Comparative Foreign Policy: Fad, Fantasy, or Field?

Author(s): James N. Rosenau

Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 1968), pp. 296-329
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3013508 .
Accessed: 30/03/2011 09:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWS AND OTHER DISCUSSION

Comparative
ForeignPolicy:Fad,
Fantasy,or Field?*
JAMES
DOUGLASS

N. ROSENAU

COLLEGE,

RUTGERS

UNIVERSITY

All tlhesignsare pointing

in thesame direction:as a television
commercial
mightdescribeit,"Comparative
ForeignPolicyis comand graduate
ing on strongforthe 1970s!"A few undergraduate
courseswiththistitleare now beingtaught.'Severalconferences
on allied topicshave recentlybeen held2and a couple of these
have even resultedin the appearanceof publications
on the subject.3Occasionallya paperis delivered4
or bookpublished5
which
* An earlierversionof this paper was presentedto the ConferenceSemof Michigan,
inar of the Committeeon ComparativePolitics,The University
on March 10, 1967. My gratitudeto the ResearchCouncil of RutgersUniversityand the Center of InternationalStudies of PrincetonUniversityfor
of thispaper is exceededonly
the facilitiesthatmade possiblethe preparation
to mywife,Norah,who providedsubstantivesuggestions,
by my indebtedness
editorialadvice, and moral supportunder the most tryingconditions.
1 For example,at Northwestern
University
duringthe 1965-1966academic
year.
2 The mostrecentbeing the occasion at the University
of Michiganfor
whichthispaper was written.
3 Cf. R. BarryFarrelled. Approachesto Comparativeand International
University
Press,1966); VernonMcKay,ed.,
Politics(Evanton: Northwestern
of ForeignPolicy (New York:
AfricanDiplomacy:Studiesin the Determinants
INTERNATIONAL

296

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

297

COMPARATIVEFOREIGN POLICY

are devoted to the subject, and a perusal of recentlists of disser-

along this
tationsin progressrevealsthatotherresearchfindings
thesurest
perhaps
is
there
Then
linearesoonto becomeavailable."
of
thoseastutestudents trendsin
publishers,
signof all: textbook
and are busily
in thisdirection
Academe,have discerneda stirring
thatcan be adoptedas textswhenthe
up manuscripts
drumming
acceptanceby politicalscientists.7
trendachievesdiscipline-wide
In sum,it seemsmorethanlikelythatin thecomingyearssomeForeignPolicy"willoccupya prominent
thingcalled"Comparative
place in the teachingof politicalscienceand in the researchof
desirable?Is the
But is such a development
politicalscientists.
symbolto which
policy a contentless
foreign
phrase"comparative
politicspay lip servicein orderto remain
of international
students
au courantwiththeircolleagueselsewherein thediscipline?Does
impulsethatcan neverbe realizedbecause
it standfora scientific
to comparative
foreignpolicyphenomenado not lend themselves
set
and distinguishable
analysis?Or does it designatean important
be subjectedto extended
thatcan usefully
phenomena
ofempirical
foreignpolicy,in short,a fad,a fanIs comparative
examination?
tasy,or a field?
In somerespectsit is all oftheseand thepurposeof thispaper
in orderto minimize
the fad and fantasydimensions
is to identify
thefield
as thefieldevolves.Although
and contradiction
confusion
hopefullyan assessmentof its inception
is barelyin its infancy,
FrederickA. Praeger,1966); and James N. Rosenau, Of Boundariesand
of Nationaland
Bridges:A Reporton a Conferenceon the Interdependencies
InternationalPolitical Systems(Princeton: Center of InternationalStudies,
ResearchMonographNo. 27, 1967).
Relationspanels at the
4 Cf. the papers preparedfor the International
Annual Meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association,September
1966.
5 See, for example,KennethN. Waltz, Foreign Policy and Democratic
Politics: The Americanand BritishExperience(Boston: Little, Brown and
and Consensus: A
Co., 1967), and WolframF. Hanrieder,"Compatibility
Proposalforthe ConceptualLinkage of Externaland InternalDimensionsof
ForeignPolicy,"AmericanPoliticalScience Review,59 (1967), pp. 971-82.
6 In the 1966 listing(AmericanPoliticalScience Review,60, pp. 786-91),
carried titlesthat suggestedresearchon topics involving
nine dissertations
studyof foreignpolicy.
the comparative
7 Duringa recenttwo-weekperiodthe presentwriterreceivedsuch invipublishers,each of whom was unawareof what
tationsfromthreedifferent
the otherswere doing.
VOLUME

