foreign policy research paper topics

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Research Paper Topics

25 Foreign Policy Research Paper Topics

25 foreign policy topics for a successful paper.

• Foreign policy and the role of propaganda in it
• Foreign policy of Japan
• Foreign policy of People’s Republic of Korea
• Foreign policy in the age of globalization
• Colonisation and the relations between former colonies and metropoly
• Weapons of mass destruction as instrument of foreign policy
• The foreign policy of President Trump
• The importance of diplomacy in the foreign policy
• Can terrorism be controllable instrument of foreign policy?
• Foreign policy of USA and USSR during the Cold War
• The idea of “Global Democracy”
• Foreign policy and its dependance of resources of country
• What makes the country strong enough to be a powerful player on the global arena?
• Foreign policy of USA
• Foreign policy of EU
• Foreign policy of Russia
• Protecting human rights and the foreign policy
• Case study of Fashoda Incident
• Yalta Conference
• The changes in the foreign policy of China in the last decade
• The loudest foreign policy events in 2018
• Dictatorships and the similarities in their foreign policy
• The changes in the foreign policy of the USA after the tragedy of September 11th
• Military intervention as an instrument of the foreign policy
• Humanitarian aid as an instrument of the foreign policy

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, mda and the 2025 budget, centering human rights in ukraine's reconstruction, african youth: leveraging creativity for change, u.s.-rok bilateral dialogue for strengthening u.s.-rok alliance.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Transnational Threats Project
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia

American Innovation

Civic education, climate change, cybersecurity, defense budget and acquisition, defense and security, energy and sustainability, food security, gender and international security, geopolitics, global health, human rights, humanitarian assistance, intelligence, international development, maritime issues and oceans, missile defense, nuclear issues, transnational threats, water security.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) examines research topics surrounding global studies, international relations, & foreign policy issues.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Methods of foreign policy analysis.

• Philip B.K. Potter Philip B.K. Potter Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics, University of Virginia
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.34
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 30 November 2017

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) is the study of how states, or the individuals that lead them, make foreign policy, execute foreign policy, and react to the foreign policies of other states. This topical breadth results in a subfield that encompasses a variety of questions and levels of analysis, and a correspondingly diverse set of methodological approaches. There are four methods which have become central in foreign policy analysis: archival research, content analysis, interviews, and focus groups. The first major phase of FPA research is termed “comparative foreign policy.” Proponents of comparative foreign policy sought to achieve comprehensive theories of foreign policy behavior through quantitative analysis of “events” data. An important strand of this behavioral work addressed the relationship between trade dependence and foreign policy compliance. On the other hand, second-generation FPA methodology largely abandoned universalized theory-building in favor of historical methods and qualitative analysis. Second-generation FPA researchers place particular emphasis on developing case study methodologies driven by social science principles. Meanwhile, the third-generation of FPA scholarship combines innovative quantitative and qualitative methods. Several methods of foreign policy analysis used by third-generation FPA researchers include computer assisted coding, experiments, simulation, surveys, network analysis, and prediction markets. Ultimately, additional attention should be given to determining the degree to which current methods of foreign policy analysis allow predictive or prescriptive conclusions. FPA scholars should also focus more in reengaging foreign policy analysis with the core of international relations research.

• foreign policy analysis
• methodological approaches
• comparative foreign policy
• events data analysis
• case study methodologies
• network analysis
• prediction markets
• foreign policy behavior

Introduction

The periodic reassessment of research methods is important to the vitality of any academic discipline, but it has particular salience for a relatively young field such as foreign policy analysis (FPA). Hudson and Vore ( 1995 :221) acknowledge as much in their review of the FPA literature, noting that, “in the study of foreign policy decision-making, the issues are not theoretical but methodological.” I define foreign policy analysis as the study of how states, or the individuals that lead them, make foreign policy, execute foreign policy, and react to the foreign policies of other states. This topical breadth results in a subfield that encompasses a variety of questions and levels of analysis, and a correspondingly diverse set of methodological approaches. This essay surveys FPA’s methodological development from its inception to the present and, in the process, outlines the body of existing methodological practice and identifies opportunities for future progress. The objective is to provide both an indication of the role that various quantitative and qualitative methods play in the FPA literature and an entryway for contemporary researchers seeking to apply these approaches to future work. Where appropriate, the reader is directed to more specific guides to the intricacies and execution of each method.

For the sake of organizational clarity, this review follows a stylized format roughly based on Neack, Hey, and Haney’s ( 1995 ) concept of “generational change” in foreign policy analysis. The section that immediately follows is partially archeological, that is, it surveys methods of events data analysis that were important to the early development of FPA, but in some cases have fallen out of widespread usage. The second section, which surveys qualitative methods, most closely reflects the current state of the art in the discipline. The third and final section addresses both cutting-edge and underutilized approaches.

The Methodological Origins of Foreign Policy Analysis

The unique historical context and intellectual environment of the early 1950s – specifically, the Cold War and the behavioral revolution – crucially shaped the early methodological development of foreign policy analysis. These origins have proven central to the methodological arc of the sub-discipline.

FPA was born of the opportunities presented by the largely atheoretical nature of historically oriented diplomatic analysis and the exclusion of political leadership and decision-making from the prevailing theories espoused by mainline international relations. Prior to the advent of FPA as a distinct subfield, the study of foreign policy relied on traditional methods and had long been the domain of political historians and diplomatic strategists in the tradition of thinkers such as Thucydides and Machiavelli. Early FPA researchers saw this longstanding tradition as part of their heritage, but, inspired by the methodological imperatives of the behavioral revolution, believed that systematizing the study of foreign policy would lead to progress in the form of generalizable and cumulative findings. Thus, from its inception, FPA was an explicitly theoretical exercise aimed at uncovering the systematic elements of foreign policy interactions, and the methods deployed reflected this.

Simultaneously, in response to the near monopoly of system-level theory in international relations, the pioneers of FPA argued that individual leaders or groups of decision makers are often the primary drivers of outcomes in international interactions (Snyder et al. 1954 ). Thus, at the very core of FPA’s intellectual identity lies a revisionist methodology (vis-à-vis diplomatic history) applied to a revisionist conception of the basic unit of analysis (vis-à-vis mainline international relations).

The strategic environment, specifically the position of the US in the early Cold War, also figured prominently in the early development of FPA methods. In the face of this protracted geopolitical conflict, American political leaders became unusually involved in the FPA academic endeavor. The promise of concrete conclusions and general enthusiasm for “scientific” approaches to political problems that stemmed from the success of the Manhattan Project led the US government to invest large sums in early FPA efforts. With funding came the expansion of major research centers such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution that were instrumental to the maturation of FPA as a subfield and methodological approach in international relations. However, the money and attention from the policy community came with strings attached – most notably, an expectation for immediately relevant research. Over time this requirement became increasingly difficult to reconcile with the relatively high uncertainty surrounding quantitative estimates of foreign policy phenomenon.

The first major phase of FPA research that emerged from this crucible is termed “comparative foreign policy.” Proponents of comparative foreign policy argued that controlled comparison of the domestic sources of external conduct across different countries could produce comprehensive theories of foreign policy behavior. Methodologically speaking, these scholars sought to achieve these ends primarily through quantitative analysis of “events” data, which I describe in detail in the section that follows. However, this transition to quantitative analysis was, at least in part, a refinement of even earlier attempts to develop a more robust understanding of the foreign-policy decision making process. Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin’s ( 1954 ) classic essay was arguably the first to encourage international relations scholars to reopen the “black box” of the state in order to study the actions of individual leaders. A significant body of early qualitative case study research flowed from this call to arms. To take just two examples, Paige ( 1968 ) took a decision making approach to understanding the origins of the Korean War, while Allison ( 1971 ) followed along similar lines with his well-known study of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The decision making school provided a useful groundwork, particularly by identifying the leader as a crucial unit of analysis, a tradition that has persisted in FPA ever since. However, the developments of the behavioral revolution eventually overtook the primarily qualitative methods of these early FPA scholars. An increasing premium was placed on the generalizability garnered by operationalizing foreign policy interactions numerically and analyzing them quantitatively. This transition gave rise to the comparative foreign policy literature, which maintained an emphasis on decision making and scientific analysis, but moved away from case study analysis in favor of events data.

Comparative Foreign Policy and Events Data Analysis

The demand for foreign policy research that was scientific, generalizable, and policy relevant caught nascent foreign policy analysts unprepared. Where other areas of political science could respond to the challenge presented by the behavioral revolution with numerical data already at their disposal, the traditional fodder for diplomatic analysis – histories, documents, interviews, biographies, and memoirs – were less easily reduced into the sort of data necessary for rigorous, quantitative hypothesis testing.

This reality set foreign policy analysis somewhat behind other areas of political science because it had to overcome two distinct obstacles. First, new data had to be collected that was better suited to statistical analyses. Second, methods had to be developed with which to analyze these data within a behavioral framework. Among others, Rosenau ( 1966 ; 1968 ), McClelland ( 1970 ), and Brecher et al. ( 1969 ) took up these early challenges.

These early foreign policy analysts sought to develop a quantifiable unit of foreign policy interaction. McClelland conceived of this core unit of analysis as the foreign policy “event,” which is simply a formalized observation of a conflictual or cooperative interaction between states. McClelland’s intention was to fill the gap between the traditional narrative approach to foreign policy analysis and empirical techniques that relied upon discrete quantifiable data that could be explored in statistical analyses (Schrodt 1994 ). In effect, the foreign policy event takes a qualitative observation of foreign policy interaction and reduces it to a numerical or categorical form suited for statistical analysis.

The process of generating events data was and is time-consuming and costly. It is most commonly accomplished through the content analysis of thousands of newspaper reports on the interactions among nations in light of a previously defined set of criteria or codebook. Each observation uncovered in this way is then assigned some numerical score or a categorical code, which can then be analyzed quantitatively (Schrodt 1994 ). This potentially lengthy process requires that the researcher accomplish some or all of the following: identify sources, identify a period of analysis, create or borrow a coding scheme, train coders, generate the data, and check for reliability.

Foreign policy scholars have generated a significant number of important events datasets that remain central to quantitative methods of foreign policy analysis. The best of them are impressive collections offering decades-long periods of analysis, coverage of many countries (if not the entire international system) and standards of intercoder reliability well in excess of 80 percent (Burgess and Lawton 1972 ). The paragraphs that follow describe a subset of the available data. Particular attention is given to projects that were seminal to the methodological development of the field and those that generated datasets still widely used by contemporary scholars.

The World Event/Interaction Survey (WEIS)

The World Event/Interaction Survey Project began at the University of Southern California under the direction of Charles McClelland as a research project on the characteristics and processes of the international system (McClelland and Hoggard 1969 ). The initial WEIS dataset records the flow of action and response between countries (as well as non-governmental actors such as NATO and the United Nations) captured from a daily content analysis of the New York Times from January 1966 through December 1978 . This reliance on the New York Times produces a well-known bias toward western perspectives, which was acknowledged from the outset by McClelland and his co-authors. However, they argued that by using a single source they were better able to remove the “noise” surrounding observations. Furthermore, the inclusion of non-state actors raises important methodological issues with regard to the basic unit of analysis. This question has taken on increased salience with the rise in concern about terrorist activities by non-state international entities.

The basic unit of analysis in the dataset is the interaction, which is simply a verbal or physical exchange between nations ranging from agreements to threats to military force. Each of these observations is coded to identify the actors, target, date, action category, and arena. The WEIS databank also provides brief qualitative textual descriptions of each event. These narratives provide context, which facilitates the process of identifying and understanding outliers and applying statistical findings back to political reality – both important for successful events analysis. The initial WEIS effort has been continuously updated and is presently current through 1993 (Tomlinson 1993 ). Other projects, such as the Kansas Event Data System, have applied WEIS coding rules to new research.

WEIS data has been widely used in the FPA literature, both by McClelland and his students and by outsiders who took advantage of these public domain data to test their own questions. The applications are diverse, underlining the versatility of well-designed events datasets. Several early examples are noted by Rummel ( 1979 ): Tanter ( 1974 ) used these data to understand the dynamics of the two major Berlin crises of the Cold War ( 1948–1949 and 1961 ); Kegley et al. ( 1974 ) explored patterns of international conflict and cooperation; while many others began the ongoing process of understanding the relationships among key contextual variables such as relative development, size, and political system, on international conflict, cooperation, and systemic stability (Rosenau 1974 ). Applications continue to this day. For example, Reuveny and Kang ( 1996b ) utilized WEIS data in their exploration of causality in the relationship between international trade and conflict.

The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB)

The COPDAB project was designed by Azar and colleagues (Azar 1980 ; 1982 ; Azar et al. 1972 ) as a longitudinal dataset of international and domestic events developed through content analysis of daily newspapers. In an advance over WEIS methods, COPDAB data is drawn from a wide variety of international and regional media outlets, thereby avoiding some potential bias issues.

COPDAB coders scored each event on a 16-point ordinal scale ranging from cooperative interactions to full-scale violence. The resulting dataset covers the interactions of 135 countries from 1948 to 1978 and can be analyzed at levels of aggregation ranging from the day to the year. Each record includes nine variables: date of event, actor initiating the event, target of the event, issue area(s), contextual information about the incident, and the source of the information about the event. The COPDAB dataset is particularly useful for those interested in the interactions between interstate and civil conflict and cooperation, as complementary datasets exist for both international and domestic events.

While the WEIS and COPDAB datasets are clearly conceptually related, scholars have disagreed about their compatibility (Howell 1983 ; Vincent 1983 ; Goldstein and Freeman 1990 ). The underlying definitions of conflict and cooperation are quite similar; however, coding differences introduce the potential for inconsistencies. Reuveny and Kang ( 1996a ) explore this issue in detail with a series of statistical tests and time-series analyses. They argue that COPDAB and WEIS are indeed compatible for the overlapping period between 1966 and 1978 . Building on this logic, they combine the WEIS and COPDAB series to create a larger events dataset covering the period from 1948 to 1993 that is potentially useful for scholars interested in working with a longer period of analysis.

International Crisis Behavior Project (ICB)

Although the final two projects outlined here (the International Crisis Behavior project and the Correlates of War [COW] project) are often excluded from discussions of foreign policy analysis, they are clearly a continuation of events research and are among the most frequently updated and widely used events datasets. The distinctive feature of the ICB and COW datasets is that they primarily focus on international conflict and therefore lack the range of conflictual and cooperative events that characterize the data projects discussed to this point. Researchers should note, however, that the ICB project does provide some indirect data on cooperation.

Michael Brecher and Jonathan Wilkenfeld launched the International Crisis Behavior project in 1975 with the goal of creating a comparative resource for those studying the concept of “international crisis.” There are two defining conditions for a crisis, which are built on work done by Azar (of the COPDAB project): “(1) a change in type and/or an increase in intensity of disruptive, that is, hostile verbal or physical, interactions between two or more states, with a heightened probability of military hostilities; that, in turn, (2) destabilizes their relationship and challenges the structure of an international system – global, dominant, or subsystem” (Brecher and Ben-Yehuda 1985 ).

The ICB project is congruent with many of the core concepts in FPA – for example, in the operationalization of key elements of decision maker perception. This is perhaps unsurprising, as many of the ICB’s primary researchers are steeped in the FPA tradition. To take one example, Michael Brecher’s ( 1974 ) book on Israeli foreign policy decisions, which pre-dates his work on the ICB project, is often cited as a seminal contribution to FPA that seeks to characterize a nation’s psychological and cultural environment as an access point to an understanding of its foreign policy.

