This article introduces the Psychological Characteristics of Leaders (PsyCL) data set. Foreign policy decisions are made by humans, and human psychology affects those decisions. While structural factors likely shape policy challenges and opportunities, excluding humans from our models is certain to miss important factors. Psychology has been excluded in the past in part because of the lack of data; PsyCL begins to address this problem. We discuss the importance of psychology in decision-making, describe the structure and scope of the data and its flexible units of analysis, present some simple empirical examples, and conclude with thoughts on future research.
{"title":"Psychological Characteristics of Leaders (PsyCL): A New Data Set","authors":"Mark Schafer, Joshua E. Lambert","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orac008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orac008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article introduces the Psychological Characteristics of Leaders (PsyCL) data set. Foreign policy decisions are made by humans, and human psychology affects those decisions. While structural factors likely shape policy challenges and opportunities, excluding humans from our models is certain to miss important factors. Psychology has been excluded in the past in part because of the lack of data; PsyCL begins to address this problem. We discuss the importance of psychology in decision-making, describe the structure and scope of the data and its flexible units of analysis, present some simple empirical examples, and conclude with thoughts on future research.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41603695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How does the US public evaluate claims attributing responsibility for a cyberattack? It seems plausible that political factors complicate how the US public judges attribution claims. In this article, we collect original survey data and use two survey experiments to explore this subject. Specifically, we analyze how cues and endorsements from partisan, intelligence, and independent non-governmental actors affect public confidence in attribution claims regarding the identity of cyberaggressors and support for retribution. We find evidence of polarization, particularly regarding perceptions of Russia's threat in cyberspace. To uncover whether this polarization results from partisan cheerleading or more sincere motivations, we conduct two experiments regarding political factors and attribution claims. In the first experiment, we find that respondents respond similarly to independent observers’ endorsements of attribution claims but that Democrats appear to respond strategically in a test of the link between attribution and retribution rather than endorse a proposal by then-President Trump. In the second experiment, we find that partisans respond similarly to intelligence and independent experts' evaluations of attribution claims, and that both respond much more favorably to independent experts than the intelligence community. Superficial polarization thus turns out to look more like partisan cheerleading.
{"title":"Cheerleading in Cyberspace: How the American Public Judges Attribution Claims for Cyberattacks","authors":"Marcelo M. Leal, P. Musgrave","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orac003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orac003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How does the US public evaluate claims attributing responsibility for a cyberattack? It seems plausible that political factors complicate how the US public judges attribution claims. In this article, we collect original survey data and use two survey experiments to explore this subject. Specifically, we analyze how cues and endorsements from partisan, intelligence, and independent non-governmental actors affect public confidence in attribution claims regarding the identity of cyberaggressors and support for retribution. We find evidence of polarization, particularly regarding perceptions of Russia's threat in cyberspace. To uncover whether this polarization results from partisan cheerleading or more sincere motivations, we conduct two experiments regarding political factors and attribution claims. In the first experiment, we find that respondents respond similarly to independent observers’ endorsements of attribution claims but that Democrats appear to respond strategically in a test of the link between attribution and retribution rather than endorse a proposal by then-President Trump. In the second experiment, we find that partisans respond similarly to intelligence and independent experts' evaluations of attribution claims, and that both respond much more favorably to independent experts than the intelligence community. Superficial polarization thus turns out to look more like partisan cheerleading.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45761223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Carlos Gustavo Poggio Teixeira, João Paulo Nicolini Gabriel
Studies on ethnic interest groups are contributing to better understand the US foreign policy. By reviewing this literature, we noticed that establishing causal claims in this field has proved challenging due to methodological issues. Many authors draw conclusions focusing exclusively on ethnic groups without taking into account the full complexity of political processes. This work consists in the application of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to this subject, aiming to overcome previous limitations by analyzing the links between ethnic groups and other agents. To that end, we undertook the case study here reported of the role played by Indian–Americans to advance the 2008 nuclear agreement between the United States and India through Capitol Hill. Employing deductive process tracing based on the ACF's structure, we demonstrate the relevance of the links between Indian–Americans and other groups to better understand how this agreement came to be approved.
