• A
  • A
  • A
  • АБВ
  • АБВ
  • АБВ
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Обычная версия сайта

Бакалаврская программа «Политология и мировая политика»

07
Апрель

Foreign Policy Analysis

2022/2023
Учебный год
ENG
Обучение ведется на английском языке
4
Кредиты
Статус:
Курс обязательный
Когда читается:
4-й курс, 3 модуль

Преподаватель

Course Syllabus

Abstract

Why and how particular foreign policy decision was made? Why did it produce a failure or bring an unexpectable success? The course both overviews different approaches to the foreign policy analysis and implies the application of approaches to the analysis of the real cases of foreign policy decision making. The course focuses on priority explanation of foreign policy outcomes by domestic political factors, which influence the decision-making of political leaders, give the constraints and incentives. The course examines different theoretical approaches to foreign policy analysis, including the role of bureaucracy, public opinion and emotions, as well as constructivist and rational-choice explanations of foreign policy decision making, and concept of the two-level game.
Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

  • To introduce the key approaches to foreign policy analysis
  • To develop skills of deep analysis of foreign policy outcomes
  • To develop skills to analyze domestic-foreign policy linkage
Expected Learning Outcomes

Expected Learning Outcomes

  • Knows the key approaches to foreign policy analysis
  • Is able to analyze foreign policy outcomes
  • Is able to analyze domestic-foreign policy linkage
  • Is capable of executing applied analysis of the political phenomena and political processes
  • Is capable of retrieving, collecting, processing and analyzing information relevant for achieving goals in the professional field
Course Contents

Course Contents

  • Topic 1. Foreign Policy Analysis vs. Theories of International Relations
  • Topic 2. Foreign Policy, Political Regimes, and Institutional Settings
  • Topic 3. Rational Actor Model of the Foreign Policy
  • Topic 4. Bureaucratic Politics and Organizational Model of Foreign Policy
  • Topic 5. Foreign Policy as a Two-Level Game
  • Topic 6. Psychological Theories of Foreign Policy. Groupthink
  • Topic 7. Foreign Policy and Public Opinion
  • Topic 8. Emotions and Foreign Policy Analysis
  • Topic 9. Operational Codes and Foreign Policy
  • Topic 10. Constructivist Approaches to the Foreign Policy Analysis
Assessment Elements

Assessment Elements

  • non-blocking In-class Participation
    seminars evaluate students’ progress and ability to critically assess the readings. The component is calculated as an average grade achieved on the seminars 1 If a student misses a seminar, she or he received a zero mark for this class, which is included into the average mark calculations 2 If a student proves a valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar, he or she may apply for retaking this assessment. The assessment is retaken in a form of a reflection paper (no more than 2000 characters), based on the literature and questions discussed at the seminar. The reflection paper must be sent to the lecturer no later than 5 days after the cessation of valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar 3 If a student proves a valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar, he or she may apply for retaking this assessment. The assessment is retaken in a form of a reflection paper (no more than 2000 characters), based on the task made by groups at the seminar. The reflection paper must be sent to the lecturer no later than 5 days after the cessation of valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar
  • non-blocking Teamwork
    several seminars are designed to allow students to analyze cases of foreign policy decision-making in teams applying the approaches discussed in lectures and seminars. The component is calculated as an average grade for all teamwork events 1) If a student misses a seminar, she or he received a zero mark for this class, which is included into the average mark calculations. 2) If a student proves a valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar, he or she may apply for retaking this assessment. The assessment is retaken in a form of a reflection paper (no more than 2000 characters), based on the literature and questions discussed at the seminar. The reflection paper must be sent to the lecturer no later than 5 days after the cessation of valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar. 3) If a student proves a valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar, he or she may apply for retaking this assessment. The assessment is retaken in a form of a reflection paper (no more than 2000 characters), based on the task made by groups at the seminar. The reflection paper must be sent to the lecturer no later than 5 days after the cessation of valid and documented reason for the absence on the seminar.
  • non-blocking Final essay
    Each student is supposed to write a mid-term essay. The deadline for the mid-term essay will be announced on first classes. The final essay cannot be retaken. Students who fail to submit the essay within the period of submission (before the set deadline) receive a zero mark. In exceptional cases of proved valid reasons (e.g. documented illness within 3 days before or after the deadline), students are allowed to send the essay within the day when the valid reason is no more applicable (e.g. the first day of the documented recovery).
Interim Assessment

Interim Assessment

  • 2022/2023 3rd module
    0.4 * Final essay + 0.2 * Teamwork + 0.4 * In-class Participation
Bibliography

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

  • Alex Mintz. (2004). How Do Leaders Make Decisions? Journal of Conflict Resolution, (1), 3. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsrep&AN=edsrep.a.sae.jocore.v48y2004i1p3.13
  • Beasley, R. K., & Kaarbo, J. (2014). Explaining Extremity in the Foreign Policies of Parliamentary Democracies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12164
  • Carlsnaes, W. (1992). The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis. International Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 245. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600772
  • Chien-Peng Chung. (2007). Resolving China’s Island Disputes: A Two-Level Game Analysis. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 12(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-007-9001-7
  • Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. American Political Science Review, (03), 577. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsrep&AN=edsrep.a.cup.apsrev.v88y1994i03p577.592.09
  • Functionality in EU foreign policy: towards a new research agenda? (2010). Journal of European Integration, 32(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330903486045
  • Hudson, V. M., & Vore, C. S. (1995). Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow. International Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 209. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=asn&AN=9601194480
  • Joshua D. Kertzer, & Thomas Zeitzoff. (2017). A Bottom‐Up Theory of Public Opinion about Foreign Policy. American Journal of Political Science, (3), 543. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12314
  • Kevin H. Wang. (1996). Presidential Responses to Foreign Policy Crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, (1), 68. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsrep&AN=edsrep.a.sae.jocore.v40y1996i1p68.97
  • Kuperman, R. D. (2001). Rules of military retaliation and their practice by the State of Israel. International Interactions, 27(3), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620108434987
  • Noone, H. (2019). Two-Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory. World Affairs, 182(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0043820019839074
  • Qingmin, Z. (2016). Bureaucratic Politics and Chinese Foreign Policy-making. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9(4), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pow007
  • Stuart N. Soroka. (n.d.). ARTICLE Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.9F83003B
  • Weeks, J. L. (2008). Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve. International Organization, (01), 35. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsrep&AN=edsrep.a.cup.intorg.v62y2008i01p35.64.08
  • Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink Reconsidered. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4279001

Recommended Additional Bibliography

  • Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2005.00001.x
  • Marsh, K. (2014). Obama’s Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12000
  • Morin, J.-F., & Paquin, J. (2018). Foreign Policy Analysis : A Toolbox. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsebk&AN=1672782
  • Redlawsk, D. P., & Palgrave Connect (Online service). (2006). Feeling Politics : Emotion in Political Information Processing (Vol. 1st ed). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsebk&AN=188749
  • Rothschild, J. E., & Shafranek, R. M. (2017). Advances and Opportunities in the Study of Political Communication, Foreign Policy, and Public Opinion. Political Communication, 34(4), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1373004
  • Sula, I. E. (2019). An Eclectic Methodological Approach in Analyzing Foreign Policy: Turkey’s Foreign Policy Roles and Events Dataset (TFPRED). All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy & Peace, 8(2), 255–283. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=poh&AN=137302378
  • Sylvan, D., & Majeski, S. (2006). Reviving the Cybernetic Approach to Foreign Policy Analysis: Explaining the Continuity of U.S. Policy Instruments. Conference Papers —— International Studies Association, 1–20. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=poh&AN=27206859