As of January 2009 , the core systemic dataset that results from this definition codes 452 incidents from the end of World War I through 2006 (version 9.0). Each crisis is coded for a number of variables, ranging from characterizations of decision maker perception to operationalizations of structural and environmental factors as well as crisis characteristics and outcomes.

The ICB project is unusual in that it proceeds simultaneously at multiple complementary levels. There are independent actor and system level datasets that allow the researcher to explore distinctions between systemic and national level explanations for crisis emergence and behavior. In addition, the project provides qualitative data in the form of a brief narrative description of each crisis, 9 in-depth volumes comprising 15 in-depth case studies; and 14 other unpublished studies. These serve as an aid to the researcher interested in adding additional nuance to statistical findings generated from quantitative analysis.

Correlates of War Project (COW)

Like the ICB project, the COW project does not attempt to capture multiple tiers of conflict and cooperation, but rather focuses on conflict. Two definitions were developed by the COW project in the 1980s, namely, a “militarized interstate dispute” (MID), and a “militarized interstate crisis” (MIC). The former is defined as: “[A] set of interactions between or among states involving threats to use military force, displays of military force, or actual uses of military force […] these acts must be explicit, overt, non-accidental, and government sanctioned” (Gochman and Maoz 1984 ). This “evolves into a militarized interstate crisis when a member of the interstate system on each side of the dispute indicates by its actions its willingness to go to war to defend its interests or to obtain its objectives.” These are steps two and three along a four-step ladder of growing belligerence, beginning with an “interstate dispute” and culminating in an “interstate war” (Leng and Singer 1988 ).

The majority of scholars currently working with COW events data use the MID dataset. The current version of the dataset contains 2331 militarized disputes from 1816 to 2001 coded for duration, outcome, and level of fatality. In addition, there are several complementary datasets on various metrics of international interaction (ranging from alliance to power to geography) that are associated with the broader COW project and can be easily mapped onto the MID dataset. This body of quantitative data is perhaps the most widely used at the present time – particularly among scholars interested in conflict.

Trade Dependence and Foreign Policy Compliance

An important strand of the behavioral work of the 1970s and 1980s addressed the relationship between trade dependence and foreign policy compliance. While this was far from the only research question to draw on quantitative data, the methodological challenges that confronted it were representative of those faced by quantitative FPA in general and are therefore worthy of some attention. Several scholars working in this area (e.g., Richardson and Kegley 1980 ; Moon 1983 ; 1985 ) argued that relatively smaller and weaker states adopt the foreign policies of their dominant trading partners. Thus, economic dependence severely constrains the independent decision making of leaders in states that are economically reliant on larger patrons. However, consensus on this conclusion was elusive, in large part because of how difficult it is to measure the two key concepts – dependence and compliance. The inevitable result was that discussion of the relationship became bogged down in issues of definition and operationalization. This is symptomatic of a larger issue in the quantitative study of foreign policy. Because the operationalization of the amorphous concepts in foreign policy necessitates discretion from the researcher, it is easy to critique the underlying assumptions that gave rise to the data, not to mention the model. Furthermore, if more than one scholar takes on a question in FPA, they typically settle on different operationalizations of the same underlying phenomenon. A high profile example of this trend can be found in the proliferation of events datasets on conflict and cooperation that has already been discussed. The unfortunate result is that many studies are not comparable or cumulative to the degree we find in the hard sciences.

Events Data – Methodological Challenges

Events data analysis poses a number of methodological challenges that should be taken into account by those analyzing foreign policy. The first of these issues relates to the very core of the events data endeavor – that is, the idea that foreign policy incidents can be reduced to a single quantifiable value. Despite the best efforts of the designers of the data projects described here, it remains difficult to effectively accomplish a cardinal or even ordinal ranking of disparate foreign policy events. However, many of the statistical approaches widely used in political science require cardinal level data, or at least data spaced at even thresholds. As a result, those seeking to generate statistical models of events data need to be particularly careful to apply methods that rely upon defensible assumptions about the nature of the underlying data.

Researchers should also be aware of methodological issues that may arise from the relative sparseness of positive observations in events data. The degree to which this is a problem depends on the type of model and the level of aggregation that is used, but if one considers the daily probability of a foreign policy event it is apparent that null observations would dominate the dataset. King and Zeng ( 1999 ; 2001 ) demonstrate that bias and inappropriately inflated statistical significance may arise in models of zero-inflated data. This is particularly problematic in instances where these null data contain no real information. There are several potential solutions to this problem should it arise. Tomz, King, and Zeng ( 1999 ) suggest a rare events correction for logistic analysis, which they have made available as an addition to the widely used STATA software. A less sophisticated check for rare events bias is to simply drop a random subset of null observations in order to confirm that findings derived from the remaining sample are consistent with the original result.

The non-independence of foreign policy events presents an additional methodological challenge. Non-independence simply means that positive foreign policy interactions tend to contribute to future positive interactions, while negative events are associated with subsequent negative events. At first appearance this might seem obvious, but this reality undercuts an assumption of independence that underpins most statistical models used in quantitative foreign policy analysis. Beck, Katz, and Tucker ( 1998 ) did much of the work that brought this problem to the attention of the discipline and they suggest a solution that entails generating a natural cubic spline with knots at the first and second derivative.

FPA scholars working with events data should also guard against selection bias (sometimes referred to as selection effects) when designing research, as inattention to this methodological challenge can significantly skew findings from both quantitative and qualitative tests. Selection bias typically arises from pre- or post-sampling that preferentially includes or excludes a particular type of observation from the sample that is subsequently used in testing. This is particularly easy to do when working with data on foreign policy because it is relatively easy to identify events, but difficult to tease out non-events. The trouble is that without an accurate characterization of non-events it is impossible to say anything about the causes or incidence of the events. To take one prominent recent example of this methodological challenge, Robert Pape’s recent work on the causes of suicide terror ( 2005 ) has come under fire for “sampling on the dependent variable” (Ashworth et al. 2008 ). Because Pape limits his sample to incidents of suicide terror, he effectively leaves out the instances in which such attacks did not occur. As a result, his research design prevents him from effectively speaking of when suicide terror does and does not occur.

Beyond issues related to the application of statistical methods to events data, there is an additional conceptual concern regarding the unit of analysis that should command attention from foreign policy researchers. Because FPA concerns the foreign policy of states, but sees this policy as emerging from the actions of individuals, traditional units of analysis are blurred. The foreign policy event is the result of the interaction and interplay between leaders, organizations, institutions, and states; however, many of the microfoundational theories that underpin the FPA endeavor are cast at the level of the individual decision maker. As a result, events analysis brings with it the nascent challenge of explaining how individual actions aggregate to the foreign policy actions of states. To put the issue more succinctly, while FPA theories distinguish themselves from mainline international relations by opening the black box of the state, the empirical data collected by scholars interested in events analysis typically returned to the state as the central unit of analysis.

There are also very practical concerns to bear in mind – simple tasks related to data manipulation remain some of the primary challenges confronting researchers interested in working with events data. It can be a nontrivial task to gather and combine data on foreign policy events with the various explanatory and control variables that are required for regression analysis. Researchers confronted with these difficulties should be aware of the EUGene software developed by Scott Bennett and Allan Stam ( 2000 ). EUGene is a basic data management tool that simplifies quantitative analysis of foreign policy interactions. The software offers several advantages. First, it allows for relatively easy transition between commonly used units of analysis – country–year, dyad–year, and directed dyad–year. Second, the software is capable of easily combining many of the events datasets discussed here with basic demographic and geopolitical data including data uploaded by the user.

Finally, there is the issue of collecting new events data. The substantial early investments in projects like WEIS and COPDAB were made at the high point of governmental and institutional enthusiasm for events datasets – both datasets were products of the National Science Foundation’s well funded Data Development for International Research (DDIR) project. However, DDIR funding and government and private support for events data collection projects in general declined markedly by the mid-1990s. While this decline had many causes, it was in part brought on by the difficulties that comparative foreign policy had delivering on its early promise. It proved far more challenging than expected to build policy relevant quantitative models with predictive capacity. The relative decline in interest on the part of traditional funding sources raises the issue of how new events data might be generated. Computer coding of electronically stored sources, which will be discussed in greater detail later in this essay, has emerged as one way to address this dilemma.

Qualitative Methods of Foreign Policy Analysis

The behavioral revolution and Cold War politics proved fertile ground for the emergence of FPA. However, the first major challenge for the young field also stemmed from this dual heritage. The problem was that these divergent intellectual pedigrees gave rise to methodological requirements that were at times mutually exclusive – on the one hand, an imperative from behavioralism for generalizability, and, on the other, a low tolerance for error on the part of Cold Warriors seeking to immediately inform policy with scientific findings. The emerging recognition of this tension and the seemingly unavoidable high error terms in quantitative models of foreign policy brought an end to the exuberance among academics and the US government for quantitative, events-driven foreign policy research. Policy makers backed away from direct involvement in the FPA endeavor, while academics tempered their commitment to events data and quantitative methods. What emerged was a second generation of FPA methodology, one that largely abandoned universalized theory-building in favor of historical methods and qualitative analysis (Neack et al. 1995 ).

The primary weapon in the arsenal of second-generation FPA researchers is the case study. However, this transition should not be viewed as a complete departure from that which came before it. Many of these scholars place particular emphasis on developing case study methodologies driven by social science principles, with the explicit goal of building techniques that provide intellectual rigor comparable to that of quantitative approaches. The result has been a robust discussion of the role and execution of qualitative methods.

It is admittedly artificial to divide methods of foreign policy analysis by “generation,” as this implies clean transitions that are in reality far more blurred. While the concept of generational change is useful for understanding the broad developments in the field, the reader should be aware that there are many exceptions to the general rule. Alongside second generation case studies were a wide range of quantitative approaches that, while often abandoning the drive toward universalized theory that characterized previous work in comparative foreign policy, stressed both the outputs and the outcomes of foreign policy processes and actions. Similarly, careful qualitative analysis of foreign-policy decision making has always been an element of foreign policy analysis, and therefore cannot only be considered to have followed sequentially on the quantitative work done in comparative foreign policy (although it did take on renewed prominence).

Case Study Analysis

There is no shortage of examples of the excellent use of case study methodology in foreign policy analysis. Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision ( 1971 ) is often cited as a seminal piece of research in this area with an innovative methodological approach. While Allison’s volume is concerned with a single incident – the Cuban missile crisis – the book is not a single case study, but rather three. Allison explored the US decision making process in the context of three competing explanatory theories: a rational actor model, an organizational process model, and a government politics model. Each of these three explanatory models receives independent analysis in a separate section of the book. Allison ( 1971 :258) argues that these three models combine to provide a clear understanding of decision making in the context of the Cuban Missile Crisis: “Model I fixes the broader context, the larger national patterns, and the shared images. Within this context, Model II illuminates the organizational routines that produce the information, options, and action. Model III focuses in greater detail on the individuals who constitute a government and the politics and procedures by which their competing perceptions and preferences are combined.”

Another important strand of qualitative foreign policy analysis draws on work from political psychology to theoretically inform case study analysis of the foreign policy decision making process. These efforts began with “operational code analysis,” which involves determining how decision makers’ core beliefs shape their foreign policy reactions (George 1969 ; Holsti 1970 ). Operational codes include decision makers’ beliefs about the likelihood of violence, their ability to shape or prevent it, as well as leadership strategies and styles.

Robert Axelrod applies a related technique, termed cognitive mapping, to understand the influence of leadership beliefs on foreign policy interactions. Cognitive mapping entails defining a decision maker’s stated goals and then determining the causal linkages between these goals as a way of predicting likely behavior. Several applications of this technique can be found in an edited volume titled Structure of Decision (Axelrod 1976 ). A more recent application of cognitive mapping can be found in Johnston’s ( 1995 ) work on Chinese–American relations.

This early work developed into a substantial body of foreign policy analysis based more broadly on the psychology of decision makers, a method that figures prominently in analyses conducted at the individual level. Larson ( 1985 ) is a leading example of this sort of scholarship. In her book, Origins of Containment , she traces the path of Cold War politics in the context of the cognitive psychology of American policy makers.

A great deal of work has been done in recent years to improve and formalize case study methodology. One such volume, King, Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry ( 1994 ), has been influential (and controversial) enough that it is often referred to simply by the initials of its authors – KKV. King, Keohane, and Verba draw on their diverse methodological backgrounds to argue that the core logic of causal inference and control should apply as much to qualitative work as it does to quantitative research. They suggest that, by applying the logic of statistics, it is possible to produce theoretically robust and generalizable results while increasing certainty in the validity of qualitative findings.

Bennett and George’s ( 2005 ) more recent work on case study analysis has also emerged as an important contribution to the development of robust qualitative methods. This book lays out methods for designing case studies that are maximally useful for the formulation of policy, which remains a fundamental goal of foreign policy analysis. Bennett and George suggest greater emphasis on within-case analysis, process tracing, and theory building. While these suggestions differ markedly from those of KKV, the underlying goal is quite similar – to create scientific case studies from which lessons can be systematically drawn. In this sense, both volumes speak convincingly to the aforementioned tension between nuance and generalizability that plagues methods of foreign policy analysis.

This issue of generalizability has developed into the core methodological challenge surrounding case study analysis both in foreign policy analysis and in political science more generally. While systematic knowledge of foreign policy interactions does not necessarily require the numerical comparability that comes with quantitative research, some degree of generalizability remains important to the independent identity of foreign policy analysis, as it is this forward-looking element that separates the sub-discipline from diplomatic history. However, comparisons across cases are difficult for two reasons. First, case studies require such a depth of knowledge and investment of time that it is unusual for a scholar to accomplish more than a handful of them on any given question, though there are important exceptions (e.g., Brecher 2008 ). Second, the comparatively loose structure of case studies can hinder comparison, as many analyses fail to address the same subjects on the same terms. One way that these challenges can be overcome is through collaboration within a consistent framework.

An example of such collaboration can be found in a relatively recent volume edited by Beasley et al. ( 2002 ). The volume brings together qualitative work from 15 independent researchers systematically exploring the foreign policies of 13 states. Through the coordinating efforts of the editor, the volume maintains a degree of comparability across the cases while drawing on the deep knowledge of the individual contributors. As a result, the reader is able to engage in comparative analysis within a coherent theoretical framework, allowing for the quick identification of patterns and outliers. There are several examples of similarly structured volumes, and they indicate an important role for collaboration as an approach to boosting the sample sizes of qualitative analyses and thereby the generalizability of findings. The result is “comparative foreign policy,” but of a qualitative variety.

Another interesting solution to the issue of case comparability is found in the qualitative research that has emerged from the qualitative side of the International Crisis Behavior Project, which was already mentioned in the context of events data analysis. These case studies, though they were written over many years and appear in a variety of different outlets, follow a similar format and concern themselves with a consistent set of issues. As a result, they are an explicitly cumulative effort. With each new case study, the body of comparable knowledge increases and this expansion is accompanied by improvement in the robustness of findings.

Gathering Qualitative Data

Those interested in applying case study methodology will need raw material with which to build their analysis. For many questions, considerable ground can be covered using basic library research techniques and secondary sources. However, some of the most fruitful case studies (in terms of their contribution to the existing body of knowledge) bring new information to light. There are several methods of obtaining original qualitative data. The sections that follow will briefly discuss four methods that have become central in foreign policy analysis: archival research, content analysis, interviews, and focus groups.

