests.” National Interest (Web) (January 20, 2015), n.p.
54.
Wario, Hukka, “Security Main Pillar of National Interest,” The Star (January 9, 2015).
55.
Breuning, Foreign Policy Analysis, 7.
56.
Breuning, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5.
57.
Walter Carlsnaes, “Foreign Policy.” In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and Beth A. Simmons, Eds., Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2002).
58.
Charles Taber, “The Interpretation of Foreign Policy Events: A Cognitive Process Theory.” In Donald Sylvan and James Voss, Eds., Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 30.
59.
Felicia Sonmez, “Trump’s Iraq Visit Prompts Concern Over Operational Security,” The Washington Post (December 26, 2018).
60.
This figure issues from the president. Few estimates suggest that the US spent that much money on the two wars.
61.
Sonmez, “Trump’s Iraq Visit Prompts Concern Over Operational Security,” n.p.
62.
Nikolas Gvosdev, Jessica Blankshain and David Cooper, Decision-Making in American Foreign Policy: Translating Theory into Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019).
63.
Gvosdev, et al., Decision-Making in American Foreign Policy (2019), 126.
64.
Melania-Gabriela Ciot, Negotiation and Foreign Policy Decision Making (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge, 2014).
65.
Standard media Editor, “National Security Council Has Agenda in Plain Sight,” Standard Media (Digital) (June 4, 2013). https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000085165/national-security-council-has-agenda-in-plain-sight.
66.
Gvosdev, et al., Decision-Making in American Foreign Policy (2019), 127.
67.
Bruce Russett, Harvey Starr and David Kinsella, World Politics: The Menu for Choice (Boston: Cengage, 2010), 117.
68.
Patrick J. Haney, Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision Making (Ann Arbor: UMich Press, 2002).
69.
Haney, Organizing for Foreign Policy, 2.
70.
Ufot Bassey Inamete, Foreign Policy Decision-Making in Nigeria (London: Associated University Press, 2001), 20.
71.
The East African, “Tanzania Destroys Another 5000 Kenya-Sourced Chicks,” The Daily Nation (February 13, 2018). https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Tanzania-destroys-another-5-000-chicks/1056-4303090-r1idwuz/index.html.
72.
Inamete, Foreign Policy Decision-Making in Nigeria, 20.
73.
Derek Croxton, “The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty.” The International History Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (1999): 569–592. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40109077.
74.
Donald F. Kettl, “Public Bureaucracies.” In R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder and Bert A. Rockman, Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 366.
75.
Kettl, “Public Bureaucracies,” 2006.
76.
Olajide Aluko, “Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy Decision-Making in Nigeria.” In Timothy M. Shaw and Olajide Aluko, Eds., Nigerian Foreign Policy: Alternative Perceptions and Projections (London: Macmillan, 1983), 78.
77.
Ram Nath Sharma and S.S. Chandra, Advanced Industrial Psychology, Volume 1 (New Delhi: Atlantic, 2004), 105, and Kettl, “Public Bureaucracies,” 366.
78.
Sharma and Chandra, Advanced Industrial Psychology, 105.
79.
Kettl, “Public Bureaucracies,” 366.
80.
Sharma and Chandra, Advanced Industrial Psychology, 105.
81.
J. Garry Clifford, “Bureaucratic Politics.” In Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson, Eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 91.
82.
Peter S. Cleaves, Bureaucratic Politics and Administration in Chile (Berkeley: UC Press, 1974).
83.
Tobias Bach and Kai Wegrich, “Blind Spots, Biased Attention, and the Politics of Non-Coordination.” In Tobias Bach and Kai Wegrich, Eds., The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non‐Coordination (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 15.
84.
Turf is defined as “an organization’s formal jurisdiction and its internal mission or identity” (Bach and Wegrich, “The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy,” 16).
85.
Bach and Wegrich, “Blind Spots,” 2019.
86.
Cleaves, Bureaucratic Politics and Administration in Chile, 310.
87.
Gareth Porter, Vietnam: The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 129.
88.