{"title":"The Advantages of Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to the Studies On Ethnic Interest Groups","authors":"Carlos Gustavo Poggio Teixeira, João Paulo Nicolini Gabriel","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Studies on ethnic interest groups are contributing to better understand the US foreign policy. By reviewing this literature, we noticed that establishing causal claims in this field has proved challenging due to methodological issues. Many authors draw conclusions focusing exclusively on ethnic groups without taking into account the full complexity of political processes. This work consists in the application of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to this subject, aiming to overcome previous limitations by analyzing the links between ethnic groups and other agents. To that end, we undertook the case study here reported of the role played by Indian–Americans to advance the 2008 nuclear agreement between the United States and India through Capitol Hill. Employing deductive process tracing based on the ACF's structure, we demonstrate the relevance of the links between Indian–Americans and other groups to better understand how this agreement came to be approved.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41607790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While most international relations (IR) scholars tend to minimize the effect of relations between statespersons on foreign policy, this article argues that interpersonal relationships have more weight than the literature suggests. On the basis of twenty-one interviews conducted with senior Israeli statespersons, we propose a two-level model-linking positive interaction between statespersons and actual consequences at the state level. At the personal level, positive interactions can create receptiveness, build trust, facilitate accessibility and availability, and advance personal commitment. Translating these outcomes into consequences at the state level is mediated either by persuasion or by commitment. If persuasion is effective or there exists a high level of personal commitment, statespersons are more likely to succeed in mobilizing international support, removing obstacles to agreements, gathering sensitive information, and diffusing interstate tension. We conclude by discussing the limitations and advantages of good personal relations between statespersons and their implications for IR practice and theory.
{"title":"The Benefits of Friendliness: The Consequences of Positive Interpersonal Relations for Interstate Politics","authors":"G. Heimann, Zohar Kampf","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orac001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orac001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While most international relations (IR) scholars tend to minimize the effect of relations between statespersons on foreign policy, this article argues that interpersonal relationships have more weight than the literature suggests. On the basis of twenty-one interviews conducted with senior Israeli statespersons, we propose a two-level model-linking positive interaction between statespersons and actual consequences at the state level. At the personal level, positive interactions can create receptiveness, build trust, facilitate accessibility and availability, and advance personal commitment. Translating these outcomes into consequences at the state level is mediated either by persuasion or by commitment. If persuasion is effective or there exists a high level of personal commitment, statespersons are more likely to succeed in mobilizing international support, removing obstacles to agreements, gathering sensitive information, and diffusing interstate tension. We conclude by discussing the limitations and advantages of good personal relations between statespersons and their implications for IR practice and theory.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45055534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Countries routinely translate official statements and state media articles from native languages to English. Over time, these articles provide a window into what each government is trying to portray to the world. The FOCUSdata Project provides years’ worth of text and language sentiment ratings for hundreds of thousands of articles from state media and ministry of foreign affairs’ websites from North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. Information is an important foreign policy tool and national security strategists analyze how it influences the attitudes and behaviors of foreign audiences. This article introduces the FOCUSdata Project and shows how the sentiment data provide unique abilities to analyze Russia's and Iran's reactions to US policies and events and NGO human rights campaigns. Evaluating countries’ official narratives improves understanding of government signals to outside actors, reactions to crises and foreign policy tools, and interests regarding (un)favorable developments. Governments’ sentiment provides unique explanatory power.
