SUMMARIES ASSIGNMENT
Generational Change in Foreign Policy Analysis
Laura Neack, Jeanne A.K. Hey, Patrick J. Haney
Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy
James N. Rosenau
Kristine M. Boucher
IR 725 – Prof. Pentony
March 16, 2005
This paper will discuss the central ideas of authors Neack, Hey and Haney in Generational
Change in Foreign Policy Analysis and Rosenau in Pre-Theories and Theories in Foreign Policy. After
describing these summaries I will rate each work on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being outstanding, 5 being not
useful), indicating my opinion of each work’s contribution to foreign policy analysis.
Broadly based, Neack, Hey and Haney discuss the relevancy of generational change in the study
of foreign policy analysis in Generational Change in Foreign Policy Analysis. The first generation of
foreign policy analysis was dominated by positivism and comparative analysis. Their goal was to
establish the study of foreign policy as a “normal science” by using positivist models of theory building
(an analysis of comparative politics) and methodology (modern social science techniques) to explain
foreign policy decisions.1 The authors discuss the influence of real world events during the 1950s and
1960s that promoted this dedication to positivism (lessons of WWII contributing to the promotion of
realism and “power politics”) and methodology (federal funding and academic recruitment surrounding
the arms and space races during the Cold War).2
Despite the first generation’s dialogue stating that “the comparative study of foreign policy has
emerged as a normal science”3, a shared set of core theoretical commitments never came into focus.
Decolonization, economic and development issues and new approaches based on Marxism, dependency
theory and class conflict that emerged in the 1960s caused scholars to rethink their fundamental
assumptions in the 1970s. This caused the traditional realist, positivist approaches to be challenged by the
second generation of foreign policy analysts who rejected the limitations of comparative analysis and
instead researched foreign policy from a multitude of theoretical traditions.4 Second generation foreign
policy analysis can be summed up as a scholarship that is conducted using a variety of methods and
research techniques, that attempts to gain knowledge and understanding from an expansive set
perspectives and methodologies and that which promotes intricate interactions between foreign policy
factors while still relying heavily upon the comparative analysts of their predecessors.5
Rating: 3. I believe Generational Change in Foreign Policy Analysis is an interesting piece of
work that suggests the underlying importance of scrutinizing the development of the study of foreign
policy analysis. Given the luxury of reviewing the work and progress of the first generation analysts,
second generation analysts have constructed a new interpretation of research in which they can see the
shortcomings and inconsistencies of the initial attempt of analysis and make suggestions to put forth a
more encompassing approach to the study of foreign policy analysis. It is helpful for an international
relations student to understand the initial comparative approach to analysis while also realizing its
limitations. Neack, Hey and Haney suggest that a broad and all encompassing analysis of foreign policy
will assist future foreign policy analysts in preparing more thorough investigations of foreign policies. As
the authors point out and what I believe to be the most important concept in this work, opening discussion
to all theoretical traditions enables mid-range theories to develop, offering explanations of limited
phenomena. Piecing together these middle range theories might eventually develop into one grand theory
of foreign policy analysis consisting of a host of variables.
In Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy, Rosenau discusses the importance of constructing
pre-theories in foreign policy analysis in order to develop general theories. This organization of raw
information during the construction of a pre-theory provides a basis for comparison when examining
external behaviors that influence various countries in various situations. Without this initial processing of
materials, no theories can be developed.6 Rosenau believes that events are caused from an order and an
understanding that “every external behavior of every society comes from some source” and, if not, one
must assume events and behaviors are random, impulsive and occur without reason. This renders analysis
of foreign policy useless as there is no way to trace behavioral patterns to perhaps create a theory as to
why foreign policy decisions are made.7 The main components indicating how to analyze external
behavior to conceptualize a pre-theory are idiosyncratic (values, talents, prior experiences of the decisionmaker that influence and specialize his foreign policy behavior), role (the external behavior of the
decision-maker that is produced because of his role as an official), governmental (variables based on
government structure that provide boundaries that encompass the decisions made by these individuals),
societal (the norms, value orientations, infrastructure of a society that influence a nation’s external
behavior), and systemic variables (non-human aspects of the international environment that influence
foreign policy making by its officials).8 These components must then be analyzed to discover in what
order of contribution these variables lend the most influence on external behavior. Rosenau has created
his own pre-theory of foreign policy regarding how these variables have been analyzed between large and
small countries, developed and underdeveloped countries and open and closed political systems.9
Moving on to his discussion of general theory in foreign policy, Rosenau suggests two interrelated
problems holding back the development of general theories of external behavior - maintaining a rigid
distinction between national and international political systems and the tendency to ignore the idea that
political systems can function very differently from one type of issue to another.10 To better understand
the first problem, Rosenau suggests the idea of a “penetrated system” which he defines as a system in
which “nonmembers of a political society participate directly and authoritatively, through actions taken
jointly with the society’s members, in either the allocation of its values or the mobilization of support on
behalf of its goals.”11 For a penetrated system to function effectively and efficiently there must be much
interaction between the members and nonmembers of a society so that information about the wants and
needs of both parties can smoothly flow between groups.12 In regards to political systems functioning
differently based on the type of issue, Rosenau suggests that the emergence of issue-areas can be split into
horizontal and vertical systems to research an issue’s significance on external behavior. A horizontal
system can be described as a group of interdependent procedures through which a state (or other
geographic entity or institution) allocates values and attracts support for issue-areas. A vertical system
can be described as a group of interdependent procedures whereby a cluster of values within an issue-area
is allocated by either a single horizontal system or a fusion of horizontal systems.13
Rating: 5. I believe Rosenau’s Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy is an extremely
important aspect of foreign policy analysis, as I believe the ideas set forth in his work are assumed in
today’s analysis. In 1966, when his piece was published, these ideas were groundbreaking and perhaps
conceptualized for the first time. Today there is ample evidence of pre-theory. Scholars conduct basic
pre-theories before setting forth general theories about foreign policy analysis. This can be seen in
international relations journals or international studies conferences whereby scholars from around the
world review and familiarize themselves with the research of their peers before setting out to conduct
their own research. Even when a new theory is developed, most publishings will be filled with
paraphrases and quotations from prominent scholars who have, in the past, laid the framework holding the
grand “pre-theory” in place. The scholar who sets off to research a new idea within this setting is basing
his fundamental knowledge of the “givens” of his topic on this agreed upon pre-theory. I believe this is
very important when conducting foreign policy analysis so as to start from what is “known” and develop
new ideas from that pre-theory pool of information.
1
Laura Neack, Jeanne A. K. Hey and Patrick J. Haney, Generational Change in Foreign Policy Analysis, p. 3
Id at p. 5-6
3
Id at p. 4
4
Id at p. 6-7
5
Id at p. 11-12
6
James N. Rosenau, Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy, p. 40-42
7
Id at p. 49
8
Id at p. 43
9
Id at p. 47
10
Id at p. 53
11
Id at p. 65
12
Id at p. 69
13
Id at p. 74
2