Porter, Vietnam, 1994.
89.
Claire Felter, “Nigeria’s Battle with Boko Haram,” CFR Backgrounder, Council for Foreign Relations (2018).
90.
Siobhán O’Grady, “In Nigeria, $2 Billion in Stolen Funds Is Just a Drop in the Corruption Bucket,” Foreign Policy (November 18, 2015), n.p. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/18/in-nigeria-2-billion-in-stolen-funds-is-just-a-drop-in-the-corruption-bucket/.
91.
Paul Kowert, Groupthink or Deadlock: When Do Leaders Learn from Their Advisors? (Albany: SUNY Press, 2002), 98.
92.
Kowert, Groupthink or Deadlock, 97.
93.
Ronald R. Sims, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall (Westport: Praeger, 2003), 115.
94.
Sims, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, 115.
95.
Kenneth Bordens and Irwin A. Horowitz, Social Psychology, 2nd ed. (New York: Psychology Press, 2012), 321.
96.
Bordens and Horowitz, Social Psychology, 321.
97.
Sims, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, 2003.
98.
Mark Schafer and Scott Crichlow, Groupthink Versus High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations (New York: Columbia, 2010), 19.
99.
Derek Beach, Analyzing Foreign Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 126.
100.
Donelson R. Forsyth, Group Dynamics (Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2009), 315.
101.
Forsyth, Group Dynamics, 2009. Forsyth argues that Marjorie Shaw, in 1932, found groups to solve problems better and faster, including the missionary-cannibal dilemma problem (or the goat-leopard-hay problem).
102.
Alexander George, “From Groupthink to Contextual Analysis of Policy-Making Groups.” In Paul t’Hart, Eric Stern and Bengt Sundelius, Eds., Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and Foreign Policy-Making (Ann Arbor: UMich Press, 1997), 43.
103.
George, “From Groupthink,” 1997.
104.
Rose McDermott, James H. Fowler and Oleg Smirnov, “On the Evolutionary Origin of Prospect Theory Preferences.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 70, No. 2 (2008): 335. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608080341.
105.
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” In Leonard C. Ziemba and William Maclean, Eds., Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making (Singapore: WSP, 2013), 99.
106.
Kahneman and Tversky, “Prospect Theory,” (2013), 99.
107.
Kahneman and Tversky, “Prospect Theory,” (2013), 99.
108.
Kahneman and Tversky, “Prospect Theory,” (2013).
109.
Jack S. Levy, “An Introduction to Prospect Theory.” Political Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 2 (June, 1992), 171.
110.
Levy, “An Introduction to Prospect Theory,” (1992).
111.
Rose McDermott, Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor: UMich Press, 2001), 13.
112.
Levy, “Applications of Prospect Theory to Political Science,” (2003), 215.
113.
Levy, “Applications of Prospect Theory to Political Science,” (2003).
114.
Levy, “Applications of Prospect Theory to Political Science,” (2003), 236.
115.
Alex Mintz and Nehemia Geva, “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking.” In Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz, Eds., Decisionmaking on War and Peace: The Cognitive-rational Debate (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1997).
116.
Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson and Steven B. Redd, “Framing and the Poliheuristic Theory of Decision: The United Fruit Company and the 1954 U.S.-Led Coup in Guatemala.” In Alex Mintz, Ed., Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).
117.
Taylor-Robinson and Redd, “Framing and the Poliheuristic Theory of Decision,” 80.
118.
Taylor-Robinson and Redd, “Framing and the Poliheuristic Theory of Decision,” 80.
119.
Alex Mintz, “How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 1 (February, 2004): 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002703261056.
120.
Alex Mintz, “Applied Decision Analysis: Utilizing Poliheuristic Theory to Explain and Predict Foreign Policy and National Security Decisions.” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 6 (2005): 94–95.
121.
Mintz and Geva, “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking,” 80–81.
122.
Alex Mintz and Karl DeRouen Jr., Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 78.
123.
Mintz, “How Do Leaders Make Decisions?” 4.
124.