{"title":"Focusdata: Foreign Policy through Language and Sentiment","authors":"Scott Fisher, Graig R. Klein, Juste Codjo","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orac002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orac002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Countries routinely translate official statements and state media articles from native languages to English. Over time, these articles provide a window into what each government is trying to portray to the world. The FOCUSdata Project provides years’ worth of text and language sentiment ratings for hundreds of thousands of articles from state media and ministry of foreign affairs’ websites from North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. Information is an important foreign policy tool and national security strategists analyze how it influences the attitudes and behaviors of foreign audiences. This article introduces the FOCUSdata Project and shows how the sentiment data provide unique abilities to analyze Russia's and Iran's reactions to US policies and events and NGO human rights campaigns. Evaluating countries’ official narratives improves understanding of government signals to outside actors, reactions to crises and foreign policy tools, and interests regarding (un)favorable developments. Governments’ sentiment provides unique explanatory power.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47695500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Luis L. Schenoni, P. Ribeiro, Dawisson Belém Lopes, Guilherme Casarões
In this article, we provide a framework to analyze the foreign policy overstretch of middle powers, that is, their recent tendency to expand foreign policy goals and ambitions beyond their capabilities. We propose that overstretch results from the interaction of permissive international environments and the collusion of domestic actors to produce foreign policy myths. These myths, in turn, justify unsustainable swelling of foreign policy expenditures until they are shattered. After laying out our theory, we test it against the case of twenty-first-century Brazil. First, we document how interest groups logrolled to foster and capitalize on a “myth of multipolarity,” which, once entrenched in elite discourse and public opinion, resulted in a tangible overgrowth of foreign policy. Second, we show the extent of overstretch across four indicators—number of embassies, participation in peacekeeping operations, membership in international organizations, and aid projects overseas—using the synthetic control method to compare Brazil with a plausible counterfactual.
{"title":"Myths of Multipolarity: The Sources of Brazil's Foreign Policy Overstretch","authors":"Luis L. Schenoni, P. Ribeiro, Dawisson Belém Lopes, Guilherme Casarões","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab037","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we provide a framework to analyze the foreign policy overstretch of middle powers, that is, their recent tendency to expand foreign policy goals and ambitions beyond their capabilities. We propose that overstretch results from the interaction of permissive international environments and the collusion of domestic actors to produce foreign policy myths. These myths, in turn, justify unsustainable swelling of foreign policy expenditures until they are shattered. After laying out our theory, we test it against the case of twenty-first-century Brazil. First, we document how interest groups logrolled to foster and capitalize on a “myth of multipolarity,” which, once entrenched in elite discourse and public opinion, resulted in a tangible overgrowth of foreign policy. Second, we show the extent of overstretch across four indicators—number of embassies, participation in peacekeeping operations, membership in international organizations, and aid projects overseas—using the synthetic control method to compare Brazil with a plausible counterfactual.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43753782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A study of the daily briefings of US presidents by the intelligence community offers a useful test of whether governments can surmount intragovernmental influences in the acquisition and processing of information. A finding that the briefs somehow anticipate events would suggest that governments—their leaders and organizations—rise above political incentives and institutional practices to approach the rationality that realist and liberal scholars attribute to states. This study, thus, examines which countries appear in (the now declassified) daily intelligence briefs of the 1961–(January)1977 period, covering the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford years. It not only finds evidence that the selection of countries for the briefs favors countries referenced in prior briefs (per the foreign-policy literature) but also finds significant evidence that the appearance of countries, in the briefs, anticipates their increased activity in the period to follow (per a rational model).
{"title":"Predilection or Prediction? Country Selection for the President's Daily Intelligence Brief, 1961–1977","authors":"James H. Lebovic","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A study of the daily briefings of US presidents by the intelligence community offers a useful test of whether governments can surmount intragovernmental influences in the acquisition and processing of information. A finding that the briefs somehow anticipate events would suggest that governments—their leaders and organizations—rise above political incentives and institutional practices to approach the rationality that realist and liberal scholars attribute to states. This study, thus, examines which countries appear in (the now declassified) daily intelligence briefs of the 1961–(January)1977 period, covering the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford years. It not only finds evidence that the selection of countries for the briefs favors countries referenced in prior briefs (per the foreign-policy literature) but also finds significant evidence that the appearance of countries, in the briefs, anticipates their increased activity in the period to follow (per a rational model).","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45106031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholarship has demonstrated that domestic economic inequality is related to a number of forms of intrastate conflict, such as civil wars and rebellions. There are good reasons to believe that it also has an impact on the initiation of militarized interstate disputes for diversionary reasons. Such use of external force may refocus popular attention and may reinforce the strong nationalist sentiment that tends to prevail in societies with substantial economic inequality. Our empirical results support this contention in democracies but, as expected, not in autocracies. At a time when domestic economic inequality is rising across the world, our findings may be timely.
