Foreign Policy Analysis And Random Actor Model - Essay Example

? FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS AND RANDOM ACTOR MODEL Foreign policy analysis is the process through which a sovereign state makes her decision on international matters based on the analysis of other countries decisions. It entails thorough study and analysis of other countries political environment, decision making procedure and intergovernmental organizations. It also benefits from studying the diplomacy structure of other countries, economic sanctions and wars. Through these, a nation is unable to decide on foreign matters. Foreign policy analysis focuses on the effects as well as causes of decision making on foreign policies and is conducted either in comparison or in specific case study. The analysis also derives much from the individual states desires and future aspirations. Foreign policies revolve around making rational decisions based on some prevailing conditions. Policies are value expressions or better still preferences that represent future preferences against others. However, a nation has her foreign policies as decisions that point to the future on accounts of other nations as against her internal decisions (Kent, 1969, 96). The analysis revolves around the assessment of international as well as internal domestic political environment. It also entails setting goals and determining the options on foreign policies. Therefore, through foreign policies, a nation’s internal politics are linked to the external decisions made by other states or decision makers. Actor models are basic tools of applications that are used to evaluate the eventual performance or outcome by a specific policy decision taken by an individual or in this case a state. The applications are more relevant and dependent that manual analysis of the policy performance. The models are differentiated by the actor focus and specifications. In the Random Actor model, the two components that matter are the game and the decision. While in the decision aspect the model reasons and chooses among many available choices, the game aspect entails the logical evaluation of the decision adopted. Rational actor model involves the players taking decisions on policies based on thorough scrutiny as well as applying the notion that governments act from a rational perspectives. The model believes that policy makers are human beings who are rational. The prisoner’s dilemma is the most commonly used illustration through which, optimal benefit by the suspects is only realized through cooperation. In the instance that one player in pursuit of self gratification at the expense of the other, decisions made will imply maximizing his benefit as against his partners. If in the event the other party is interested d in the welfare of the other partner, he/she will make a decision that will save the two. The illustration however reveals that it is not always the case that the two will act concurrently for the welfare for both concurrently. A repeat of the game reveals a inanimate change of decision s by the parties to maximize on their gains. Nevertheless, optimal gains are seen to be realized in the cooperation efforts as well as in the rational decision s that will benefit all. Rational analysis evaluates government’s decisions and policies on the available facts that were applied while adopting and designing the policies. It is a purposeful behavior which entails acting at the influence of reasoning (Kahler, 1998, 921-922). The objectives also are evaluated in analyzing what rational interested that the governments behavior imply. The model asks whether the government decisions were meant to maximize the benefits in comparison to the options forgone. Moreover, the model evaluates the nature of interactions based on strategic analysis. Rationality therefore implies that the actions of a player, in this case the government, are somehow connected to the intended goals or objectives. Ethical behavior in decision making may not necessarily imply rationality (Slantchev, 2005, 1). Whenever a government intends to make a rational decision, the government analyses the available options, ranks them in the order of optimal returns and chooses the topmost choice in terms of the optimal results that the decision attracts. It is a process that is procedural; implying that the decisions made by states are influenced by individual decision makers as persons and or high organizations. Any rational decision maker evaluates the policies of other players in the decision as their policies as well influence what overall decision is to be adopted. The analysis therefore argues that policy decisions are a reflection of the policy composition by the various players within the field (Guttman, 1996, 27-30). Whenever decisions related to policy making are done, the statke holders employ analysis by other related parties. In foreign policy making process, the decisions are dependent on the respective states as well as the international policy makers. It is the rational reasoning that allows the players realize the essence of cooperation and working together. Nevertheless, weaknesses are always bound to be exhibited in the process for the reason that decision makers are individuals or organizations which are managed by human beings. There are however, variations in the outcomes achieved by either applying the rational actor models as compared to the application of other models. This paper therefore intends to analyze the benefits of employing the model against the shortcomings of employing these same models in the decision making by states. The nations of the world are first seen to act from the point of one and concrete entity which is indivisible. Though one country understands the relevance of cooperating with the other nations in order to realize common goals, it becomes abit hard for whichever the country to compromise on her position and trusts her counterparts. Therefore, the analysis of foreign policy by the application of the rational actor model faces some hindrances as against the opportunities enjoyed through applying the same for the analysis. It is these shortcomings as well as the benefits that are associated to the overall performance of this model in evaluating foreign policies. There is usually the need of analyzing foreign policies by individual states for the purpose of making sound decisions out of a perspective of understanding. Every state is engaged in foreign matters in one way or another hence the justification of the need to analyze policies. Moreover, the composition of policies by individual countries ar5e resultant from policies made in obedience to the evaluation of the governing policies. Advantages