Eben J. Christensen and Steven B. Redd, “Bureaucrats Versus the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis of the Bureaucratic Politics Model and the Poliheuristic Theory.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 1, The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making (2004), 69.
125.
Mintz, “How Do Leaders Make Decisions?” 4.
126.
Derek Beach, Analyzing Foreign Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 119.
127.
Alex Mintz and Karl DeRouen Jr., Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 79–80.
128.
Peter Rittgen, “Goal Commitment and Competition as Drivers for Group Productivity in Business Process Modeling.” In Armin Heinzl, Peter Buxmann, Oliver Wendt and Tim Weitzel, Eds., Theory-Guided Modeling and Empiricism in Information Systems Research (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 2011).
129.
Xinsheng Liu, Modeling Bilateral International Relations: The Case of U.S.-China Interactions (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 31.
130.
Mintz and DeRouen Jr., Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making, 80.
131.
Stephen Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.” In Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Coté Jr., Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, Eds., Rational Choice and Security Studies: Stephen Walt and His Critics, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000), 29.
132.
Charles Lipson, Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 18.
133.
Michael Tomz, “Democratic Default: Domestic Audiences and Compliance with International Agreements,” Draft manuscript (APSA 2002).
134.
Natasha M. Ezrow and Erica Frantz, Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders (New York: Continuum, 2011), 147–149.
135.
Michael Tomz, “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Autumn, 2007): 823. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818307070282.
136.
Jana Kasperkevic, “Poll: 30% of GOP Voters Support Bombing Agrabah, the City from Aladdin,” The Guardian (December 18, 2015), n.p.
137.
Stephanie J. Rickard, “Democratic Differences: Electoral Institutions and Compliance with GATT/WTO Agreements.” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 4 (2010): 711–729.

References

Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction,” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. Edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan. London: Routledge, 2010.
Google Scholar
Aluko, Olajide. “Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy Decision-MaAking in Nigeria.” In Nigerian Foreign Policy: Alternative Perceptions and Projections. Edited by Timothy M. Shaw and Olajide Aluko. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983.
Google Scholar
Bach, Tobias and Kai Wegrich. “Blind Spots, Biased Attention, and the Politics of Non-Coordination.” In The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non-Coordination. Edited by Tobias Bach and Kai Wegrich. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Google Scholar
Beach, Derek. Analyzing Foreign Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Google Scholar
Bordens, Kenneth S. and Irwin A. Horowitz. Social Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press, 2012.
Google Scholar
Breuning, Marijke. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Google Scholar
Burchill, Scott. “Introduction.” In Theories of International Relations, 2nd ed. Edited by Scott Burchill, Richard Devetak and Andrew Linklater. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.
Google Scholar
Carlsnaes, Walter. “Foreign Policy.” In Handbook of International Relations. Edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2002.
Google Scholar
Christensen, Eben J. and Steven B. Redd. “Bureaucrats Versus the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis of the Bureaucratic Politics Model and the Poliheuristic Theory.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 48, no. 1, The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making (February, 2004): 69–90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3176269.
Cleaves, Peter Shurtleff. Bureaucratic Politics and Administration in Chile. Berkeley: UC Press, 1974.
Google Scholar
Clifford, J. Garry. “Bureaucratic Politics.” In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Google Scholar
Clinton, W. David. The Two Faces of National Interest. Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1994.
Google Scholar
Croxton, Derek. “The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty.” The International History Review, vol. 21, no. 3 (1999): 569–592. www.jstor.org/stable/40109077.
de Castro, Reuben Herrero. “Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Relations: A Matter of Perceptions, Images, objectives, and Decisions.” In Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe. Edited by Natividad Fernández Sola and Michael Smith. London: Routledge, 2009.
Google Scholar
Domhoff, G. William. The Power Elite and the State: How Policy Is Made in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.
Google Scholar
Elman, Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman. “Introduction: Appraising progress in International Relations Theory.” In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: BCSIA, 2003.
Google Scholar
Eriksson, Lina. Rational Choice Theory: Potential and Limits. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Google Scholar
Ezrow, Natasha M. and Erica Frantz. Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. New York: Continuum, 2011.