{"title":"Disparity and Diversion: Domestic Economic Inequality and MID Initiation","authors":"Stephen B Long, Jeffrey Pickering","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab032","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scholarship has demonstrated that domestic economic inequality is related to a number of forms of intrastate conflict, such as civil wars and rebellions. There are good reasons to believe that it also has an impact on the initiation of militarized interstate disputes for diversionary reasons. Such use of external force may refocus popular attention and may reinforce the strong nationalist sentiment that tends to prevail in societies with substantial economic inequality. Our empirical results support this contention in democracies but, as expected, not in autocracies. At a time when domestic economic inequality is rising across the world, our findings may be timely.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45036557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes how and why foreign policy (FP)-makers use dialogue and participation processes (DPPs) with (groups of) individual citizens as a source of public opinion. Taking Germany as a case study and drawing on DPP initiatives by the Federal Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt, AA) since 2014, we analyze the officials’ motivation for establishing such processes and find four different sets of motivation: (1) image campaigning, (2) educating citizens, (3) listening to citizens, and (4) changing the citizens’ role in FP. Our article makes three contributions. First, we provide a novel typology of the sources of public opinion upon which FP-makers can draw. Second, our study points to the importance of, and provides a framework for, analyzing how officials engage with public opinion at the micro-level, which has so far been understudied in FP analysis. Finally, our empirical analysis suggests that both carefully assessing and influencing public opinion feature prominently in motivation, whereas PR purposes are of minor importance. Recasting the citizens’ role in FP gains in importance over time and may mirror the increased need to legitimize FP in Western democracies vis-à-vis their publics.
{"title":"Engaging with Public Opinion at the Micro-Level: Citizen Dialogue and Participation in German Foreign Policy","authors":"C. Opitz, H. Pfeifer, A. Geis","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyzes how and why foreign policy (FP)-makers use dialogue and participation processes (DPPs) with (groups of) individual citizens as a source of public opinion. Taking Germany as a case study and drawing on DPP initiatives by the Federal Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt, AA) since 2014, we analyze the officials’ motivation for establishing such processes and find four different sets of motivation: (1) image campaigning, (2) educating citizens, (3) listening to citizens, and (4) changing the citizens’ role in FP. Our article makes three contributions. First, we provide a novel typology of the sources of public opinion upon which FP-makers can draw. Second, our study points to the importance of, and provides a framework for, analyzing how officials engage with public opinion at the micro-level, which has so far been understudied in FP analysis. Finally, our empirical analysis suggests that both carefully assessing and influencing public opinion feature prominently in motivation, whereas PR purposes are of minor importance. Recasting the citizens’ role in FP gains in importance over time and may mirror the increased need to legitimize FP in Western democracies vis-à-vis their publics.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43437526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contrary to other subfields of international relations, foreign policy analysis (FPA) has not experienced a “critical turn” yet. This research note suggests that this may be in part because FPA scholarship does already contain certain “critical” features, such as holding decision-makers to account and the incorporation of various “subordinated” actors in its analyses. Having said that, FPA scholarship tends to fall short on other dimensions of critical scholarship. That is, despite its relatively broad analytical net, it nonetheless silences certain actors, places little attention to the effects of foreign policy decisions, and shows a somewhat limited ethical-political engagement. While an outright critical turn is unlikely to be forthcoming not least for epistemological reasons, FPA would still benefit from a further infusion of critical insights.
{"title":"Toward a (More) Critical FPA","authors":"Klaus Brummer","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Contrary to other subfields of international relations, foreign policy analysis (FPA) has not experienced a “critical turn” yet. This research note suggests that this may be in part because FPA scholarship does already contain certain “critical” features, such as holding decision-makers to account and the incorporation of various “subordinated” actors in its analyses. Having said that, FPA scholarship tends to fall short on other dimensions of critical scholarship. That is, despite its relatively broad analytical net, it nonetheless silences certain actors, places little attention to the effects of foreign policy decisions, and shows a somewhat limited ethical-political engagement. While an outright critical turn is unlikely to be forthcoming not least for epistemological reasons, FPA would still benefit from a further infusion of critical insights.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47200197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：