There are various approaches to the study of foreign policy. The major approaches are discussed herein.
1.The rational actor model: this is an approach to the study of foreign policy that assumes that the main actor of foreign policy in a state is a rational individual who makes strictly well thought-out decisions of foreign policy after reviewing all available information and alternatives to the course of action. The decision reached by the decision maker is aimed at maximizing value.
The decision maker follows a process of decision making which entails first recognizing a problem that exists and its details, then identifying the state’s goals in the matter, then listing all possible alternatives and then finally choosing the best alternative that best guarantees the best interests of the state are secures.
This approach comes with underlying assumptions such as that the state is a unitary actor with a united front and goals. This may not always hold since there are many players in a state, many at times with varying goals and opinions. This approach also assumes that the leader is rational and in charge of foreign policy decision making and that all foreign policy actors are the same and their decision making process is the same.
This approach finds its limitations however in that different actors face human constraints such as biases and cognitive incompetence. The existence of multiple goals of a state and the tendency to over react during crisis also hamper this approach.
This approach is however the most suitable during crises due to its decisiveness and speed in making decisions.
2. The Bureaucratic Politics Model/ Government Bargaining Approach. This is an approach of foreign policy that features a process of decision making in foreign policy in which decisions are made through a thorough process of consideration and competition by various government agencies and bureaucrats, each with varying goals, interests and opinions. This model recognizes that varying state departments may differ in interests, for example, the department of trade is more interested in approaching foreign policy from a trade perspective while the department of defense approaches foreign policy from a security and strategic perspective. In such a case, these two departments, would have to lobby with other state departments to have their interests secured in the final foreign policy to be adapted. Different bureaucracies vie for increasing their funding and size. Decisions are made by bureaucracies competing against each other and suggesting solutions to problems that would involve using their resources so as to increase their level of importance.
This approach is characterized by divergent views of foreign policy makers, compromise and bargaining, absence of a single rational actor, hierarchical organization or structure and reluctance to develop negotiation positions or a statement of objectives expect in the most generals terms.
This approach finds its strength in that technical matters enjoy great attention from varying viewpoint hence giving rise to the best outcome. The approach also allows the development of well-funded and developed foreign policy machinery spread across all state departments.
The approach however lacks in its inefficiency in crisis situations as it is slow, it also demands a lot of resource allocation into lobbying and undermines the role of individual decision makers.
3. Organizational Process Model. This is a lesser labor intensive process of foreign policy decision making which relies on standardized, less controversial, less innovative and less radical responses to issues. This is adopted majorly by international organizations and low level foreign policy practitioners and staff. This model relies on Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to respond to foreign policy issues.
This approach finds its strength in that it cuts across individual perceptions to provide objective answers. It however finds weakness in that it stifles innovation, diverts resources of a state towards institutions, causes band-wagoning of states in these institutions and undermines the role of individual actors in foreign policy.
4. Group Think Tank Model. This is where a think tank participates in the formation of foreign policy. It is characterized by individuals with similar values and aspirations. This model aims at having a unitary foreign policy. It is a model which can be used in a crisis situation. I doesn’t take long to make a decision as all the individuals have similar values and aspirations.
This model is however limited due to possible cognitive dissonance caused by the group’s belief that they are right.