Google Scholar
Felter, Claire. “Nigeria’s Battle with Boko Haram.” CFR Backgrounder. Council for Foreign Relations. August 8, 2018. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/nigerias-battle-boko-haram.
Frankel, Joseph. National Interest. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1970.
Google Scholar
Forsyth, Donelson R. Group Dynamics. Belmont: Cengage, 2009.
Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. “From Groupthink to Contextual Analysis of Policy-Making Groups.” In Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and Foreign Policy-Making. Edited by Paul ‘t Hart, Eric Stern and Bengt Sundelius. Ann Arbor: UMich Press, 1997.
Google Scholar
Gerston, Larry N. American Federalism: A Concise Introduction. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2007.
Google Scholar
Green, Donald and Ian Shapiro. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale, 1994.
Google Scholar
Gvosdev, Nikolas K., Jessica D. Blankshain and David A. Cooper. Decision-Making in American Foreign Policy: Translating Theory into Practice. New York: Cambridge, 2019.
Google Scholar
Haney, Patrick J. Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision Making. Ann Arbor: The UMich Press, 2002.
Google Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther and Ursula Stark Urrestarazu. Theories of Foreign Policy. Oxford Bibliographies. (Web). https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0104.
Holsti, Ole R. “Theories of International Relations.” In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, 2nd ed. Edited by Michael J. Hogan, Thomas G. Paterson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Google Scholar
Hudson, Valerie M. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory, 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.
Google Scholar
Hudson, Valerie M. “The History and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis.” In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, 3rd ed. Edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Timothy Dunne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Google Scholar
Holloway, Steven Kendall. Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2006.
Google Scholar
Inamete, Ufot Bassey. Foreign Policy Decision-Making in Nigeria. London: Associated University Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics: New Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.
Google Scholar
Johnson, Janet B. and H. T. Reynolds. Political Science Research Methods, 8th ed. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2015.
Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making (World Scientific Handbook in Financial Economics). Edited by Leonard C. Ziemba and William T. Maclean. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2013.
Google Scholar
Kettl, Donald F. “Public Bureaucracies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Edited by R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder and Bert A. Rockman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Google Scholar
Kowert, Paul. Groupthink or Deadlock: When Do Leaders Learn from Their Advisors? Albany: SUNY, 2002.
Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.
Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja and Colin Wright. “International Relations and Social Science.” In International Relations Theories, 3rd ed. Edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. “An Introduction to Prospect Theory.” Political Psychology, vol. 13, no. 2, Prospect Theory and Political Psychology (June, 1992): 171–186. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791677.
Levy, Jack S. “Applications of Prospect Theory to Political Science. Synthese, vol. 135, no. 2, Decision Theory (May, 2003): 215–241. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20117364.
Lipson, Charles. Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Google Scholar
Liu, Xinsheng. Modeling Bilateral International Relations: The Case of U.S.-China Interactions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose, James H. Fowler and Oleg Smirnov. “On the Evolutionary Origin of Prospect Theory Preferences.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 70, no. 2 (2008): 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608080341.
McDermott, Rose. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: UMich Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. and Dustin Tingley. Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar
Mingst, Karen A. and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations, 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2016.
Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex. “Applied Decision Analysis: Utilizing Poliheuristic Theory to Explain and Predict Foreign Policy and National Security Decisions.” International Studies Perspectives, vol. 6 (2005): 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00195.x.
Mintz, Alex. “How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 48, no. 1, The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making (February, 2004): 3–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3176265.
Mintz, Alex and Amnon Sofrin. “Decision Making Theories in Foreign Policy Analysis.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias (World Politics), October 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.405.
Mintz, Alex and Karl DeRouen Jr. Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex and Nehemia Geva. “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking.” In Decisionmaking on War and Peace: The Cognitive-rational Debate. Edited by Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997.
Google Scholar
Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Jonathan Paquin. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Google Scholar
Norwich University. “5 Key Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis.” Diplomacy. Norwich University Online, 2017. https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/resources/5-key-approaches-to-foreign-policy-analysis.
