1
• Problem-solving vs. Critical Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis
• Problem-solving vs. Critical Theory
• Robert Cox:
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose’
Main starting point for critical theories of IR
Based on the assumption that knowledge cannot be objective and timeless in the
sense that positivists would like to claim
A key implication:
– All theorists inevitably bring their value to bear on the analysis
– Cox: We need to look closely at those theories, those ideas, those analyses that
claim to be objective or value free, and ask who or what is it for or serve the
interests of
Problem-solving theory:
– Theory which accepts the parameters of the present order and thus helps to
legitimate an unjust and deeply unequal system
Critical theory:
– Theory that challenges the prevailing order by seeking out, analysing, and
assisting social processes that can potentially lead to emancipatory change
Problem-solving vs. critical theories of foreign policy
Allison’s three models
– Account for foreign policy behaviour of states
– Three models that complement each other
Allison as a problem-solving theorist
Allison’s purpose
– Present a better account of states’ foreign policy behaviour
– Show how difficult and uncertain crisis management is
– so that in the future crises would be better managed or averted
Critical theories of foreign policy
Whereas Allison takes a foreign policy problem as given and tries to account for the
policy behaviour of those who try and solve it
Critical theories are interested in the construction of foreign policy issues as ‘problems’
that need to be solved
Jutta Weldes’ argument
– ‘crises are social constructions that are forged by state officials in the course of
producing and reproducing state identity’
If crises are constructed in relation to state identities, events that are the same may be
constructed as different crises, or not as a crisis at all
Problem-solving theoriesof foreign policy
– Take foreign policy problems as framed by policy-makers
– Do not question whether this was a problem or not
– Do not question the purpose behind policy-makers’ framing the issue as a crisis
2
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Try and account for foreign policy behaviour once a problem has been
represented as a problem/crisis
Crises are times of
– Threat
– Opportunity
policy-makers may represent issues as problems or even crises
– If it serves their purposes
– If their state ‘identity’ is constructed in a way that enables the framing of issues as
crisis
Critical theories of foreign policy
Question whether the ‘crisis’ was a ‘crisis’ after all
Try and uncover the processes through which a foreign policy issue is represented as a
‘problem’ or a crisis
Try and show that there is nothing obvious about crises—they can be averted if framed
as problems to be dealt with
Weldes’ argument: The missile deployment in Cuba was a crisis rather than, say, a mere
nuisance, because the deployment of the missiles in Cuba by the Soviet other challenged
the very identity of the United States, not only as the leader of the ‘Free World’ but also
as the guarantor of freedom in the Western hemisphere
Relationship between state identity and foreign policy
Two-way relationship
– State identity enables crises
– Crises enable state identity
Identity and foreign policy
David Campbell’s study of US foreign policy
– The making of ‘foreign’ through foreign policy making
– Self/Other
• societies exist by defining themselves against an external standard
• Without an Other the Self could not see itself as distinctive
– Campbell’s argument: US foreign policy in the post-war was not simply a reaction
to Soviet policies and the Containment Policy not simply a reaction to Soviet
‘expansionism’
US foreign policy behaviour in the post-war era could be viewed as ‘expansionist’ when
viewed from the Soviet perspective
The nature of the struggle between the USA and the USSR was represented by US
policy-makers as geopolitical and military
But, it was ideological and cultural as well
– US policy of containment was not simply a reaction to Soviet policies, but
constitutive of US identity as a democracy and the leader of the ‘Free World’
Once constructed in opposition to a Soviet ‘other’, US identity enabled policies such as
– The formation of NATO
– Leadership of the ‘Free World’
– Duty to defend and extend the ‘Free World’
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cold War as a struggle between US ‘self’ and Soviet ‘other’
Campbell’s contribution: US foreign policy could be understood as a political practice
central to the constitution, production and maintenance of American political identity
Implications of Campbell’s contribution:
US foreign policy could be studied in a similar fashion in the post-Cold War era
A new ‘other’ (or others) could be found to replace the Soviet ‘other’
Thus, foreign policy needs to be understood as giving rise to a boundary rather than
acting as a bridge
problem-solving/critical theories of foreign policy
Problem-solving theories view foreign policy as a practice used to solve problems
between countries
– Try and understand how specific problems are solved
Critical theories view foreign policy as constitutive of those problems the others take for
granted
– Try and understand how specific problems are ‘constructed’
Conducting critical analyses of foreign policy
RAM
– Weigh costs and benefits
– Decide which is the most rational course of action
– Does not question ‘national interest’ but takes it as given
Critical approaches to foreign policy analysis
– Studies the process through which ‘national interest’ is constructed
Deciding whether the situation faced by the state is a threat to ‘national interest’ or not,
required interpretation by policy-makers
Contra-realism, threats are not self-evident
Threats and states’ national interests in the face of threats are matters of interpretation by
policy-makers
This is not meant to suggest that no threats exist
What is socially constructed are the meaning of things and their social effects, not physical existence