Among the benefits that nations enjoy while using the rational actor theorem is the ability of the nations to commonly establish binding rules of game. Reports indicate that unlike other models that have been adopted by nations in foreign policy analysis, this model offers a unique point of consensus by nations to decide on the engagement rules. The nations are regarded as distinct players within the field and who act from a rational perspective. The involved countries enjoy the proper feeling of generality as it is one strength of the rational choice theorem. They are all aware of the need to coexist which is as well from the rational point of avoiding conflicts and wars. This therefore shows that the independent rational actors act under commonly formulated rules. In post cold war regime, records show that countries have gone beyond the simple rules of cooperation to the level of Voluntary Corporation. On the other side, by studying the game theory, it is apparent clear that a single player, in our case the nation, may opt to maximize her gain by betraying the other plans of failing to cooperate in the first time. However, a repeat of the game reveal that the chances of failure to cooperate for the subsequent times is minimal in that the other players would have developed protection mechanism to avoid the repeat of the acts of this nation. Therefore, it is most likely that the nations may not act as the first time and hence this would trigger cooperation by the individual states. As a social science, the IR is based on the theory of foreign policy analysis based on the actor specific model. The foreign policy analysis provides numerous benefits to the IR especially through theoretical and methodological advantages. The rational theory models create methods and theories upon which their decisions are based. It is apparent that the players in the decision making within the global perspective are nations which are composed by rational beings. Though the decisions are seen to be made by the individual states, it is conceptually the decision making role of the individual people or organizations within the state that are responsible for the decision making. The process of decision making by the individuals involves much evaluation of theoretical background before advancing methods that are applicable in the designing of the policies. These are the methods and theories that are equally passed on to the IR processes. In rational actor perspective of modeling, there is the opportunity of choosing among available options. Deterrence in other instances is one of the available options. The RAM provides deterrence as an option which this study finds advantageous. Whenever the players evaluate the costs of engaging in a certain course of action for instance a war, it is a rational decision for every actor to utilize everything at their discretion to outdo the other party. However, the model of rational actor provides an avenue through which the involved states may consider deterrence as an option while making and adopting policies. The involved parties engage the cost evaluation on engaging in the war as against the resources to be saved in the event of deterrence in this war and a rational decision to save the resources would arise. If this be the case too for the opponent, then the rational decision by the two states sums up to higher advantage as would have been realized in engaging in the war at the self centeredness spirit of a rational being. This is thus interpreted as an advantage whenever the states evaluate the option of deterrence (Mesquita, 2009, 4). This therefore gives credit to the actor based models in that they have the capacity to be linked to specific problems. Rational actors work with futuristic perspective. Decisions made by the actors are as a result of analysis and predictions through which they are able to fore tell the outcome of any decision made. The analysis compared the prospective of realizing better outcomes for any decision made in the future as compared to the past experience. States ascribed to this model reason from the basic of analyzing their status and comparing the future prospects presented (Ogu, 2013, 94). Disadvantages Despite the numerous advantages that the proponents of the model cite, critiques argue on a number of shortcomings of the model. First, the model is seen to have little or no basis at all for future assumptions. By lacking the empirical data analysis, the critic’s reason that, the model fails the scientific test of rationality. Rational actor theorem pegs her reasoning from evaluation of the benefits that would be realized if a certain decision ins taken against the costs that would be suffered in the event of failure. By weighing on the benefits against the disadvantages, rational reasoning assumes that the actor settles for the optimal return choice. This is in this case seen to lack authentification as the analysis involves lots of assumptions. If the state were to act in a manner expecting other states to follow but they fail, the assumption is seen to cost the state than other countries suffer. Rationality therefore does not ascertain reasoning alike and thus the weakness. The complexities of human choices are seen to be hard to contextualize. However, other models of analysis have been seen to work better for foreign policy analysis as against in the case of random actor theory. The complexities of human beings make unification of all beings within a state possible. Moreover, rational behavior of states is gauged at the context of multiple countries. These countries are evaluated in the perspective of citizen’s ability to make sound decisions, the variations of the people responsible in policy making makes the analysis quite complicated. The proponents of the model reasoned that rational actors do not act without any desire for the outcome of their choice (Searl, nd, 21-25). Therefore, they reasoned that foreign policy analysis suffer the influence of self desire and self centeredness. Case study This paper analyzes the working of European Union as an actor in the international peace as well as security especially after the cold war. By taking bold steps strategically from the end of cold war, Europe is seen in the eyes of analysis to be playing a critical role in handling the security status of the whole globe. We shall analyze the composition of power by the mergers of European nations and constituent interested countries towards realizing a common goal in establishing global stability after the shock by the war. The state is seen to have adopted mechanisms and policies for defense therefore becoming a critical factor in the overall international security. After the war, Europe determined to join the other super powers in negotiating through ways to peace and completely ending the effects of the world war. Critics view EU in different perspective from the world player in economic matters as against security matters. However, as n actor in the security matters, Europe is seen to form integration in the EU for the sole purpose of restoring stability and economic progress through peaceful coexistence within the economic block. This in other perspective refutes the idea of keeping off the essence of force in defense at realizing this. Many states have ever since joined hands with Europe to form collective security details. Nevertheless, the momentum gained by the European nations after the cold war the strength has now shifted and concentration shifted towards more global problems in security involving terrorism and crimes that are transnational organized. Therefore through this active participation, Europe has been seen to play a critical role in the global security state. Europe started by forming integrations pack through which the entire continent was integrated for collective security. Though political conflicts thrived continuously throughout Europe for decades, a rational view point was ultimately taken by the individual states for the purpose of acknowledging peaceful coexistence among the state. The idea of common working in economic, culture and political scene and the benefits to be realized attracted this convergence of the different states. Rationality brought about the evaluation of the losses that were continuously realized through military solution to the political conflicts versus the benefits that the countries would realize at the point of cooperating and working together. This brings about the position of rationalism in the formation of European Union, not just as n economic block but better still for the purpose of corporately working towards peace and stability to the individual states as well as to the globe (Castillo, 2007, 31-50) . Through the formation of the common treaties that brought together the nations of Europe, marginalized states are brought into the forefront and can be in a position to contribute in ,alters of security, both at the regional level and that the international level. This is another advantage that can be associated to the actor model in that the model gives room to the countries that would not in other instances be considered equal parties ion policy designs. The EU presents the opportunity to individual member countries to be active in participating in the regional and global scene though with the ability to mobilize the state’s military power for the same. We are therefore better placed to argue that European Union works rationally as a distinct block in policy formulation and adoption when it comes to the matters of security in the region and the globe at large. This is actually a better states of affairs compared to the adoption of IR models which interprets the block as just mere actors in the field of security. Through the above analysis, European Union is found to be better since the corporation agreements by the member countries as regarding the end of decades of conflicts as well as political turmoil. At individual level, the states were not in a position to actively influence the political and the security status of the region based on the rationality of each state. Every country fueled long spells of conflicts in pursuing their individual gains as opposed to nurturing and pursuing common gains as a region. The advantage in cooperating by far outdid the individual gains that the states sought when acting as distinct nations. However, the analysis through the rational actor model fails to empirically prove the advantages that the cohesion would bring on board. Other models and the IR method provide both theoretical and empirical analysis of their propositions as against the random actor model. In conclusion, this paper has established the need for foreign policy analysis by the states. Policies are designed by members or high ranking organizations. Moreover, the decisions are made in order to meet the requirement by other states and thus may be externally influenced. Many models are designed to perform the analysis. It is a tool that was designed by the assumption that humans or all decision making agencies are rational. By rationality, the model assumes that decisions made arises from the need of the player to optimize personal gains a s against the rest of players. None the less, cooperation is an aspect that the model acknowledges the gains that result from assuming personal gains for the common good of a group. In our case study, the European Union is presented to act rationally, independent of individual state desires. However, states act rationally and by evaluating the gains that result from corroboration efforts, they assume their individual desires for the sake of the common good of a region of the entire globe. The model has some advantages against other models that are equally used in foreign policy analysis. It is also true that there exist disadvantages that are associated to the model in the effectiveness of the analysis. Bibliography Castillo J. C. 2007. 31-50. The European Security and Defence Policy: Defining the European Union as a Rational Actor in International Security. Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 3 issue 3/2007 Guttman J. M. 1996. 27-30. Rational actors, tit-for-tat types, and the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Vol. 29 (1996) 27-56 Kent G. 1969. 96. Foreign policy analysis: Middle East. Peace research society, paper, XIV, the Ann Arbor conference, 1969. Kahler M. 199. 921-922. Rationality in International Relations. InternationalOrganization 52, 4,Autumn1998, pp.919–941 Mesquita B. B. 2009. 4. Foreign Policy Analysis and Rational Choice Models. New York University/Stanford University. Retrieved on 27/4/2013. Web: http://www.isacompss.com/info/samples/foreignpolicyanalysisandrationalchoicemodels_sample.pdf Ogu M. I. 2013. 94.  Rational Choice Theory: Assumptions, Strenghts, Andgreatest Weaknesses In Application Outside Thewestern Milieu Context.Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter) Vol. 1, No. 3 , 2013. 90 Slantchev B. L. 2005. 1. IntroductiontoInternationalRelations Lecture3: TheRationalActorModel. Department of Political Science, University of California – San Diego. April19,2005 Searl J. nd. 21-25. The Classical Model of Rationality and Its Weaknesses. The Classical Model of Rationali ty and Its Weaknesses. Retrieved on 27/4/2013. Web: http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Searle,JohnR/John%20Searle%20-%20Rationality%20in%20Action-chap1.pdf Read More