The National Interest. “Kenya.” The National Interest (Web), December 22, 2018. https://nationalinterest.org/region/africa/east-africa/kenya.
O’Grady, Siobhán. “In Nigeria, $2 Billion in Stolen Funds Is Just a Drop in the Corruption Bucket.” Foreign Policy. November 18, 2015 https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/18/in-nigeria-2-billion-in-stolen-funds-is-just-a-drop-in-the-corruption-bucket/.
Oppenheimer, Joe. Principles of Politics: A Rational Choice Theory Guide to Politics and Social Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 92, no. 1 (March, 1998): 1–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2585925.
Palmer, Glenn and Clifton Morgan. A Theory of Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Google Scholar
Porter, Gareth. Vietnam: The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.
Google Scholar
Republic of Kenya. “Kenya Foreign Policy.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs. November 2015. http://www.mfa.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kenya-Foreign-Policy.pdf.
Rickard, Stephanie J. “Democratic differences: Electoral Institutions and Compliance with GATT/WTO Agreements.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 16 no. 4 (December, 2010): 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109346890.
Rittgen, Peter. “Goal Commitment and Competition as Drivers for Group Productivity in Business Process Modeling.” In Theory-Guided Modeling and Empiricism in Information Systems Research. Edited by Armin Heinzl, Peter Buxmann, Oliver Wendt and Tim Weitzel. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 2011.
Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce, Harvey Starr and David Kinsella. World Politics: The Menu for Choice, 9th ed. Boston: Cengage, 2010.
Google Scholar
Schafer, Mark and Scott Crichlow. Groupthink Versus High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
Google Scholar
Schultz, David Andrew and James A. Beverly. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Google Scholar
Sharma, Ram Nath and S. S. Chandra. Advanced Industrial Psychology. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2004.
Google Scholar
Sims, Ronald R. Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall. Westport: Praeger, 2003.
Google Scholar
Smith, Steve. “Theories of foreign policy: an historical overview.” Review of International Studies, no. 12 (1986): 13–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097063.
Stein, Arthur A. Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S. “The Interpretation of Foreign Policy Events: A Cognitive Process Theory.” In Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision-Making. Edited by Donald A. Sylvan and James F. Voss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Google Scholar
Tang, Shiping. “The Virtue of Uncertain Advice: Robert Jervis’ Perception and Misperception in International Politics.” In Classics of International Relations: Essays in Criticism and Appreciation. Edited by Henrik Bliddal, Casper Sylvest and Peter Wilson. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Google Scholar
Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M. and Steven B. Redd. “Framing and the Poliheuristic Theory of Decision: The United Fruit Company and the 1954 U.S.-Led Coup in Guatemala.” In Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making. Edited by Alex Mintz. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2002.
Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael. “Democratic Default: Domestic Audiences and Compliance with International Agreements.” Draft manuscript (APSA 2002). https://web.stanford.edu/~tomz/working/apsa02.pdf.
Tomz, Michael. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization, vol. 61, no. 4 (Autumn, 2007): 821–840. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4498169.
Yaqing Qin. “Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. Edited by Amitav Acharya, Barry Buzan. London: Routledge, 2010.
Google Scholar
Yetiv, Steve A. Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making and the Persian Gulf War. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2004.
Google Scholar
Yetiv, Steve A. Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making in the Gulf Wars, 2nd ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 2011.
Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.” In Rational Choice and Security Studies: Stephen Walt and His Critics. Edited by Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Coté Jr., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
Google Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2001.
Google Scholar
Zey, Mary. Rational Choice Theory and Organizational Theory: A Critique. London: Sage, 1997.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Political Science & History, Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Stephen M. Magu

Authors

Stephen M. Magu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Magu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Magu, S.M. (2021). Conceptual Approaches to Foreign Policy and Application to African Countries. In: Explaining Foreign Policy in Post-Colonial Africa . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62930-4_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62930-4_2
Published: 03 January 2021
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62929-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62930-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics