Friday, October 1, 2010

Constructivist Approach To Analysis Of Foreign Affairs


The emergence of constructivism in foreign policy analysis

At the beginning of the relationship of international studies in1920 when separated from the discipline of political science, IR scholars engaged in trying to describe and explain the dramatic events such as international war and peace (Rskin, 1990 at Kubalkova, 2001). This event reflects the mechanism of a complex process and multiple layers, which consist of pursuing state goals in interacting with one another, and means the countries used to achieve their goals.
In the 1950s, however, the split occurred in the discipline of International Relations. discipline was divided into two subfields with different theoretical interests: analysis of foreign policy on the one hand, and theories of International Relations at the lain.meskipun still in touch with the focus on the discipline of International Relations, Foreign Policy Analysis (AKLN) seek answers the question of why countries do certain foreign policy, through exploring what happens in the country. Meanwhile, the Theory of International Relations, focusing attention on international relations as a system, and then learn about the influence on the behavior of the system state. The start of the whole, the other from all the parts (kubalkova, 2001: 15). To this day, according to Margot Light (1994: 93), this separation continues to exist, Analysis of Foreign Policy and International Relations Theory is an intellectual separated, and to a certain extent their position against one another.
The division came from the disruption of social science scientific revolution in 1950, with its impact on the study of international relations emerged as the debate traditionalism versus behaviorism / scientism (Kubalkova, 2001: 17 -8). unlike a lot of philosophical traditionalism, scientism represents a major commitment to careful empirical investigation, data collection, model formulation either statistics or mathematics in the natural procedures and verification models. Collaboration between International Relations theory and scientism generate a theoretical project stresses on the system - an explanation stating the level of behavior that can be read through the neo-realism, neo-liberalism, neo-Marxism in the expanse of the examination of a more micro-level explanations such as individual and group influences (hudson. 2002: 2)
During the development of scientific Foreign Policy Analysis in the year 1960-80 has produced many scholars systematically (but not systemic) work analysis framework, known as the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy (SPKLN). Most of them believe Comparative Study of Foreign Affairs has strengthened the power of generalization of research on foreign policy. on the other hand, there are opinions that the Comparative Study of Foreign Affairs of the relative neglect of the wealth of descriptive studies particular attention to the government.
As artificial contradiction between Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations Theory leads to the paradox for Foreign Policy Analysis itself. On the one hand, it is an asset, and is a weakness on the other hand it is the power due to Foreign Policy Analysis is not affected by the rise and fall of a particular paradigm in the discipline of International Relations. moreover, no need for Foreign Policy Analysis scholars to engage with the paradigm of a certain flow to their research. They are flexible to work in an interdisciplinary project with other areas outside the discipline of International IHubungan. The disadvantage, however, in the sense that although the theory of international relations clearly its potential has never admitted the status of Foreign Policy Analysis in International Relations, and therefore they never considered seriously Policy Analysis in International Relations such as thematic issues that should be the case (houghton. 2007: 27).
What hougthton see as a weakness only be imagined from the fact. Some efforts have been encouraging signals that the Foreign Policy Analysis continues to attract international relations theory. Survey into some theoretical topics of International Relations textbooks to inform students about how to attract Foreign Policy Analysis is to International Relations theorists. Viotti Paul and Mark Kauppi (1999:199-225) include discussion of foreign policy into their text book chapters liberalism. Viotti and Kauppi memghubungkan issues of foreign policy with dependency theory. At other times, K. J. Holsti (1995), Charles Kegley Jr. and Eugene Wittkopt (2004: 61-91) combines Foreign Policy Analysis with structural realism or neo-realism. These companies demonstrate the ways that International Relations theorists try to educate connect Analysis of Foreign Policy to the ongoing debate in International Relations Theory.
The arrival of ideational factors in international relations theory has opened the way for constructivists to engage closely with the Foreign Policy analysis. Focus on ideational factors such as inter-subjectivity and the construction of meaning as opposed to factors that are considered material proved to be a post-cold war trend for Foreign Policy Analysis Affairs, although in the beginning he did not have the emphasis on social factors than the current study constructivist Foreign Policy Analysis (katzentein, 1996; Hopf, 2002). In strengthening the position of constructivism in Foreign Policy Analysis, Wendt (1999:3) came out with the idea that constructivist assumptions underlying the phenomenological tradition of the Foreign Policy Analysis.

Decision-making approach and crashed in the theory subfield of foreign policy analysis, in the field of international relations is greater. Foreign policy analysis (known as FPA) is distinguished from other theoretical approaches in international relations with the insistence that the focal point of the explanation must be a foreign policy decision-makers themselves and not structural or systemic phenomenon is greater. Explanation of variables from all levels of analysis, from the most micro to the most macro, are of interest to analysts to the extent that they affect the decision making process. Thus, from all subfields of international relations, integrative theoretical enterprise FPA is the most radical. Investigations into the role that personality variables, perceptions and constructions of meaning, group dynamics, organizational process, bureaucratic politics, domestic politics, culture, and systems play in decision-making structure of foreign policy is the core research agenda of the FPA. But as Richard Snyder, co-founder of FPA, and his colleagues Henry Bruck and Burton Sapin recorded in 1954, this is only important because it affects only the right agent in the international human-affairs decision-makers:
In a sense, then, in the age-old philosophy of social science debate about whether the agent or structure is a major determinant of behavior in the social world, FPA down right next to the agent. FPA is an agent-centered theory of international relations. foreign policy analysts argue that without an account of human agency in international relations theory, one can not develop a satisfactory account of the changes from time to time in international affairs. Furthermore, given the great destructive power inherent in international relations, the explanation which removes the examination of the role and effectiveness of human agency in the use and contains less power than they should.
Here, then, is again the difference between the approach of FPA and other acceptable approaches to understanding international relations. Not only FPA gives an account of the agent, but gives specific, not account, the public agency. In approaches such as game theory and rational choice explanations of foreign policy, the actor is conceptualized as a rational, utility maximizing decision maker generic. Conversely, the theory of FPA dismantle the generic "black-boxed" actor and found that the idiosyncrasies of the actors do influence the foreign policy choices. To use a term coined by Alexander George, FPA is more interested in the actor-specific "theories" of the actor-general "theory".
In sum, then, FPA generate integrative, agent-oriented, and actor-specific theory of radicals. In three ways, it remains a unique and easily distinguished subfield of international relations.
A Word About Explanandum What foreign policy analysts trying to explain? To use a common phrase, what the dependent variable in FPA?
Despite efforts to formulate "foreign policy" in terms of the operationalization of variables is consistent, it must be admitted that what had been shown to vary across the research programs in the FPA. Some programs focus on foreign policy as the output of decision making; others focus on the process of decision making in foreign policy. For example, the use of event data (discussed below) as the dependent variable is an example of one conceptualization of foreign policy as an output. In this tradition, foreign policy "events" obtained from the media can be encoded to some set of variables, such as the level of commitment implied by the events on the part of the act. Coding standards and then allow for direct comparison of output from various nation-state actors, as well as enabling a longitudinal analysis of the behavior of a nation's foreign policy.
It is also possible to take a more process-oriented approach to what is meant by foreign policy. For example, one can use the policy positions of various parties as the dependent variable, tracing how a particular position to be dominant in decision-making group from time to time. One of the cats could walk again but the other steps and examine how such policy stance crystallized in the first place of the basic cognitive processes such as perception, problem representation, and construction of meaning back again. Steps will be asked how come the group decision-making in the first place, how the structure and process groups that are created and changed from time to time within a society. Role of the conception of the nation-state, and about the various agencies and groups within the nation-state, could also be a focus of investigation.
Both approaches to the explanandum in the FPA has beneficial use, and insight from every kind of research to inform the other. It is true that the explanandum choice affects the choice of methodology: statistical testing of aggregate data may be useful in studies of events, while the process of tracking and interpretivist analysis might be more helpful with the process-oriented conceptualization of foreign policy.

No comments:

Post a Comment