Archival Research

Original source material can be a crucial element of a quality case study. Typically, scholars uncover such information through archival research. Relevant foreign policy materials are commonly found in the document collections housed in presidential libraries, national archives, and universities. While the basic concept behind archival research is self-explanatory, the actual process of gaining access to collections and navigating their contents can intimidate the neophyte. There are a number of guides to archival methods that can alleviate such anxiety. Directions for identifying and searching appropriate archival sources as well as tips for navigating the archives themselves can be found in Marc Trachtenberg’s ( 2006 ) recent volume on methods – Appendix II will be of particular interest to those seeking to utilize archival methods. Hill ( 1993 ), Larson ( 2001 ), and Lustick ( 1996 ) provide additional detail on the nuances of archival research.

Content Analysis

Content analysis is a hybrid method that has played a longstanding and important role in quantitative and qualitative foreign policy analysis. The section of this essay on events data already discussed the ways in which content has been used to generate quantitative data for statistical analysis. For example, some of the earliest approaches to events data generation coded the content of elite communication (Winham 1969 ). However, more detailed content analyses have also been used to generate the raw material for case studies or other qualitative analyses. Ole Holsti ( 1969 ) was a pioneer of this method, while, more recently, Steve Walker and his students at Arizona State have developed a typology and quantitative content analysis scheme for operational code analysis (Walker et al. 1998 ). Those interested in additional detail on the mechanics of content analysis should consult Weber ( 1985 ), Neuendorf ( 2002 ), and West ( 2001 ).

Because the role of the individual figures so prominently in foreign policy analysis, interviews can be a particularly valuable method for accessing information about the mechanics of the decision making process. Interviews enable FPA scholars to delve deeply into the idiosyncrasies of the foreign policy process, gleaning deep insights from decision makers and those around them. Over time, FPA scholars have developed a robust set of interview methods designed to enable researchers to maximize the acquisition of information without introducing biases into findings.

There are a number of excellent examples of innovative interview methods in foreign policy analysis, which can serve as models for those interested in interview research. Prime among them are FPA classics such as Yuen Foong Khong’s Analogies at War ( 1992 ). Based on a series of interviews with senior officials (and archival research), Khong argues that leaders routinely reference the past when making foreign policy decisions and that this cognitive bias can profoundly alter decision making. Schoutlz ( 1987 ) does similar interview work in the context of US policy toward Latin America. More recently, Silber and Little ( 1995 ) draw on a series of interviews to uncover the foreign policy interactions at play in the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. Berg ( 2001 ), Brenner et al. ( 1985 ), McCracken ( 1988 ), Mishler ( 1986 ), and Seidman ( 1998 ) provide useful, in-depth tutorials on interview methods.

Focus Groups

Focus group research is a derivative of interview methodology in which the researcher attempts to facilitate an organized discussion among the participants. In foreign policy analysis this typically takes the form of a meeting of experts in a particular foreign policy area, or participants in a prior foreign policy decision. Focus group methods can be particularly informative because the emerging consensus that comes from such discussions pools the knowledge of the participating individuals and therefore can overcome some of the potential biases of recollection and self-inflation that accompany individual interviews. However, concerns arise as well, due to some of the very same pathologies that FPA scholars have identified in the context of group decision making. For example, Janis’s ( 1972 ) concept of groupthink can take hold in such settings, with focus group members avoiding controversy and settling instead on a comfortable consensus, even if this consensus is out of step with reality. Along similar lines, the value of elite focus groups can suffer due to deference to higher-ranking participants and domination of the discussion by more talkative individuals who might overshadow important contributions by those less inclined to assert themselves (Krueger 2000 ).

Third Generation Methods of Foreign Policy Analyses

Neack, Hey, and Haney’s ( 1995 ) concept of generational change, to which this review has adhered thus far, captures only part of the methodological richness of FPA. There have long been methods of foreign policy analysis that fall outside this strict quantitative/qualitative divide, and there has been considerable recent growth in these alternative methods. Meanwhile, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches to FPA has become increasingly blurred as the relative advantages of each approach have become more widely recognized. These events auger the arrival of a third generation of FPA scholarship that combines innovative quantitative and qualitative methods, thereby bridging the internal contradictions that split the second wave from the first and unifying a variety of methods of foreign policy analysis.

Several methods of foreign policy analysis are available to aspiring third generation foreign policy analysts seeking to move beyond events data and case studies including: computer assisted coding, experiments, simulation, surveys, network analysis, and prediction markets. The sections that follow will briefly introduce each of these methods, though the list is by no means exhaustive.

Machine Coding

Computer assisted coding of electronically stored information offers several advantages and represents an important methodological innovation that is likely to play an increasingly significant role in the future of foreign policy analysis. First, machine coding can be more reliable than human coding simply because it removes the possibility of individual error and the resulting questions of intercoder reliability. Second, machine coding is extremely rapid. Where earlier events datasets were generated over periods of many years, computers can sift through huge quantities of data in minutes. The result is that machine coding greatly reduces the cost of events data generation – effectively bringing control over such data to the masses (Gerner et al. 1994 ; Schrodt and Gerner, 1994 ). However, the obvious benefits of machine coding are accompanied by two important caveats: the initial programming that creates the coding rules must be accurate, and the raw data must exist in a machine readable format (Gerner et al. 1994 ). Advocates of human coding often counter that the low cost and speed of machine coding are accomplished at the expense of accuracy and nuance.

At present, the best example of a machine coded events project is the Kansas Event Data System (KEDS). This project is among the most active events datasets, due in part to the relatively low cost and speed of generating data in this manner. KEDS provides a computer program that enables users to specify and create personalized events datasets with a variety of output options. The researchers on the KEDS team use this software to code news reports and generate political event data focusing on the Middle East, the Balkans, and West Africa; however, this approach can be extended to other regions or the international system as a whole.

The machine coding community, including members of the KEDS project, is particularly interested in predictive models built on the unique capacities of this technology (Schrodt, 1979 ; 1994 ; Gerner et al. 1994 ; Schrodt and Gerner 2000 ; Shellman forthcoming ). Machine coding not only partially circumvents the need for large financial investments in events data by reducing the required labor and time, but also has the potential to address some of the concerns about the lack of predictive capacity that caused the decline in external funding in the first place. Because machine coding concentrates the researcher’s effort on developing decision rules rather than on the coding itself, once underway these programs can generate empirical data in real time. Such models that draw on continuously updated data effectively serve as early warning systems capable of identifying when political phenomena of interest are likely to occur. For example, Shellman and Stewart use machine coding to predict incidents of forced migration, which they applied with some success in Haiti (Shellman and Stewart 2007 ). This particular application of events data remains at the cutting edge of the FPA literature and will likely continue to be a productive avenue for future research.

Experiments and Simulation in Foreign Policy Analysis

Like all social science, foreign policy analysis struggles methodologically with the issues of control and causality. The quantitative and qualitative methods already discussed took hold in foreign policy analysis in part because the gold standard of the scientific method – experimental control – is typically off limits either for practical or for ethical reasons. However, with careful attention to design and feasibility, there are applications for experimental methods in the study of foreign policy, and where there are not, researchers have begun to turn their attention to simulation, which can achieve some of the same objectives. To take one recent example, Christensen and Redd ( 2004 ) examine how the context of foreign-policy decision making affects choice and assess this relationship in a controlled experiment conducted on undergraduates. They find that, at least in this context, the way in which information is presented directly affects the decision maker’s evaluation.

In recent years the nuts and bolts of experimental methods have drawn increasing attention. Along these lines, McDermott ( 2002 ) provides an interesting discussion of the origins and practice of experimental methods in political science, as well as the unique challenges this approach presents. One such challenge that should be considered carefully by those designing experiments meant to speak to foreign policy behavior is the trade-off between internal and external validity in experiments. Internal validity indicates that the proposed relationship between the independent and dependent variables is the true causal one. When such validity is high it means that extraneous variables and alternative explanations have been ruled out. While typically very difficult to achieve in the social sciences, high internal validity results from proper randomization in an experiment. External validity speaks to the degree to which a proposed relationship is generalizable to a broader set of cases or the world at large. Thus, experimental methods are powerful because they are high in internal validity; however, a leap occurs when we attempt to generalize experimentally derived results to actual political behavior.

This leap can be particularly worrisome when it is from an experimental finding generated from a non-elite individual – for example, an undergraduate student as was the case in the Christensen and Redd study – to a foreign policy decision maker. In such cases, the assumption of external validity may not be reasonable. Mintz, Redd, and Vedlitz ( 2006 ) explore this issue in detail, replicating an experiment on the subject of counterterrorism with a group of college student and a group of military officers. The authors find significant differences between these groups, suggesting that experimental subjects cannot be expected to play the role of foreign-policy decision makers without careful regard for their actual background. However, while these scholars argue that average individuals can tell us very little about the behavior of elites, they do find it more acceptable to use subjects like students as a sample of the public at large.

Simulation, a close relative of experimental methods, has its roots in the longstanding practices of war gaming and diplomatic analysis. However, recent efforts in this area draw extensively on advances in computing power and the internet. Research in this area builds on early work by the Inter-Nation Simulation (INS) project (Guetzkow et al. 1963 ), and slightly later efforts by Hermann ( 1969 ) and Alker and Brunner ( 1969 ).

The International Communication and Negotiation Simulations (ICONS) project is an ongoing extension of this early work that allows political practitioners and students to develop decision making and foreign policy skills through computer aided interactive simulation. Jonathan Wilkenfeld and Richard Brecht developed ICONS in the 1980s, building on Noël’s ( 1969 ) early POLIS simulations. As presently formulated, the ICONS project is more about training than research, but the technique presents an intriguing methodological opportunity for those interested in testing theories of foreign policy interactions in a controlled environment.

Survey Research in Foreign Policy Analysis

When it is focused at the elite level, as it often is, survey research in foreign policy analysis directly relates to the previously discussed interview methods. This stands in some contrast to the way in which survey research is conducted in other areas of political science. For example, in American politics there is a long tradition of survey research designed to pinpoint public opinion on a myriad of topics. In order to accomplish this, researchers are obliged to reach as representative a sample of the population as possible. In contrast, FPA’s focus on elite perception and behavior as a determinant of foreign policy leads to the wider usage of elite interviews.

While surveys lack the depth of an interview, they offer the corresponding advantage of breadth. First, by aggregating information from a more significant number of sources, a survey can minimize some of the idiosyncratic error that can plague interview methodology. Second, in a survey analysis it is easier to control for secondary variables that might influence the recollection or reporting of subjects. Finally, surveys can both contribute to qualitative analysis, and serve to generate high-quality data for aggregate analysis.

Holsti and Rosenau’s ( 1979 ; 1980 ) work on post-Vietnam attitudes is an excellent example of what can be accomplished in foreign policy analysis with elite surveys. Holsti and Rosenau were interested in the degree to which historical experience altered the perceptions and beliefs of opinion leaders and decision makers. Their expectation was that the Vietnam conflict significantly altered the perspective of those who drew their primary experience from that conflict rather than World War II. To answer this question they extensively surveyed groups that they believed to comprise the national leadership structure – military personnel, foreign service officers, business executives, labor leaders, clergy, media, etc. – and found significant differences between occupations and within generations.

Surveys can be particularly valuable when conducted repeatedly over several years, as this allows for longitudinal analysis – something that is crucial if one is interested in changes over time. Both the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conduct quadrennial surveys of government, academic, military, religious, and scientific “influentials” in order to measure the content of and changes in elite opinion. These surveys, and others that could be conducted along similar lines, are an underutilized resource for foreign policy analysis. Presser et al. ( 2004 ) and Rea and Parker ( 2005 ) are useful resources for those seeking additional detail on the mechanics of survey research and questionnaire design.

Network Analysis

FPA scholars can also benefit from the recent explosion of interest among political scientists in network analysis. Social network analysis, which is simply the mapping and measuring of relationships among entities in a complex system, is a useful tool for modeling foreign policy relationships because it incorporates both bilateral connections and wider connections among the larger group. Because of this, the technique analysis allows FPA scholars to understand relational data – the contacts, ties, connections, and transfers between decision makers that cannot be cleanly reduced to properties of the leaders themselves (Scott 1991 ). Furthermore, a network theoretic framework consistently captures the role of third parties in foreign policy interactions, which prove to be crucial to understanding outcomes.

Relational approaches have long been an underlying element in the study of foreign policy. For example, Anne-Marie Slaughter ( 2004 ) writes on the relationship between elite networks and international conflict. However, quantitative social network analysis first began to make significant inroads into political science in the 1990s primarily through the study of “policy networks” (Marin and Mayntz 1992 ; Marsh and Rhodes 1992 ), though there are earlier, pioneering examples (e.g., Eulau and Siegel 1981 ; Tichy et al. 1979 ). These studies, as well as later work in international relations (e.g., (Hammarström and Birger 2002 ; Wilkinson 2002 ; Montgomery 2005 ; Heffner-Burton and Montgomery 2006 ; Maoz 2006 ; Ward 2006 ), provide models for future work with foreign policy networks. In short, relational thinking and social network analysis have already contributed to the clarification of a number of puzzles in political science and present a potentially powerful way of approaching foreign policy analysis.

Prediction Markets

Prediction markets are information exchanges built to generate forecasts using a price mechanism. Futures generated from predictions of upcoming events are traded, such that their value is tied to a particular outcome. The result of this arrangement is that the market prices of these futures can be interpreted as the predicted probability of that outcome. There is a significant body of research that establishes the ability of markets to reduce error in predictions. By aggregating the bets of many individuals, these markets effectively use the price setting mechanism to uncover the consensus about a future foreign policy event in much the same way that the stock market predicts the economic performance of a company or oil futures respond to the expected scarcity of that resource. Pennock et al. ( 2001 ) demonstrate that in many cases prediction markets systematically outperform the estimates of even the best individual analysts. There are only a few examples of longstanding prediction markets that handle political futures. These include Intrade, which floats, among many other things, a diverse group of political contracts, and the longer running Iowa Electronic Market, which is an academically oriented project designed for evaluating the probability of election outcomes.

Prediction markets have been applied sparingly in international relations and foreign policy analysis, but have tremendous potential for future application because they offer an interactive mechanism with which individual foreign policy experts can aggregate their knowledge and opinions. Interestingly, given the methodological diversity that characterizes FPA as a sub-discipline, the method by which each expert who trades futures on a prediction market reaches his or her own conclusion is irrelevant. Thus, a prediction market can provide an alternative way to combine and generalize both deep qualitative knowledge and quantitative findings. Furthermore, this approach presents a novel way of dealing with error and uncertainty.

Prospective researchers in this area should note that some early applications of this approach have not gone smoothly. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) recently abandoned a promising plan to use a futures market to forecast the probability of important foreign policy events such as regime change and terrorist attacks when the media picked up on the program and it became controversial. Despite a robust literature on the efficacy of such markets, politicians and segments of the public seized upon the effort as being unethical or even nonsensical (Looney 2003 ). The unwanted attention led DARPA, which usually operates well beneath the public radar, to cancel the project almost immediately. It remains an open question whether this approach will become more politically feasible – seemingly a necessity because these markets generally require a significant initial investment, presumably by a government or university. However, private markets such as Intrade, which is a for-profit enterprise, seem to be a plausible alternative. Foreign policy futures, such as the probability of an Israeli attack on Iran, are traded regularly on Intrade and provide useful information about expectations. Moreover, futures on the outcome of the last presidential election vied with polling data for public and media attention in the lead up to the 2008 US presidential election suggesting that familiarity with these markets may be rising.

Remaining Methodological Challenges

Methods of foreign policy analysis have developed markedly over the past few decades, but challenges remain. An unavoidable tension persists between the accuracy needed for policy relevance and the scope needed for generalizability. As the grand theories of foreign policy interaction motivated those who launched the FPA enterprise proved elusive, the discipline increasingly turned to the nuanced examinations of cases. However, if taken too far this trend is a threat to the unique identity of FPA because it blurs the distinction with longstanding traditions of historical analysis. This survey of available methods suggests that a partial solution to this dilemma lies in bringing quantitative analysis and underutilized “third generation” methods back into the FPA fold by reintegrating them into the well-developed qualitative tradition. The goal should be to develop a healthy mix of methods that applies each approach to the questions which each is best equipped to address.

Additional attention should also be given to determining the degree to which current methods of foreign policy analysis allow predictive or prescriptive conclusions. In recent years, enthusiasm for FPA has been fueled in part by the failure of most international relations scholarship to accurately foresee key events in the international system – specifically the decline of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The argument is made that Cold War politics, because they were in some sense stable or at equilibrium, were better suited to elegant and parsimonious models of the systemic behavior of state actors. In contrast, the more chaotic world we presently inhabit is characterized by fluidity driven by human agents and therefore is best understood using the methods of foreign policy analysis (Hudson and Vore 1995 ). This is a reasonable hypothesis; however, prediction is a difficult game in the social sciences and it remains unclear whether FPA is indeed superior in this arena. In short, with a few notable exceptions such as the KEDS project, methods of foreign policy analysis lack predictive capacity and, when they are able to predict, are often unable to clearly state the degree of certainty surrounding these forecasts. More can and should be done to improve this capacity.

Foreign policy analysts should also give deeper consideration to the issues that accompany the choice of the unit of analysis in their models. FPA derives much of its explanatory power from its ability to speak to the individual’s role in the foreign policy process, but the dependent variables that these efforts attempt to explain are often the interactions between states. The result is a gap in our understanding of the process of aggregation by which the behavior of leaders results in the actions and reactions of states. This aggregation problem is widely noted, but additional work is required to complete our understanding of this element of the foreign policy process. Improvements in this linkage between theory and test, as well as a consistent unit of analysis (individual or foreign policy event) are particularly crucial for robust quantitative analysis, as it is in part the inability of the subfield to resolve this basic issue that stifled earlier research on events data.

Finally, more must be done to reengage foreign policy analysis with the core of international relations research. FPA scholars typically claim the first and second image as their domain, but fail to engage with those in mainline international relations who also work in this area. In the lead essay of the first issue of Foreign Policy Analysis , Valerie Hudson ( 2005 ) convincingly makes the case that FPA has the potential to reshape the entire discipline of international relations by focusing attention on the workings of the fundamental unit of analysis – the political decision maker. However, despite the call to arms, more often than not FPA scholars labor in relative isolation. Some of these divisions emerge from methodological issues and can therefore be resolved.

In sum, the future of foreign policy analysis appears to be bright. There is reason to believe that longstanding methodological battles that characterized it are drawing to a close with the recognition that multiple methods have their place in the study of foreign policy. In addition, new methods and questions are emerging that are likely to contribute to our understanding of the foreign policy process.

• Alker, H.R. , and Brunner, R.D. (1969) Simulating International Conflict – Comparison of 3 Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 13 (1), 70–110.
• Allison, G.T. (1971) The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Ashworth, S. , Clinton, J.D. , Meirowitz, A. , and Ramsay, K. (2008) Design, Inference, and the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. American Political Science Review 102 (2), 269–73.
• Axelrod, R. (1976) Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Azar, E.E. (1980) The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) Project. Journal of Conflict Resolution 24, 143–52.
• Azar, E.E. (1982) The Codebook of the Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) . College Park: Center for International Development, University of Maryland.
• Azar, E.E. , Cohen, S.H. , Jukam, T.O. , and McCormic, J.M. (1972) Problem of Source Coverage in Use of International Events Data. International Studies Quarterly 16 (3), 373–88.
• Beasley, R.K. , Kaarbo, J. , Lantis, J.S. , and Snarr, M.T. (2002) Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective: Domestic and International Influences on State Behavior . Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Beck, N. , Katz, J.N. , and Tucker, R. (1998) Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4), 1260–88.
• Bennett, A. , and George, A.L. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences . Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Bennett, D.S. , and Stam, A. (2000) EUGene: A Conceptual Manual. International Interactions 26, 179–204.
• Berg, B.L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences , 4th edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Brecher, M. (1974) Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy . London: Oxford University Press.
• Brecher, M. (2008) International Political Earthquakes: Crises and Conflicts Before, During and After the Cold War . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Brecher, M. , and Ben-Yehuda, H. (1985) System and Crisis in International Politics. Review of International Studies 11 (1), 17–36.
• Brecher, M. , Steinberg, B. , and Stein, J. (1969) A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behavior. Journal of Conflict Resolution 13 (1), 75–94.
• Brenner, M. , Brown, J. , and Canter, D. (eds.) (1985) The Research Interview . London: Academic Press.
• Burgess, P.M. , and Lawton, R.W. (1972) Indicators of International Behavior: An Assessment of Events Data Research . Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Christensen, E.J. , and Redd, S.B. (2004) Bureaucrats Versus the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis of the Bureaucratic Politics Model and the Poliheuristic Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (1), 69–90.
• Eulau, H. , and Siegel, J.W. (1981) Social Network Analysis and Political Behavior: A Feasibility Study. The Western Political Quarterly 34 (4), 499–509.
• George, A.L. (1969) Operational Code – Neglected Approach to Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making. International Studies Quarterly 13 (2), 190–222.
• Gerner, D.J. , Schrodt, P.A. , Francisco, R.A. , and Weddle, J.L. (1994) Machine Coding of Event Data Using Regional and International Sources. International Studies Quarterly 38 (1), 91–119.
• Gochman, C.S. , and Maoz, Z. (1984) Military Interstate Disputes, 1816–1976: Procedures, Patterns, and Insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (4), 585–615.
• Goldstein, J.S. , and Freeman, J. (1990) Three Way Street, Strategic Reciprocity in World Politics . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Guetzkow, H. , Alger, C.F. , Brody, R.A. , Noel, R.C. , and Snyder, R. (1963) Simulations in International Relations: Developments for Research and Teaching . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Hammarström, M. , and Birger, H. (2002) The Diffusion of Military Intervention: Testing a Network Position Approach. International Interactions 28, 335–77.
• Heffner-Burton, E. , and Montgomery, A.H. (2006) Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (1), 3–27.
• Hermann, C. (1969) Crises in Foreign Policy: A Simulation Analysis . Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.
• Hill, M.R. (1993) Archival Strategies and Techniques . Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Holsti, O.R. (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities . Reading: Addison Wesley.
• Holsti, O.R. (1970) The “Operational Code” Approach to the Study of Political Leaders: John Foster Dulles’ Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 3 (1), 123–57.
• Holsti, O.R. , and Rosenau, J.N. (1979) Vietnam, Consensus, and the Belief Systems of American Leaders. World Politics 32 (1), 1–56.
• Holsti, O.R. , and Rosenau, J.N. (1980) Does Where You Stand Depend on When You Were Born? The Impact of Generation on Post-Vietnam Foreign Policy Beliefs. Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (1), 1.
• Howell, L.D. (1983) A Comparative-Study of the WEIS and COPDAB Data Sets. International Studies Quarterly 27 (2), 149–59.
• Hudson, V.M. (2005) Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1 (1), 1–30.
• Hudson, V.M. , and Vore, C.S. (1995) Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. International Studies Quarterly 39, 209–38.
• Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Johnston, A.I. (1995) Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kegley, C., Jr , Salmore, S.A. , and Rosen, D.J. (1974) Convergences in the Measurement of Interstate Behavior. In P.J. McGowan (ed.) Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies , vol. 2. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 309–39.
• Khong, Y.F. (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• King, G. , Keohane, R.O. , and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• King, G. , and Zeng, L.C. (1999) Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data. At http:/gking.harvard.edu/files/0s.pdf , accessed July 2009.
• King, G. , and Zeng, L.C. (2001) Explaining Rare Events in International Relations. International Organization 55 (3), 693–715.
• Krueger, R. (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Larson, D.L. (2001) Sources and Methods in Cold War History: The Need for a New Theory-Based Archival Approach. In C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds.) Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations . Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 327–50.
• Larson, D.W. (1985) Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Leng, R.J. , and Singer, J.D. (1988) Militarized Interstate Crises – the Bcow Typology and its Applications. International Studies Quarterly 32 (2), 155–73.
• Looney, R.E. (2003) DARPA’s Policy Analysis Market for Intelligence: Outside the Box or Off the Wall? Strategic Insights 2 (9).
• Lustick, I.S. (1996) History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias. American Political Science Review 90 (3), 605–18.
• Maoz, Z. (2006) Network Polarization, Network Interdependence, and International Conflict, 1816–2002. Journal of Peace Research 43 (4), 391–411.
• Marin, B. , and Mayntz, R. (eds.) (1992) Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations . Boulder: Westview Press.
• Marsh, D. , and Rhodes, R.A.W. (eds.) (1992) Policy Networks in British Government . New York: Oxford University Press.
• McClelland, C.A. (1970) Some Effects on Theory from the International Event Analysis Movement. Working paper. University of Southern California.
• McClelland, C.A. , and Hoggard, G. (1969) Conflict Patterns in the Interactions Among Nations. In J.N. Rosenau (ed.) International Politics and Foreign Policy . New York: Free Press, pp. 711–24
• McCracken, G. (1988) The Long Interview . London: Sage.
• McDermott, R. (2002) Experimental Methodology in Political Science. Political Analysis 10 (4), 325–42.
• Mintz, A. , Redd, S.B. , and Vedlitz, A. (2006) Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (5), 757–76.
• Mishler, E.G. (1986) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Montgomery, A.H. (2005) Proliferation Determinism or Pragmatism? How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb Network. International Security 30 (2), 153–87.
• Moon, B.E. (1983) The Foreign Policy of the Dependent State. International Studies Quarterly 27 (3), 315–40.
• Moon, B.E. (1985) Consensus or Compliance? Foreign-Policy Change and External Dependence. International Organization 39 (2), 297–329.
• Neack, L. , Hey, J.A.K. , and Haney, P.J. (1995) Generational Change in Foreign Policy Analysis. In L. Neack , J.A.K. Hey , and P.J. Haney (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis. Contiguity and Change in its Second Generation . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
• Neuendorf, K.A. (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook . Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Noël, R.C. (1969) The Polis Laboratory. American Behavioral Scientist 12 (6), 30–35.
• Paige, G. (1968) Korean Decision, June 24–30, 1950 . New York: Free Press.
• Pape, R.A. (2005) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism . New York: Random House.
• Pennock, D.A. , Lawrence, S. , Giles, C.L. , and Nielsen, F.A. (2001) The Real Power of Artificial Markets. Science 291 (5506), 987–8.
• Presser, S. , Rothgeb, J.M. , Couper, M.P. , et al. (2004) Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires . New York: Wiley.
• Rea, L.M. , and Parker, R.A. (2005) Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Reuveny, R. , and Kang, H. (1996a) International Conflict and Cooperation: Splicing COPDAB and WEIS Series. International Studies Quarterly 40 (2), 281–305.
• Reuveny, R. , and Kang, H. (1996b) International Trade, Political Conflict/Cooperation, and Granger Causality. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3), 943–70.
• Richardson, N.R. , and Kegley, C.W., Jr (1980) Trade Dependence and Foreign Policy Compliance: A Longitudinal Analysis. International Studies Quarterly 24 (2), 191–222.
• Rosenau, J.N. (1966) Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In J. Rosenau (ed.) Scientific Study of Foreign Policy . New York: Free Press, pp. 95–151.
• Rosenau, J.N. (1968) Comparative Foreign Policy – Fad, Fantasy, or Field. International Studies Quarterly 12 (3), 296–329.
• Rosenau, J.N. (ed.) (1974) Comparing Foreign Policies: Theories, Findings, and Methods . New York: Halsted Press.
• Rummel, R.J. (1979) Understanding Conflict and War , vol. 4: War, Power, Peace . Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Schoutlz, L. (1987) National Security and United States Policy Towards Latin America . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schrodt, P.A. (1979) Forecasting in International-Relations – Theory, Methods, Problems, Prospects – Choucri, N., Robinson, T.W. American Political Science Review 73(4), 1208–10.
• Schrodt, P.A. (1994) Event Data in Foreign Policy Analysis. In L. Neack , P.J. Haney , and J.A.K. Hey (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in its Second Generation . New York: Prentice Hall.
• Schrodt, P.A. , and Gerner, D.J. (1994) Validity Assessment of a Machine-Coded Event Data Set for the Middle-East, 1982–92. American Journal of Political Science 38 (3), 825–54.
• Schrodt, P.A. , and Gerner, D.J. (2000) Cluster-Based Early Warning Indicators for Political Change in the Contemporary Levant. American Political Science Review 94 (4), 803–17.
• Scott, J. (1991) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook . London: Sage.
• Seidman, I. (1998) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences , 2nd edn. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Shellman, S.M. (forthcoming) Machine Coding Nonstate Actors’ Behavior in Intrastate Conflict. Political Analysis .
• Shellman, S.M. , and Stewart, B. (2007) Predicting Risk Factors Associated with Forced Migration: An Early Warning Model of Haitian Flight. Civil Wars 9 (2), 174–99.
• Silber, L. , and Little, A. (1995) The Death of Yugoslavia . London: Penguin.
• Slaughter, A.-M. (2004) A New World Order . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Snyder, R.C. , Bruck, H. , and Sapin, B.M. (1954) Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Relations . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Tanter, R. (1974) Modelling and Managing International Conflicts: The Berlin Crises . Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Tichy, N.M. , Tushman, M.L. , and Fombrun, C. (1979) Social Network Analysis for Organizations. The Academy of Management Review 4 (4), 507–19.
• Tomlinson, R.G. (1993) Monitoring WEIS Event Data in Three Dimensions. In R.L. Merritt , R.G. Muncaster , and D.A. Zinnes (eds.) International Event-Data Developments: DDIR Phase II . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 55–85.
• Tomz, M. , King, G. , and Zeng, L.C. (1999) RELOGIT: Rare Events Logistic Regression (Version 1.1). Cambridge. At http:/gking.harvard.edu/stats.shtml , accessed July 2009.
• Trachtenberg, M. (2006) The Craft of International History . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Vincent, J.E. (1983) Weis Vs Copdab – Correspondence Problems. International Studies Quarterly 27 (2), 161–8.
• Walker, S.G. , Schafer, M. , and Young, M.D. (1998) Systematic Procedures for Operational Code Analysis: Measuring and Modeling Jimmy Carter’s Operational Code. International Studies Quarterly 42 (1), 175–89.
• Ward, H. (2006) International Linkages and Environmental Sustainability: The Effectiveness of the Regime Network. Journal of Peace Research 43 (2), 149–66.
• Weber, R.P. (1985) Basic Content Analysis . Beverly Hills: Sage.
• West, M.D. (2001) Theory, Method, and Practice in Computer Content Analysis . Westport: Ablex.
• Wilkinson, D. (2002) Civilizations as Networks: Trade, War, Diplomacy, and Command-Control. Complexity 8 (1), 82–6.
• Winham, G.R. (1969) Quantitative Methods in Foreign Policy Analysis. Canadian Journal of Political Science 2 (2), 187–99.

Links to Digital Materials

International Crisis Behavior Project. At www.cidcm.umd.edu/icb/ , accessed July 2009. The ICB project provides quantitative and qualitative data on international crises. The core systemic dataset currently contains 452 incidents from the end of World War I through 2006. The link above provides access to ICB data, codebooks, citations, and a variety of other useful materials.

Correlates of War Project. At www.correlatesofwar.org/ , accessed July 2009. The COW project website provides widely used events data on militarized interstate disputes as well as several other datasets that may be appropriate for FPA scholars. Data, documentation, and codebooks are available through the link.

EUGene Software. At www.eugenesoftware.org/ , accessed July 2009. The link provides access to the EUGene software package, as well as manuals and documentation (all free of charge). EUGene allows for relatively easy transition between commonly used units of analysis – country–year, dyad–year, and directed dyad–year. In addition, the software enables the researcher to combine many of the events datasets discussed in this essay with basic demographic and geopolitical data including data uploaded by the user.

Kansas Event Data System. At http:/web.ku.edu/keds/ , accessed July 2009. KEDS provides a computer program that enables users to specify and create personalized events datasets. Detailed descriptions of machine coding methods, as well as several datasets and codebooks, are available on the KEDS web page.

The Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods. At www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/programs/cqrm/index.html , accessed July 2009. CQRM promotes qualitative research methods in the social sciences. They hold an annual training institute that may be useful for FPA scholars interested in expanding their knowledge of qualitative methods. In addition, they maintain a database of syllabae on qualitative methods.

Intrade. At www.intrade.com/ , accessed July 2009. Intrade is the leading prediction market for political futures. The site has prediction markets for a wide range of political and financial outcomes that may be of interest to FPA scholars.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Michael Glosny , Deborah Larson , Rachel Augustine Potter , and two anonymous reviewers. All errors are my own.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

Character limit 500 /500

• How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

US Foreign Policy Dissertation Topics and Examples

Published by Owen Ingram at January 6th, 2023 , Revised On January 6, 2023

US foreign policy has evolved significantly since the country’s inception. Since 1776, the US government has employed various strategies to protect and advance its interests abroad, foster relationships with other nations, and promote peace around the world. Over time, these policies have been shaped by geopolitics, international law, and public opinion.

At its core, there are four main principles:

• diplomatic engagement with other countries
• fostering economic prosperity through trade agreements and investments
• protecting national security by leveraging military prowess
• promoting universal values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law

Through these principles, the United States has strived to maintain global stability while promoting its own interests in a complex international environment.

As new challenges like terrorism or climate change arise, US foreign policy must continue to adapt to best serve the nation’s needs.

The topic of US foreign policy is an area of research that has grown in importance and relevance over the past few decades.

As countries become increasingly interconnected, the decisions made by US leaders have a direct impact on how other nations, both near and far, respond to events around the world.

For students looking for dissertation topics , researching US foreign policy offers a wealth of information to explore.

The study of US foreign policy provides students with an overview of the current state of international affairs.

Researching this topic can offer insight into complex political issues such as trade agreements between nations, geopolitical tensions between different regions and security concerns that arise from terrorist threats or military actions abroad.

Additionally, studies on US foreign policy allow students to look at how the country interacts with its allies and adversaries, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of how diplomacy works globally.

US Foreign Policy Dissertation Topics: How to Choose?

Writing a dissertation on US foreign policy is exciting, yet it can also be challenging. With so much to choose from in foreign policy, deciding which topic to focus on can be overwhelming.

Here are some tips for choosing a dissertation topic related to US foreign policy to make the decision easier.

• Consider what interests you most about the field of US foreign policy.
• Think about what particular aspects of this subject are most captivating or intriguing to you, and make a list of potential topics.
• Once you have narrowed your list, research each topic thoroughly to determine its relevance in today’s political landscape.
• Consider what resources are available; factor in primary sources such as government documents or personal interviews with people involved in the issue; and secondary sources such as scholarly articles or other published works dealing with the subject matter.
• Consider whether there is enough evidence to support a strong argument and any recent developments related to each candidate’s topic.
• Review other scholarly works on related topics and include their findings in your analysis when appropriate.
• Geography Dissertation Topics
• International Development Topics
• Diplomacy Dissertation Topics
• Brexit Dissertation Topics

List of US Foreign Policy Topics for Dissertation

• Public opinion and American foreign policy
• The diplomacy of ideas: US foreign policy and cultural relations, 1938-1950
• Public opinion and public policy, 1980-1993
•  Terrorism and US foreign policy
• Foreign policy topic of a talk by church
• The hypocrisy trap: US Foreign aid in the middle east
• America’s Empire in the Philippines. Headlines series 288.
• Understanding the unilateralist turn in US foreign policy
• The politics of scrutiny in human rights monitoring: evidence from structural topic models of US State Department human rights reports
• Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy
• Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity.
• Defending the national interest: Raw materials investments and US foreign policy
•  Ideology and US foreign policy
• America unbound: The bush revolution in foreign policy.
• Who influences US foreign policy?
• The Wilsonian century: US foreign policy since 1900
• The media’s role in US foreign policy
• The age of imperialism: The economics of US foreign policy
• Why Americans must lead again: Recusing US foreign policy after Trump
• World power trends and US foreign policy for the 1980s
• Agendas, alternatives, and public policy: Lessons from the US foreign policy arena
• Testing models of US foreign policy: Foreign aid during and after the Cold War
• Ethnic groups and US foreign policy
• Why is health important to US foreign policy?

The Importance of Selecting the Right US Foreign Policy Dissertation Topic

Choosing the right topic for a US foreign policy dissertation can offer multiple benefits.

• Firstly, it will help ensure that students can adequately explore the research subject matter effectively and comprehensively. The more focused and specific the thesis topic is, the easier it will be to uncover trends and patterns in data.
• Secondly, selecting a relevant topic also helps to maintain the reader’s interest throughout the research paper or dissertation. By choosing an exciting and engaging subject to explore in-depth, readers will stay engaged with an argument over extended periods.
• Finally, focusing on one single aspect of a more significant issue, such as US foreign policy, allows you to gain a greater understanding of its complexities, leading to further areas of exploration or potential future studies.

How Can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect writers can send several custom topic ideas to your email address. Once you have chosen a topic that suits your needs and interests, you can order for our dissertation outline service which will include a brief introduction to the topic, research questions , literature review , methodology , expected results , and conclusion . The dissertation outline will enable you to review the quality of our work before placing the order for our full dissertation writing service!

FAQs About US Foreign Policy Dissertation Ideas

How do i choose the most appropriate us foreign policy dissertation topic.

The first step in selecting a US foreign policy dissertation topic is to gain an understanding of the various elements that make up the subject. Consider all of the different aspects of foreign relations, such as economic and security concerns, diplomacy, international organisations and treaties.

Once you have gained an understanding of this information, you can begin exploring potential topics more deeply. Look for areas where there has been significant change over time or potential for further development in current topics that could lead to new insights into US foreign policy.

Is the list of dissertation topics above unique?

All topics are unique. However, it is available to the public to use for free so other students might use them. For a completely unique topic according to your requirements, contact us .

Does ResearchProspect provide customised and unique US foreign policy dissertation topics?

ResearchProspect provides many types of dissertation writing services , and we do provide customised US foreign policy dissertation topics. To learn more about us, visit the website.

You May Also Like

Need interesting and manageable Education dissertation topics or thesis? Here are the trending Education dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

Property, land, buildings, air rights, underground rights, and underground rights are examples of real estate. Academics recognize the importance of real estate as a driver of the economy. This field will be encountered by college and university students studying business-related courses.

Need interesting and manageable Marketing dissertation topics or thesis? Here are the trending Operations Marketing dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Scott Atlas
• Thomas Sargent
• Stephen Kotkin
• Michael McConnell
• Morris P. Fiorina
• John F. Cogan

China's Global Sharp Power Project

• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group

Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance

Energy & Environment

Health care, immigration, international affairs.

• Key Countries / Regions

Law & Policy

• Politics & Public Opinion

Science & Technology

Security & defense, state & local.

• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• National Security, Technology & Law
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Pacific Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

US Foreign Policy

Promoting the core values of the United States requires clear communication to our allies and adversaries, along with the will to support the implementation of those values.

Featured Research

• Publications
• Research Team

Practical Lessons from US Foreign Policy: The Itinerant Years

via Books by Hoover Fellows

To Build a Better World

via Twelve Books

Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World

From Lt. General H.R. McMaster, U.S. Army, ret., the former National Security Advisor and author of the bestselling classic Dereliction of Duty, comes a bold and provocative re-examination of the…

via HarperCollins Publishers

Political Risk: How Businesses and Organizations Can Anticipate Global Insecurity

Pragmatic engagement amidst global uncertainty: three major challenges.

via Hoover Institution Press

Taking On Iran: Strength, Diplomacy and the Iranian Threat

Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice is the Tad and Dianne Taube Director of the Hoover Institution and a Senior Fellow on Public Policy. She is the Denning Professor in Global Business and the Economy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. In addition, she is a founding partner of Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, an international strategic consulting firm. From January 2005 to January 2009, Rice served as the 66th Secretary of State of the United States, the second woman and first black woman to hold the post. Rice also served as President George W. Bush’s Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor) from January 2001 to January 2005, the first woman to hold the position. Rice served as Stanford University’s provost from 1993 to 1999, during which time she was the institution’s chief budget and academic officer. As Professor of Political Science, she has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the university’s highest teaching honors. From February 1989 through March 1991, Rice served on President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Council staff. She served as Director, then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs, as well as Special Assistant to the President for National Security. In 1986, while an International Affairs Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice also served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She has authored and co-authored numerous books, most recently To Build a Better World: Choices to End the Cold War and Create a Global Commonwealth (2019), co-authored with Philip Zelikow. Among her other volumes are three bestsellers, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom (2017); No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington (2011); and Extraordinary, Ordinary People: A Memoir of Family (2010). She also wrote Political Risk: How Businesses and Organizations Can Anticipate Global Insecurity (2018) with Amy B. Zegart; Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (1995) with Philip Zelikow; edited The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin; and penned The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army; 1948-1983: Uncertain Allegiance (1984).  In 1991, Rice co-founded the Center for a New Generation (CNG), an innovative, after-school academic enrichment program for students in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California. In 1996, CNG merged with the Boys & Girls Club of the Peninsula, an affiliate club of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BCGA). CNG has since expanded to local BGCA chapters in Birmingham, Atlanta, and Dallas. Rice remains an active proponent of an extended learning day through after-school programs.  Since 2009, Rice has served as a founding partner at Rice, Hadley, Gates, & Manuel LLC, an international strategic consulting firm based in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. The firm works with senior executives of major companies to implement strategic plans and expand in emerging markets. Other partners include former National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, and former diplomat, author, and advisor on emerging markets, Anja Manuel. In 2022, Rice became a part-owner of the Denver Broncos as a part of the Walton-Penner Family Ownership Group. In 2013, Rice was appointed to the College Football Playoff Selection Committee, formerly the Bowl Championship Series. She served on the committee until 2017.  Rice currently serves on the boards of C3.ai, an AI software company; and Makena Capital Management, a private endowment firm. In addition, she is Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and a trustee of the Aspen Institute. Previously, Rice served on various boards, including Dropbox; the George W. Bush Institute; the Commonwealth Club; KiOR, Inc.; the Chevron Corporation; the Charles Schwab Corporation; the Transamerica Corporation; the Hewlett-Packard Company; the University of Notre Dame; the Foundation of Excellence in Education; the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; and the San Francisco Symphony. Born in Birmingham, Alabama, Rice earned her bachelor’s degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver; her master’s in the same subject from the University of Notre Dame; and her Ph.D., likewise in political science, from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. Rice is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded over fifteen honorary doctorates.

H.R. McMaster

H.R. McMaster is the Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is also the Bernard and Susan Liautaud Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute and lecturer at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.  Upon graduation from the US Military Academy in 1984, McMaster served as a commissioned officer in the US Army for thirty-four years.  He retired as a lieutenant general in June 2018 after serving as the twenty-fifth assistant to the US president for the Department of National Security Affairs. From 2014 to 2017, McMaster designed the future army as the director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center and the deputy commanding general, futures, of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). As commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, he oversaw all training and education for the army’s infantry, armor, and cavalry force. He has commanded organizations in wartime including the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force—Shafafiyat in Kabul, Afghanistan, from 2010 to 2012; the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq from 2005 to 2006; and Eagle Troop, Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in Operation Desert Storm from 1990 to 1991. McMaster also served overseas as advisor to the most senior commanders in the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. McMaster holds a PhD in military history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was an assistant professor of history at the US Military Academy. He is author of the bestselling books Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World and Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Lies that Led to Vietnam. His many essays, articles, and book reviews on leadership, history, and the future of warfare have appeared in The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. McMaster is the host of Battlegrounds: Vital Perspectives on Today’s Challenges and is a regular on GoodFellows, both produced by the Hoover Institution. He is a Distinguished University Fellow at Arizona State University.

Larry Diamond

Larry Diamond is the William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a Bass University Fellow in Undergraduate Education at Stanford University. He is also professor, by courtesy, of political science and sociology at Stanford. He co-chairs the Hoover Institution’s programs on China’s Global Sharp Power and on Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region.  At FSI, he leads the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy, based at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, which he directed for more than six years.  He also co-leads (with Eileen Donahoe) the Global Digital Policy Incubator based at FSI’s Cyber Policy Center. He served from 1989-2021 as the founding coeditor of the Journal of Democracy and continues to serve as senior consultant to the National Endowment for Democracy. His research focuses on democratic trends and conditions around the world and on policies and reforms to defend and advance democracy. His latest edited book (with Orville Schell), China's Influence and American Interests (Hoover Press, 2019), urges a posture of constructive vigilance toward China’s global projection of “sharp power,” which it sees as a rising threat to democratic norms and institutions He offers a massive open online course (MOOC) on Comparative Democratic Development through the edX platform and is now writing a textbook to accompany it. Diamond’s book, Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency, analyzes the challenges confronting liberal democracy in the United States and around the world at this potential “hinge in history” and offers an agenda for strengthening and defending democracy at home and abroad. A paperback edition with a new preface was released by Penguin in April 2020. His other books include: In Search of Democracy (2016), The Spirit of Democracy (2008), Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (1999), Promoting Democracy in the 1990s (1995), and Class, Ethnicity, and Democracy in Nigeria (1989). He has also edited or coedited more than fifty books on democratic development around the world, including a forthcoming volume on the challenges confronting India’s democracy. During 2002–03, Diamond served as a consultant to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and was a contributing author of its report, Foreign Aid in the National Interest. He has also advised and lectured to universities and think tanks around the world and to the World Bank, the United Nations, the State Department, and other governmental and nongovernmental agencies dealing with governance and development. During the first three months of 2004, Diamond served as a senior adviser on governance to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. His 2005 book, Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq, was one of the first books to critically analyze America's postwar engagement in Iraq. Among Diamond’s other edited books are Democracy in Decline?; Democratization and Authoritarianism in the Arab World; Will China Democratize?; and Liberation Technology: Social Media and the Struggle for Democracy, all edited with Marc F. Plattner; and Politics and Culture in Contemporary Iran, with Abbas Milani. With Juan J. Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset, he edited the series Democracy in Developing Countries, which helped to shape a new generation of comparative study of democratic development.

Michael McFaul

Michael A. McFaul is the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution as well as a professor of political science, director and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He also currently works as a news analyst for NBC.  His areas of expertise include international relations, Russian politics, comparative democratization, and American foreign policy.  From January 2012 to February 2014, he served as the US ambassador to the Russian Federation.  Before becoming ambassador, he served for three years as a special assistant to the president and senior director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council.  He has authored and edited several books including, From Cold War to Hot Peace (2018), with Kathryn Stoner, eds., Transitions to Democracy: A Comparative Perspective (2013); Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should and How We Can (2009); with Valerie Bunce and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, eds., Democracy and Authoritarianism in the Postcommunist World (2009); with Anders Aslund, eds., Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough (2006); with Nikolai Petrov and Andrei Ryabov, Between Dictatorship and Democracy: Russian Postcommunist Political Reform (2004); with James Goldgeier, Power and Purpose: American Policy toward Russia after the Cold War, (2003); with Timothy Colton, Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of 1999 and 2000 (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin (2001); Russia's 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Bi-Polar Politics (1997); with Tova Perlmutter, eds., Privatization, Conversion and Enterprise Reform in Russia (1995); Post-Communist Politics: Democratic Prospects in Russia and Eastern Europe (1993); and, with Sergei Markov, The Troubled Birth of Russian Democracy: Political Parties, Programs and Profiles (1993). His articles have appeared in Constitutional Political Economy, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Organization, International Security, Journal of Democracy, Political Science Quarterly, Post-Soviet Affairs, and World Politics. His op-eds have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Politico, Time, and the Weekly Standard. Dr. McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his BA in international relations and Slavic languages and his MA in Soviet and East European studies from Stanford University in 1986.  He was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford where he completed his D.Phil in international relations in 1991. His research papers are available at the Hoover Institution Archives.

Russell A. Berman

Russell A. Berman, the Walter A. Haas Professor in the Humanities at Stanford University, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a co-chair of The Working Group on the Middle East and the Islamic World. At Stanford, he is a member of both the Department of German Studies and the Department of Comparative Literature at Stanford, and he specializes on politics and culture in Europe as well as in the Middle East. He has served in numerous administrative positions at Stanford, including as chair of the Senate of the Academic Council. He is a member of the National Humanities Council and, during the Trump administration, served as a Senior Advisor on the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department. He is the author of numerous articles and books including Enlightenment or Empire: Colonial Discourse in German Culture (1998) and The Rise of the Modern German Novel: Crisis and Charisma (1986), both of which won the Outstanding Book Award of the German Studies Association (in 2000 and 1987, respectively). Hoover Institution Press published his books In Retreat: America's Withdrawal from the Middle East (2014), Freedom or Terror: Europe Faces Jihad (2010), and Anti-Americanism in Europe: A Cultural Problem (2004). His other books include Fiction Sets You Free: Literature, Liberty, and Western Culture (2007), Cultural Studies of Modern Germany: Representation and Nationhood (1993), Modern Culture and Critical Theory: Art, Politics, and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School (1989), and Between Fontane and Tucholsky: Literary Criticism and the Public Sphere in Wilhelmine Germany (1983). He has published numerous articles in the Hoover Digest, Defining Ideas, and Advancing a Free Society as well as in The Caravan, the publication of the Middle East Working Group. Berman has received many honors and awards including a Mellon Faculty Fellowship at Harvard University (1982–83), an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship (1988–89), and the Bundesverdienstkreuz of the Federal Republic of Germany (1997). Berman received his BA in 1972 from Harvard and his doctorate from Washington University in 1979.

Key Research Teams

Five Principles That Should Govern Any U.S. Authorization Of Force

via Washington Post

Chasing Away the Democracy Blues

via Foreign Policy

How to Squander Home-Field Advantage

Obama, Not Bush, Is the Master of Unilateral War

via New Republic

The Unreality Of Obama’s Realpolitik

via Wall Stree Journal

Transnational Terrorism

via Analysis

George Shultz and Henry Kissinger testify before the US Senate Armed Services Committee

via United States Senate

Our mistake: Thinking That All Countries Should Be Structured Like U.S.

via Los Angeles Times

Why Political Islam Is Winning

via Politico

Red, White And Peaceful: Advancing U.S. Security Through Peaceful Means

via National Interest

Edit Filters

Refine Results

Filtering By:

Sort by Date

You May Also Like

Politics, Institutions, and Public Opinion

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

• All Articles
• Books & Reviews
• Anthologies
• Audio Content
• Author Directory
• This Day in History
• War in Ukraine
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• Artificial Intelligence
• Climate Change
• Biden Administration
• Geopolitics
• Benjamin Netanyahu
• Vladimir Putin
• Volodymyr Zelensky
• Nationalism
• Authoritarianism
• Propaganda & Disinformation
• West Africa
• North Korea
• Middle East
• United States
• View All Regions

Article Types

• Capsule Reviews
• Review Essays
• Ask the Experts
• Reading Lists
• Newsletters
• Customer Service
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriber Resources
• Group Subscriptions
• Gift a Subscription

U.S. Foreign Policy

Explore Foreign Affairs ’ coverage of the evolution of Washington’s approach to foreign policy and the United States’ role in the world.

Top Stories

The fractured superpower.

Federalism Is Remaking U.S. Democracy and Foreign Policy

Jenna Bednar and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar

The china trap.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Perilous Logic of Zero-Sum Competition

Jessica Chen Weiss

All democracy is global.

Why America Can’t Shrink From the Fight for Freedom

Larry Diamond

9/11 transforms u.s. foreign policy.

The Growing Momentum Behind Military Action

The Balance of Soft Power

The American and Chinese Quests to Win Hearts and Minds

The Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issues

A nation must think before it acts.

• America and the West
• Middle East
• National Security
• Central Asia
• China & Taiwan
• Expert Commentary
• Intern Corner
• Press Contact
• Upcoming Events
• People, Politics, and Prose
• Briefings, Booktalks, and Conversations
• The Benjamin Franklin Award
• Event and Lecture Archive
• Chain Reaction
• Bear Market Brief
• Baltic Ways
• Report in Short
• Our Mission
• Board of Trustees
• Board of Advisors
• Research Programs
• Audited Financials
• PA Certificate of Charitable Registration
• Become a Partner
• Corporate Partnership Program

With Russia playing an ever-larger role in global politics, understanding the drivers of Russian foreign policy is crucial. This series of papers examines the factors that shape Russian’s relations with countries in its neighborhood and further afield. What are Russia’s foreign policy goals? What tools has it used to try to achieve them? And to what extent is Russia attaining its aims? Drawing on scholars with deep regional expertise and based on fresh research, Russia Foreign Policy Papers provide new insight into understanding Russia’s international role.

Publications:

• Understanding Russia’s Cyber Strategy - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Josephine Wolff - July, 2021
• Russia’s Nuclear Activity in 2020: A Show of Strength Despite COVID-19 - Reports , Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Maxim Starchak - May, 2021
• Russia’s Struggle to Gain Influence in Southeast Asia - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Bennett Murray - August, 2020
• The Role of the Military in Russian Politics and Foreign Policy Over the Past 20 Years - Orbis , Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Anna Borshchevskaya - July, 2020
• Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss: Putin ‘Changes’ the Constitution - Orbis , Russia Foreign Policy Papers - William R. Spiegelberger - July, 2020
• “Engaged Opportunism”: Russia’s Role in the Horn of Africa - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Samuel Ramani - July, 2020
• Russia’s Defense Industry: Between Political Significance and Economic Inefficiency - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Pavel Luzin - April, 2020
• Friends or Frenemies? How Russia and Iran Compete and Cooperate - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Nicole Grajewski - March, 2020
• Russian Private Military Companies: Continuity and Evolution of the Model - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Anna Borshchevskaya - December, 2019
• Belarus-Russia: From a Strategic Deal to an Integration Ultimatum - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Arseny Sivitsky - December, 2019
• Russia’s Awkward Dance with Vietnam - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Bennett Murray - October, 2019
• Russia’s Engagements in Central America - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Ivan Ulises Klyszcz - October, 2019
• NATO in the Baltics: Deterring Phantom Threats? - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Robert E. Hamilton - July, 2018
• Hanging by a Thread: Russia’s Strategy of Destabilization in Montenegro - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Reuf Bajrovic, Vesko Garčević, Richard Kraemer - July, 2018
• Moscow on the Mediterranean: Russia and Israel’s Relationship - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Joshua Krasna - June, 2018
• Outfoxed by the Bear? America’s Losing Game Against Russia in the Near East - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Michael A. Reynolds - April, 2018
• Russian and American De-Confliction Efforts in Syria: What’s the Endgame in the Civil War? - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Robert E. Hamilton - April, 2018
• The 2016 Coup Attempt in Montenegro: Is Russia’s Balkans Footprint Expanding? - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Dimitar Bechev - April, 2018

Research Topics

Foreign Affairs

U.S. Foreign Affairs Research

The Department of State is designated as the agency to lead in the overall direction, coordination, and supervision of United States foreign policy and foreign relations, but records relating to various foreign policy issues are found among the files of other agencies, too. Since World War II, a "community" of agencies has evolved to deal specifically with certain specialized foreign policy issues. In addition, many other agencies have taken on important roles in American national security affairs. The subject and focus of your foreign relations research will determine the most appropriate records for you to use.

To help you get started, researchers are encouraged to read the first three sections before moving forward to explore those on the agencies and their records.

Getting Started

Introduction, assistance from nara staff, approaching foreign affairs research, the records, department of state, world war i, world war ii and aftermath, genealogical research, publications and websites, other agencies, other web pages.

The web pages listed below link to sites that include information about records of interest to the foreign affairs researcher:

NARA Resources

Presidential materials, congressional records, intelligence community, other nara resources, non-nara resources.

Department of State, Historical Office

Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)

International Research Portal for Records Related to Nazi-Era Cultural Property

Brown University, Opening the Archives Project (records on Brazil)

American Foreign Policy Research Paper

View sample American Foreign Policy Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science  research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic writing, editing, proofreading, and problem solving services, get 10% off with 24start discount code, ii. exogenous influences: the role of the united states in international affairs, iii. endogenous influences, a. the president and american foreign policy, b. congress and american foreign policy, c. the bureaucracy and american foreign policy, d. public opinion and american foreign policy, iv. conclusion.

American foreign policy has fluctuated throughout the existence of the United States, stemming from the influence of exogenous dynamics and significant watersheds felt throughout the international system as well as endogenous changes and influences within the American government. Noteworthy declarations such as the Monroe Doctrine, international conflicts such as the Spanish-American War, World War II, and the cold war as well as regional conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Korean War significantly influenced American foreign policy. Currently, the events of September 11, 2001, represent the major exogenous watershed that influenced the foreign policy decision-making of the U.S. government. In addition to the exogenous dynamics that have been decisive in American foreign policy, the endogenous aspects of the U.S. government such as the president, Congress, the bureaucracy, and American public opinion have considerable influence in foreign policy decision making.

This research paper reviews selected seminal literature regarding American foreign policy and its exogenous and endogenous influences. Although exogenous issues are highly significant to the various objectives of American foreign policy, this research paper only briefly highlights the major exogenous watersheds and focuses more substantially on four endogenous dynamics that impact American foreign policy and foreign policy decision making. The paper begins with a brief focus of the shift of American foreign policy from isolationism to internationalism and how the Spanish-American War, World War II, the cold war, and the events of September 11, 2001, influenced this shift of American foreign policy. The paper then concentrates on the endogenous dynamics, beginning with an analysis of the executive branch and its effects over the direction and decision making of American foreign policy as well as the effects of the controversial War Powers Act on the presidential role as a foreign policy decision maker. Second, the focus shifts to the legislative branch and its reactive role regarding American foreign policy as well as the possibility of congresspersons adopting a proactive role to influence the direction of foreign policy decision making concerning particular issues. Third, this research paper analyzes how bureaucratic politics affect American foreign policy by highlighting the three models introduced in Graham Allison’s (1971) classic work, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, regarding the effects of bureaucracy on foreign policy decision making. Finally, this research paper concludes with a concentration on the effects of public opinion on American foreign policy. This section briefly highlights the theories of classical realist and liberal political thinkers concerning the effects of public opinion on foreign policy as well as a focus on the variations of the effect of public opinion on foreign policy through a historical analysis.

After the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States as a nation-state, the United States conducted itself in a fashion dissimilar to the countries in Europe regarding its role in international affairs. Whereas countries such as England, France, and Spain conducted an interventionist international foreign policy, the United States preferred an isolationist route concerning international affairs and focused primarily within its own borders. In 1823, this strategy expanded from the borders of the United States to incorporate the affairs of the entire Western hemisphere. President James Monroe announced a new shift in American foreign policy, namely the Monroe Doctrine, which established a separate sphere of influence for the United States and the Americas versus the European sphere of influence. Furthermore, the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would perceive any attempt by the European powers to exert their influence or establish a colonial presence into the Western sphere of influence as an act of aggression. Finally, the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would not interfere within European affairs within their sphere of influence and would not intervene within established European colonies within the Americas. Although the United States did not possess the military means to defend a declaration of this magnitude, the British accepted the assertion of U.S. power since they preferred to drive out the Spanish from the Western hemisphere and viewed this proclamation as a method of attaining this goal. More important, the Monroe Doctrine represents a major shift in American foreign policy, which continued to remain isolationist from the international scope but expanded its sphere of influence to all of the Western hemisphere (Kissinger, 1994; Papp, Johnson, & Endicott, 2005).

The Spanish-American War also represented an important stage in American foreign policy since the entry of the United States in the conflict signified a move of the United States becoming an emerging power in international affairs. Although the United States refrained from becoming an international power implicated in the alliance system and continued to adhere to isolationism and unilateralism after the Spanish-American War, the decision to declare war on Spain had two major implications. First, it denoted the initial entry of the United States into world affairs. Although the United States would continue to internally debate and argue over whether American foreign policy should remain isolationist or shift toward an internationalist foreign policy for many years, the United States entered into several international conflicts and diplomatic interactions with other countries after the Spanish-American War. Second, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the United States seized possession over the former Spanish colonies of Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Formerly, the United States was exclusively an isolationist country; however, now the United States became a colonial power and expanded its interests to other hemispheres (Papp et al., 2005).

Although the United States gained colonial territories in other hemispheres, most Americans did not agree with the idea of U.S. involvement in world affairs. This debate continued during World War I as well as during the interwar years as demonstrated in the aftermath of World War I. President Woodrow Wilson was one of the key figures in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of the League of Nations; however, Americans, particularly the senators who voted against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, still believed that the United States should adhere to a foreign policy devoted to isolationism and unilateralism whereas the Treaty of Versailles strongly espoused internationalism and collective security (Kissinger, 1994; Papp et al., 2005). The debate over the role of the United States in world affairs persisted into World War II until December 7, 1941, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. At this point, the United States entered into World War II, and American foreign policy would never be the same.

With the entry of the United States into World War II, the American foreign policy shifted to one of multilateralism and internationalist in scope. This particularly was demonstrated with the establishment of the United Nations and the passage of the Bretton Woods Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Furthermore, the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty with several other countries, creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance, on April 4, 1949. The involvement of the United States in the establishment of these organizations and future participation within the organizations signified that American foreign policy had surpassed isolationism and was now firmly entrenched in internationalism and multilateralism (Ambrose & Brinkley, 1997).

After the end of World War II, world affairs had changed immensely as the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the world powers or superpowers in the international system.Although the countries had been tenuous allies during World War II, competing political ideological and national interest differences soon forced a wedge between the countries, and the international system was greatly affected by the bipolar world established during the cold war. During the cold war, American foreign policy continued to be focused on internationalism and multilateralism, but confronted with an enduring power struggle with the Soviet Union, American foreign policy focused on the policy of containment as well. Devised by George F. Kennan, the policy of containment sought to thwart the spread of Communism to non-Communist countries throughout the world. As the Soviet Union expanded its influence to satellite countries with the spread of Communism, the United States also increased its area of influence to various countries throughout the world in an effort to counter the Soviets (Ambrose&Brinkley, 1997; Kennan, 1984). By contributing military and economic support to so-called anti-Communist countries, the United States focused on preventing the spread of Communism to other countries throughout the world and averting a domino effect occurring where the loss of one country to Communism would lead to the further loss of neighboring countries to Communism. Although the United States and the Soviet Union did not engage in direct military warfare, the superpowers engaged indirectly through proxy wars in their support of satellite countries. In addition to the indirect interaction through proxy wars, nuclear deterrence became a significant aspect of the cold war as the United States and the Soviet Union accumulated substantial stockpiles of nuclear weapons as a method of ensuring their respective state security. Although both countries possessed the weapons, neither of the countries would employ the use of nuclear weapons because leaders understood the drastic effects to both countries if the weapons were deployed (Ambrose & Brinkley, 1997; Kissinger, 1994; Mingst, 2008).

Although American foreign policy changed to cope with new challenges arising from a post–cold war international environment, the next significant watershed in American foreign policy stemmed from the events of September 11, 2001. After the terrorist attack against the United States by members of al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden, President George W. Bush responded by shifting American foreign policy to a global war on terrorism, which commenced with the launching of an attack against Afghanistan for harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda. In 2003, the war on terrorism expanded to include the Republic of Iraq since the United States was convinced that Saddam Hussein presented a terrorist threat through the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorist organizations (Mingst, 2008). Although Hussein was overthrown from power and no weapons of mass destruction were found, American foreign policy continues to be greatly affected by the war on terrorism since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq continue into the second decade of the 21st century.

The U.S. president and executive branch arguably wield the largest amount of power in regard to American foreign policy. Although Congress and the bureaucracy of the national government can certainly affect how foreign policy is conducted, the executive branch by far has the most control over foreign affairs (Peterson, 1994). Originally, this was not what the framers intended when designing the U.S. Constitution; however, the presidential powers regarding foreign policy have increased significantly since the founding of the United States. Specifically, the framers went to great lengths to ensure that Congress controlled the decision to go to war by conferring the power to declare war solely to Congress. On the other hand, the president exercises widespread authority in times of crisis, but the overall decision to initiate war was left in control of Congress (Edwards & Wayne, 2006; Pika & Maltese, 2008). Therefore, the U.S. Constitution established a shared power regarding issues of war between the executive and legislative branches. Although this shared power was established in the U.S. Constitution, historical precedent demonstrates that the power of the president has been advanced significantly, specifically during times of war and crisis, at the expense of congressional power. Furthermore, after the declaration of war has been made, the president, acting in his role as the commander in chief, is granted extensive power based on Article II of the U.S. Constitution and congressional delegations of authority (Pika & Maltese).

In addition to issues concerning war and crisis, the president has several other powers in regard to foreign policy, such as diplomatic treaties, presidential appointments, and executive agreements. According to the U.S. Constitution, the president may enter into international diplomatic treaties with other countries; however, the president must consult with the Senate concerning the treaty. In addition, the treaty must then be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In general, international treaties have been approved without amendment by the Senate, with a few exceptions such as the Versailles Treaty after World War I. This may also be related to the fact that many have been withdrawn by presidents who anticipated defeat due to a lack of congressional support as displayed with President George W. Bush and the Kyoto Protocol.

On March 28, 2001, President Bush declared that the United States would not implement the Kyoto Protocol regarding combating global warming through a reduction of greenhouse gases. Although it appeared that Bush made a dramatic turn in U.S. policy decision making, Congress had not supported this direction for some time. This particularly began in July 1997, when the U.S. Senate unanimously approved Senate Resolution 98, stating that it would not sanction a global climate treaty that would damage the U.S. economy or that failed to compel the reduction of emissions within the same time period for both developing countries and developed countries. Furthermore, even when President Clinton agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, he did not present the treaty to the Senate for ratification because he was aware of the lack of support for the treaty (Fletcher, 2000).

The president may also appoint several key positions subject to Senate confirmation. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Senate must confirm presidential diplomatic appointments such as ambassadors to foreign countries but more important the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence. This is significant to American foreign policy given that these three positions are highly influential to the course of the administration’s foreign policy (Edwards & Wayne, 2006; Pika & Maltese, 2008).

Presidents may also affect foreign policy through executive agreements, which allow them to forego the process of the congressional ratification process. Specifically, an executive agreement is a pact between the U.S. president and the head of state of the other country, which does not necessitate the ratification of the U.S. Senate. Since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the use of executive agreements has increased immensely, which may reflect an attempt to evade the congressional ratification process (Edwards & Wayne, 2006).

In 1973, Congress attempted to strike back at the rampant conduct of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration during the Vietnam War through the establishment of the War Powers Act. Although the passage of the War Powers Act was delayed until the term of President Richard Nixon, it symbolized an attempt of Congress to strengthen its powers in the realm of foreign policy decision making as well as to establish an effective restraint against the executive branch and its unbridled control in decision making regarding the American foreign policy and the deployment of American troops in a hostile environment. After its passage, President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act; however, Congress was able to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto. Although the necessary majority was achieved, the bill itself was weakened compared with its original overall objectives in the process of attaining a majority in the House of Representatives to override the veto (Fisher, 2006).

Specifically, according to the resolution, the president may deploy American military troops overseas for a 60-day period during peacetime prior to obtaining congressional approval for the action and may appeal to Congress for an extension period of up to 90 days. After the 60-day period, if Congress does not give approval for the deployment, the president has 30 days to extract the troops. It is debatable whether the War Powers Act indeed fulfills its original intentions. Louis Fisher (2006) argues that the 60-day period itself is a much larger expansion of power than the original framers of the bill intended to grant the president. In addition, the resolution requires the president at all possible times to confer with Congress regarding the action prior deployment of the American military into a hostile environment as well as to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of the deployment. The 60-day window actually begins when the president reports to Congress concerning the deployment; however, it is typically reported in a general manner. This allows for the president to conduct foreign policy endeavors without the advice and consent of Congress, or what Fisher calls a “collective judgment of the branches” (pp. 279–280). Therefore, it is highly debatable whether the War Powers Act provides a restraint against presidential adventurism and actually satisfies the intentions of the original framers of the resolution. Furthermore, since the passage of the War Powers Act, previous presidents asserted that it unconstitutionally limits them from performing their duties as commander in chief to provide defense. To overcome this limitation, they have interpreted the Constitution in a flexible manner, specifically in regard to the requirements for reporting and consulting with Congress (Edwards & Wayne, 2006).

Deemed the face of the nation for reasons of international visibility, it is commonly assumed that the majority of foreign policy making is conducted by the president and the executive branch; however, this view overlooks the significant influence and power that the legislative branch wields over American foreign policy. First, as stated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. Second, Congress also possesses the power of the purse, which may be used as a tool to influence the executive branch on how foreign policy is conducted. Third, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president may negotiate a diplomatic treaty only with the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Fourth, Congress also advises and consents to presidential appointments such as ambassadors and consuls. Through these listed means as well as others, Congress has a significant influence over the direction of foreign policy decision making.

Although in each of these previously listed manners Congress acts in a reactive manner to the foreign policy endeavors of the president and the executive branch, Ralph Carter and James Scott (2009) suggest a theory of congressional foreign policy entrepreneurship in which congresspersons may be proactive in their foreign policy influence ventures; specifically, they may act as what are termed foreign policy entrepreneurs. In this manner, the congressperson chooses to lead the development of foreign policy by attempting to influence the foreign policy of a particular issue outside the desires of the current administration for a continuous period of time. Specifically, this means that the congressperson must engage in more than one attempt of foreign policy entrepreneurship.

A congressperson becomes a foreign policy entrepreneur when he or she engages in developing a new policy regarding a foreign policy issue. This decision may specifically occur during a policy vacuum, a period where there is no policy regarding the issue, or during a policy correction, when the congressperson feels that the current policy is flawed. Furthermore, in a proactive approach, the congressperson does not wait for the president to take action regarding a foreign policy matter or inform the party or country on his or her stance regarding the affair; rather, the congressperson acts on the matter proactively in an attempt to influence foreign policy decision making. Specifically, the congressperson can introduce new legislation regarding the foreign policy issue, offer amendments to existing legislation, conduct policy research, travel to determine the realities of the issue, or hold hearings to publicize the foreign policy issue that he or she is promoting (Carter & Scott, 2009).

Carter and Scott (2009) identify that a congressperson may decide to progress in this fashion for several reasons. First, this pursuit may not be completely influenced by a desire for reelection because foreign policy rarely directly affects the constituency of a congressperson. On the other hand, if a congressperson has a rather large presence of a particular ethnic group within his or her district, this may influence the decision to proceed with actions to influence the foreign policy regarding the respective country of the ethnicity of the constituency. Second, the congressperson may pursue this issue in order to gain respect and influence within Congress. He or she may gain a reputation for expertise in the subject, which may assist him or her in garnering influence in Congress. Third, the congressperson may have a personal policy position regarding the issue. This may stem from core values, personal experiences, and family experiences. The core values of a congressperson may come from his or her respective morality as well as the influence of particular issues that are important to the congressperson. The personal experiences of a congressperson may influence him or her to pursue a particular policy since he or she may have an expertise regarding the issue. Family experiences may also motivate a congressperson to pursue a policy since many have first- or second-generation family members.

To understand the theory of foreign policy entrepreneurship, Carter and Scott (2009) draw on John Kingdon (1995) and his ideas regarding foreign policy entrepreneurs in his work, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. According to Kingdon, a congressperson’s decision to engage in foreign policy entrepreneurship may shape policy windows. First, policy making is conducted in the middle of a “problem stream” where those within the government as well as the public recognize a particular problem. During a problem stream, the foreign policy entrepreneur must specifically define the problem in order to enhance the awareness of the policy problem to others. The term policy stream refers to potential solutions to the policy problem, which are developed by policy experts. Finally, the term political stream refers to a change in conditions or specifically to when key actors within the governments and institutions as well as society change in their disposition toward the issue. If the problem stream, policy stream, and political stream correspond at the same time, the policy window will open and the foreign policy entrepreneur will have the opportunity to construct changes regarding the particular policy (Kingdon, as cited in Carter & Scott).

When this process occurs and foreign policy entrepreneurs have an opportunity to create policy changes, the success of their endeavors is influenced by the structural features to include which house of Congress they serve in, if they hold a position on a policy-appropriate committee, which political party they are members of, whether they hold party leadership positions, and whether they are senior congresspersons. Once congresspersons decide to engage in foreign policy entrepreneurship, they will attempt to frame the policy issue to others in order to gain their support and ensure the success of their endeavor. Furthermore, they will make contact with a senior administration official to seek a change in the particular policy, to determine whether to go public with the issue, or possibly to conduct formal measures in order to seek to adopt legislation regarding the policy matter (Carter & Scott, 2009).

Through the theory of foreign policy entrepreneurs, Carter and Scott demonstrate how Congress can project influence on foreign policy creation in a proactive manner as opposed to a reactive manner as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution and by established precedents, where the executive branch essentially produces the foreign policy initiative. Although the constitutional powers established for the legislature are powerful and influential in American foreign policy, the process of foreign policy entrepreneurship allows the congressperson to endorse foreign policy issues and initiatives that are significant to him or her. Overall, foreign policy entrepreneurship is becoming a more common practice among congresspersons, which will undoubtedly affect the process of foreign policy creation in the future.

In Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham Allison (1971) analyzes the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 and the consequent naval blockade of Cuba by developing three models or frames of reference in order to highlight the understanding of foreign policy decision making: the rational actor model (RAM), the organizational behavior model (OBM), and the governmental politics model (GPM). Although there is some overlap within the three models, each model represents a distinctive manner of the effect of the bureaucracy on foreign policy decision-making.

The first model is the RAM, where a researcher observes the situation as the state itself as a single entity thinking and acting in unison. In this manner, the state is the key actor and acts in a rational manner. Security is the highest priority of the state and influences various other objectives respective to the state. The state will then select the preference that coincides with the highest of its respective objectives. Therefore, the state is value maximizing in its actions. Allison states that this approach to understanding foreign policy decision making is the most common (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

Furthermore, the state’s decision of proceeding with an action is determined by several factors: objectives, perceptions of other options, an assessment of the consequences of their actions, and an overall evaluation of each consequence. The culmination of these noted elements will amount to an increase or a decrease to the cost of an alternative option, which ultimately affects whether the decision maker uses the respective option, essentially a cost–benefit analysis. In the end, the decision of the state is viewed as a unified national government action where the state is acting as a single, rational actor in pursuit of the state’s national interest. In the RAM, the elaborate interworkings of government and various bureaucratic missions and goals are not stressed on since the state is viewed as the sole significant entity functioning to pursue a cohesive, uncontested national interest (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

The second model is the OBM. Here, in contrast to the RAM, decisions are depicted as the product of the collaboration of large governmental organizations, which each tend to conduct themselves according to their own standard operating procedures (or SOPs), yielding standard behaviors. Within this model, the single-state decision maker is no longer the key decision-making actor; rather, the loosely associated governmental organizations themselves are the central actor(s) guided by permanent SOPs that are predetermined (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

In the OBM, Allison highlights the effect of governmental organizations on foreign policy decision making whereby responsibility for various areas of government is divided among the large organizations. Thus, whereas the RAM depicts decision making conducted by the state as a single entity, the OBM displays decision making as an output of numerous relevant governmental organizations, which may be coordinated by government leaders. To organize this process, the governmental organizations developed SOPs, which are previously established for each organization. The organization, however, may evolve over time because of learning or radically change as a reaction to a major crisis facing the country. In other words, rather than a rational decision-making process, according to this model decisions are the consequence of various organizations within the government acting according to their SOPs, or slight modifications of these, in response to problems. Decisions are not depicted as rational, and therefore it is not assumed to be any effort to reach an optimal decision (as in the RAM), but instead decisions are determined by what an organization deems feasible and yet reasonably responsive to the problem (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

The third model is the GPM, in which decisions are viewed as the outcome of the bargaining among the actors within government. In this model, the leaders and other individuals within the various governmental organizations are actors within the game of bureaucratic politics who seek to advance their objectives, which are formed by national, organizational, and personal goals (Allison, 1969, 1971). Such goals may include service to the nation but also personal objectives such as career advancement. The GPM depicts politics as a game in which individuals seek to steal the limelight from colleagues at other departments, where subordinates seek to either support or subvert the careers of their bosses, and so on. This model, then, suggests that political decisions are the outcome of complex bargaining games within and across the various organizations that together constitute the national government.

In other words, whereas the RAM viewed decision making as performed by the state and the OBM perceived decision making as the outputs of various governmental organizations, the GPM identifies decision making as a product of bureaucratic politics with the top central organizational leaders as the key players of the game. Within the game, the leaders undoubtedly engage in disagreement, compromise, and bargaining over what direction the government should proceed in regarding foreign policy decisions since each leader has his or her own personal ideas and goals as well as their respective organizational objectives to endorse. Furthermore, the personalities of the leaders become significant to the successfulness of the actor to project his or her position and compel the other actors to agree with his or her position. Allison also suggests that the actor’s ability to be successful in the game depends on his or her power, which is a combination of bargaining advantages, the skill and will of the actor in using bargaining advantages, and the opinions of other actors regarding the bargaining advantages and the skill and will of the actor to use them. In sum, as one moves from the RAM via the OBM to the GPM, the image of how decisions are made becomes increasingly more messy and less an orderly and rational process.

Allison’s seminal work has spawned subsequent generations of scholars who have produced various theories about foreign policy decision making (e.g., Garrison, 1999, 2001; George, 1980; George & George, 1998; Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 1997; Janis, 1983; Kowert, 2002). What these theories have in common is a recognition that decision making rarely proceeds as orderly as the RAM would suggest. These theories and frameworks share in common an attempt to better understand how the perceptions and cognitions of decision makers, as well as the dynamics among small groups, among the various branches of government, and interactions with the wider domestic audience shape the decision-making process. Some of these theories are discussed in greater detail in Research Paper on Foreign Policy Analysis.

A discussion of American foreign policy cannot be entirely fulfilled without concentrating on the effect of public opinion on American foreign policy. Holsti (1992, 1996) identifies three watersheds that ultimately shaped the relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy: World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. The focus on the effect of public opinion truly commenced after World War I, when public opinion played a role in the decision making of how to create international order in the post–World War I period. The significance of World War II came as scientific polling of public opinion began, allowing for a much more advanced empirical investigation into the opinions of the American public. Finally, the Vietnam War as well as the outcomes after the Vietnam War initiated another focus on the public opinion and its effect on American foreign policy.

Public opinion has been viewed in a disparate manner by liberal and realist classical theorists. Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and other theorists suggested that given the structure of a democracy, public opinion provides a safeguard on the foreign policy desires of a government. In this manner, the mystery of foreign affairs is revealed, governments are held accountable for their actions, and public opinion is viewed as the solution to some of the dilemmas of government. However, in a nondemocracy such as a monarchy or a totalitarian government, foreign policy may be conducted without regard to public opinion and in the direction to the whims of the monarch or tyrant. In this manner, there is a lack of constraints on the government, and no accountability is given to the public, allowing the leader to conduct foreign policy in a manner to his or her choosing (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Conversely, realists perceived public opinion as a challenge to the foreign policy decision making of governments. Whereas the liberal school of thought viewed public opinion as an integral aspect of foreign policy, realists such as Hans Morgenthau and others questioned the ability of the public to contribute to foreign policy decision making. First, they considered the public as being too focused on their daily lives and too far removed from the issues concerning foreign policy. Essentially, the public could not understand the essential issues of foreign policy and consequently could not make an effectual contribution to foreign policy decision making. Second, the public was viewed as irrational, passionate, and emotional, which would lead to ineffective decision making and could possibly jeopardize the country if allowed to contribute to foreign policy. Finally, realists viewed the actual process of foreign policy decision making and diplomacy as one based on secrecy, accommodation, and speed. To have the public involved in the process of foreign policy decision making would be counter to the listed necessary traits and could endanger the state itself or the international system within which it resides (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson hoped to develop a new world order centering on democracy and diplomacy among countries. In this vision, Wilson and his cabinet possessed a liberal outlook on the relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy. In holding this viewpoint, they anticipated a significant and increased role for the public in diplomacy and foreign affairs. On the other hand, other figures such as Walter Lippmann, a journalist, held an opposing view of public opinion and its relationship with foreign policy than Wilson and his cabinet. Espousing realist rhetoric, Lippmann wrote in his critiques of liberalism that the public was too interested in their daily lives and fulfilling their most pressing needs and desires to become informed about foreign policy affairs. Furthermore, the public was too far removed from the events of foreign affairs to develop an informed opinion of the issue, and the media was unable to provide for this gap of knowledge (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

The period of World War II and its aftermath produced an intensification of scientific public-opinion polling. During this period, polling organizations attempted to ascertain the opinion of the American public regarding a major concern of U.S. policymakers: Should the United States remain an isolationist from world affairs, or should it become an active player? From the information attained from public-opinion polling during the post–World War II period and prior to the VietnamWar, three main ideas were suggested. First, public opinion is highly volatile. In their writings, Lippmann (1925) and Gabriel Almond (1950) depicted the public as passion driven, moody, and volatile. In addition to this observation, polling data illustrated an American public that was surprisingly ignorant of facts and information essential to foreign affairs. Second, public opinion lacks structure and coherence. Early research and studies predicted that the American public would fluctuate between support for the internationalist viewpoint and support for the isolationist viewpoint regarding foreign affairs, similar to the liberal viewpoint versus the conservative viewpoint regarding domestic affairs. In 1964, however, Philip Converse published a study that suggested a different finding. Contrary to the previous belief that a political spectrum of foreign policy support existed, Converse stated that theAmerican public lacked a coherent structure in their political beliefs and typically, their beliefs held a brief impact on their views regarding foreign affairs. Third, public opinion has limited impact on foreign policy. In the immediate post–World War II period, policymakers were split on the liberal–realist divide concerning the effectiveness of the American public opinion on foreign policy. However, in the 1960s, policymakers now viewed public opinion as having little to no impact on foreign policy decision making. In fact, studies during this period displayed that the opinion of constituencies regarding foreign affairs had little influence over their congresspersons, and other studies proposed that the president had an unbridled impact on foreign policy decision making (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

The Vietnam War provided the third watershed regarding public opinion and American foreign policy. Within this period, the relationship between public opinion andAmerican foreign policy gained a renewed significance as many realists including Lippmann questioned the belief of an imperial presidency and a limited impact of public opinion on foreign policy. Furthermore, more polling organizations with a narrower focus in contrast to the general surveys of Gallup were created and devised their surveys in a simpler yet more extensive and in depth manner. Specifically, these surveys focused on public opinion regarding foreign policy in Vietnam, which revealed support for the administration’s foreign policy endeavors yet also supported an end to the Vietnam War (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Through the findings of the new public opinion information, the three main ideas criticizing the American public were challenged. First, regarding the idea that the American public opinion is volatile, new studies found that the preceding research and surveys were conducted in a flawed manner that may have been the source of the earlier propositions. By modifying their methodology and research approaches, the new studies found that the American public was remarkably stable in their opinions regarding foreign policy yet remained poorly informed concerning facts, geography, politics, and foreign policy. Second, the claim that the American public lacks structure and coherence also suffered from similar methodological issues, and once researchers modified their methodological approaches, this created a split in support for and challenges against Philip Converse’s (1964) work on mass belief systems. Furthermore, several studies have questioned Converse’s results and found that public opinion does not adhere to an internationalist-isolationist dimension. Since this point, numerous studies have suggested various types of foreign policy attitudes rather than the earlier internationalist–isolationist dimension. Current research has also found that although the American public typically lacks complete information concerning foreign policy, they use simple heuristics in order to compensate for the incomplete knowledge (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Regarding the claim that public opinion has limited impact on foreign policy, when evidence arose of a relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy, many scholars and analysts continued to disagree that there was a connection between the two. They continued to remain steadfast to the argument that public opinion has no impact on foreign policy, and if any relationship existed, it could be explained as an attempt by the executive to direct public opinion in support of their foreign policy aspirations. To an extent, this was true; however, there were numerous cases of unsuccessful bids for public support. Furthermore, this did not explain the converse relationship. Several studies suggested that in the midst of foreign policy decision making, presidents often considered the postaction response of the American public, which influenced their decisions. This has also been a factor in foreign policy decision making since the public may vote retroactively, and a foreign policy failure may doom the incumbent candidate’s bid for reelection. In addition, according to many public opinion officials for the U.S. government, the public has not been viewed as an entity that may be influenced; rather, public opinion has been a significant explanatory variable in presidential decision making regarding foreign policy. Although the causal linkage between public opinion and American foreign policy has yet to be conclusively established, it has been demonstrated that public opinion has an impact on foreign policy decision making (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Robert Entman (2004) also advocates a noteworthy relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy. Where earlier models suggested that either public opinion has no effect on American foreign policy or a national government holds influence over public opinion and Holsti (1992, 1996) suggested that the American public has an influence over foreign policy decision making, Entman proposes a dual relationship between the concepts. Specifically, he implies that there is a simultaneous interaction between the concepts since the president attempts to sway the public to agree with his foreign policy endeavors while the public also interacts with the president as they inform the executive branch what they are prepared to tolerate regarding the American foreign policy endeavors. In this model, the interaction between the national government and theAmerican public is not a top-down or bottom-up relationship; rather, it is flowing in both directions in a manner that both levels provide information to the other.

As demonstrated in this research paper, American foreign policy is not characterized by the direction of a single leader or a cohesive, uncontested national interest but rather a complex web of interactions among numerous actors pursuing the various missions and goals of their respective agencies. It is shaped and determined by several facets to include endogenous factors such as the presidency, Congress, the bureaucracy, and American public opinion as well as significant exogenous factors such as the Spanish-American War, World War II, the cold war, and the events on September 11, 2001. Although many have argued that the executive branch has carte blanche in the realm of foreign affairs, there are several constraints on its power through the delegation of powers in the U.S. Constitution as well as the numerous checks on presidential power by Congress. Furthermore, this research paper has displayed that there are other actors who have considerable influence and power in American foreign policy, such as Congress, the bureaucracy, and the American public. Overall, this research paper has demonstrated that American foreign policy has transformed over time through several influences and arguably will continue to evolve based on endogenous factors within the United States as well as exogenous influences in the international system.

Bibliography:

• Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689 718.
• Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
• Almond, G. (1950). The American people and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt Brace.
• Ambrose, S. E., & Brinkley, D. G. (1997). Rise to globalism: American foreign policy since 1938 (8th ed.). New York: Penguin.
• Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2009). Choosing to lead: Understanding congressional foreign policy entrepreneurs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
• Edwards, G. C., III, &Wayne, S. J. (2006). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy making (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
• Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Fisher, L. (2006). What is the appropriate role of Congress in national security policy? In G. C. Edwards III (Ed.), Readings in presidential politics (pp. 263-290). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Fletcher, S. R. (2000). Global climate change: The Kyoto Protocol (CRS Report for Congress No. RL30692). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
• Garrison, J. A. (1999). Games advisors play: Foreign policy in the Nixon and Carter administrations. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
• Garrison, J. A. (2001). Framing foreign policy alternatives in the inner circle: The president, his advisors, and the struggle for the arms control agenda. Political Psychology, 22(4), 775-807.
• George, A. L. (1980). Presidential decisionmaking in foreign pol icy: The effective use of information and advice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1998). Presidential personality and performance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Hart, P., Stern, E. K., & Sundelius, B. (1997). Beyond group think: Political group dynamics and foreign policy making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Holsti, O. R. (1992). Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond Lippmann consensus Mershon series: Research programs and debates. International Studies Quarterly, 36, 439-466.
• Holsti, O. R. (1996). Public opinion and American foreign pol icy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Kennan, G. F. (1984). American diplomacy (Expanded ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
• Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Touchstone.
• Kowert, P. A. (2002). Groupthink or deadlock: When do leaders learn from their advisors? Albany: SUNY Press.
• Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Harcourt Brace.
• Mingst, K.A. (2008). Essentials of international relations (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
• Papp, D. S., Johnson, L. K.,&Endicott, J. (2005). American foreign policy: History, politics, and policy. New York: Longman.
• Peterson, P. E. (1994). The president’s dominance in foreign policy making. Political Research Quarterly, 109, 215-234.
• Pika, J. A., & Maltese, J. A. (2008). The politics of the presidency (7th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Joseph W. Kane

June 6, 2024

Michael Hais, Morley Winograd

Maxime Houinato

Phillip Levine, Luke Pardue

June 5, 2024

The Brookings Institution conducts independent research to improve policy and governance at the local, national, and global levels

We bring together leading experts in government, academia, and beyond to provide nonpartisan research and analysis on the most important issues in the world.

From deep-dive reports to brief explainers on trending topics, we analyze complicated problems and generate innovative solutions.

Brookings has been at the forefront of public policy for over 100 years, providing data and insights to inform critical decisions during some of the most important inflection points in recent history.

Subscribe to the Brookings Brief

Get a daily newsletter with our best research on top issues.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Already a subscriber? Manage your subscriptions

Support Our Work

Invest in solutions. Drive impact.

Business Insider highlights research by Jon Valant showing that Arizona's universal education savings accounts are primarily benefiting wealthy families.

Valerie Wirtschafter spoke to the Washington Post about her latest study finding that Russian state media are ramping up on TikTok in both Spanish and English.

Tony Pipa writes in the New York Times about what's necessary for rural communities to benefit from federal investments made in the IIJA, IRA, & CHIPs.

What does the death of Iran’s President really mean? Suzanne Maloney writes in Politico about a transition already underway.

EU can’t always get what you want: Unpacking the European Parliament elections

Online Only

10:00 am - 11:00 am EDT

Online only

9:30 am - 11:00 am EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

10:00 am - 11:15 am EDT

William H. Frey

William A. Galston

Wendy Edelberg Olivia Howard Tara Watson

Sharan Grewal

Joshua P. Meltzer

June 7, 2024

Brookings Explains

Unpack critical policy issues through fact-based explainers.

Listen to informative discussions on important policy challenges.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research on the geographical pattern, evolution model, and driving mechanism of carbon emission density from urban industrial land in the yangtze river economic belt of china.

Share and Cite

Xie, F.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, S.; Lai, M. Research on the Geographical Pattern, Evolution Model, and Driving Mechanism of Carbon Emission Density from Urban Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024 , 13 , 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13060192

Xie F, Zhang S, Zhang Q, Zhao S, Lai M. Research on the Geographical Pattern, Evolution Model, and Driving Mechanism of Carbon Emission Density from Urban Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information . 2024; 13(6):192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13060192

Xie, Fei, Shuaibing Zhang, Qipeng Zhang, Sidong Zhao, and Min Lai. 2024. "Research on the Geographical Pattern, Evolution Model, and Driving Mechanism of Carbon Emission Density from Urban Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 13, no. 6: 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13060192

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Weekend Edition Sunday

• Latest Show

Sunday Puzzle

• Corrections

Listen to the lead story from this episode.

Politics chat: How voters are responding to Trump's felony conviction

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Mara Liasson

The Americas

Mexico votes for a new president after a campaigning season plagued by violence.

by  Eyder Peralta ,  Ayesha Rascoe

Middle East

Aid workers in gaza say nowhere is safe after israeli attacks on 'humanitarian zones'.

by  Hadeel Al-Shalchi

Girls in the U.S. are getting their period earlier. Here's what parents should know

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Maria Godoy

Bookstores have come under attack in Ukraine. But interest in reading is only growing

by  Joanna Kakissis

25 years ago, Napster changed how we listen to music forever

by  Ayesha Rascoe

What locals think of the proposal to build U.S.'s tallest building in Oklahoma City

by  Graycen Wheeler

Sunday Puzzle NPR hide caption

Sunday Puzzle: Second in Line

by  Will Shortz

Movie Interviews

A new animated film follows a lonely dog and his robot friend in new york city.

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Matthew Schuerman ,  Andrew Craig

Conservative media sows doubt about the verdict in Trump's felony convictions

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  David Folkenflik

Supreme Court judge accused of bias towards Trump declines to recuse himself from case

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Matthew Schuerman ,  Hiba Ahmad

Some states are adopting a new form of reading instruction to combat falling scores

by  Juma Sei

A new movie tells the story of Kemba Smith Pradia, race and incarceration

Strange news, meet abby lampe, two-time champion of the cheese-wheel-chasing race, meet abby lampe, two-time champion of the chees-wheel-chasing race, 100 years ago, indigenous people were granted u.s. citizenship by law.

by  Sandhya Dirks

The first professional women's hockey league in the U.S. has a winner

Music interviews, jon lampley, a veteran of stephen colbert's talk show, releases his debut album.

by  D. Parvaz ,  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Ryan Benk

Searching for a song you heard between stories? We've retired music buttons on these pages. Learn more here.