12,

NUMBER

3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

298

JAmES

N. ROSENAU

and an attempt
to identify
its boundariesand problemswill,even
at thisearlystage,lessenthe growingpains thatlie ahead.
I. The sourcesof reorientation
That thefad,thefantasy,
and thefieldare all of recentorigin
can be readilydemonstrated.
Traditionally,
the analysisof foreign
policyphenomenahas consistedof a policy-oriented
concernwith
particular
situations
facedby specificnations.Thusthesinglecase,
limitedin timebyitsimportance
to therelevantactorsand in scope
by theimmediacy
of itsmanifest
repercussions,
has dominatedthe
literature
fordecades.8Attempts
to contrast
twoor moreempirical
cases have been distinctexceptionsand have been narrowly
confinedto the problemof whetherdemocraciesor dictatorships
are
likelyto conductthemselves
moreeffectively
in the international
arena.9Even thosepoliticalscientists
in the earlypostwarera who
explicitly
soughtto renderforeignpolicyanalysismoresystematic
by focusingon decision-making
processesdid notmovein a comparativedirection.
The decision-making
approachto foreignpolicy
calledattention
to a hostofimportant
variablesand greatlydiminishedthelong-standing
tendency
to positnationalactorsas abstract
entitiesendowedwithhumancapacitiesand qualities.But,in deof
mandingthatforeignpolicybe analyzedfromthe perspective
concreteand identifiable
decision-makers,
t-heapproachalso tended
of
thatthe perspectives
to precludeexamination
of the possibility
decision-makers
in different
societiesmightbe similar,or at least
the 1950sand well intothe 1960s,
comparable.Thus,throughout
the newlydiscovereddecision-making
variablesservedto improve
the qualityof the case histories
ratherthanto replacethemwith
new modesof analysis.10
To be sure,theimmediate
postwarperioddid notlack attempts
to generalizeabout the processeswherebyany societyformulates
and conductsitsforeign
ofRichard
policy.In additionto theefforts
8 For an elaboration
of this point,see my "Pre-Theoriesand Theoriesof
ForeignPolicy,"in R. BarryFarrell,ed., op. cit.,pp. 31-37.
9 See, forexample,Carl JoachimFriedrich,ForeignPolicyin the Making
(New York: W. W. NortonCo., 1938) Chaps. 1-4.
10 For an extendedattemptto assess the impactof the decision-making
approachon the studyof foreignpolicy,see my "The Premisesand Promises
of Decision-Making
Analysis,"in JamesC. Charlesworth
(ed.), Contemporary
PoliticalAnalysis(New York: The Free Press,1967), Chap. 11.
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

299

FOREIGNPOLICY
COMPARATIVE

C. Snyderand otherswho pioneeredin decision-making

analysis,1'
severalmoreeclecticobservers
soughtto specifythevariablesthat
operatewherever
foreign
policyphenomena
are found,12and a few
textbookeditorsalso undertookto bringtogetherin one volume
analysesof how different
countriesmade and sustainedtheirexternalrelations.13
In noneof themoreabstractformulations,
however, was the possibilityof engagingin comparativeanalysis
seriouslyconsidered.Foreignpolicyvariableswere identified
and
discussedas if theyoperatedin identicalwaysin all societiesand
was describedin
the hypothetical
societyabstractedtherefrom
termsof a multiplicity
of examples drawn largelyfromthe
"lessons"of moderninternational
history.14The appeasementat
Munich,thebetrayalat Pearl Harbor,the successof the Marshall
Plan-these are but a fewof theincidentsthatservedas the empiricalbasisforthetraditional
modelin whichnationswereposited
as serving(or failingto serve) theirnationalintereststhrough
foreignpoliciesthatbalance ends withmeans and commitments
11 Cf. Karl W. Deutsch,"Mass Communications
and the Loss of Freedom
in National Decision-Making:A Possible Research Approach to Interstate
Conflicts,"
Journalof ConflictResolution,1 (1957), pp. 200-11; JosephFrankel, "Towardsa Decision-MakingModel in ForeignPolicy,"PoliticalStudies,
7, (1959), pp. 1-11; Edgar S. Furniss,Jr.,The Officeof Premierin French
ForeignPolicy-Making:
An Applicationof Decision-MakingAnalysis(Princeton: ForeignPolicyAnalysisProject,PrincetonUniversity,
1954); RichardC.
Snyder,H. W. Bruck,BurtonM. Sapin, Decision-Makingas an Approachto
the Studyof International
Politics(Princeton:ForeignPolicyAnalysisProject,
PrincetonUniversity,
1954).
12 However,the list of worksof thisnatureis not a long one. The main
entriesare Feliks Gross, ForeignPolicy Analysis(New York: Philosophical
Library,1954); Louis J. Hlalle,Civilizationand ForeignPolicy: An Inquiry
forAmericans(New York: Harper and Brothers,1952); Kurt London, How
ForeignPolicy is Made (New York: D. Van NostrandCo., 1949); Charles
BurtonMarshall,The Limitsof ForeignPolicy (New York: HenryHolt and
Co., 1954); and GeorgeModelski,A TheoreticalAnalysisof the Formationof
ForeignPolicy (London: University
of London, 1954), later publishedas A
Theoryof ForeignPolicy (New York: FrederickA. Praeger,1962).
13 The onlytextbooks
withsuch a focuspublishedpriorto the 1960s were
Roy C. Macridis,ed. Foreign Policy in World Politics (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1958), and Philip W. Buck and MartinTravis,Jr.,eds.,
Controlof ForeignRelationsin ModernNations (New York: W. W. Norton
and Co., 1957).
14 London also presentedseparatedescriptions
in Washof policy-making
ington,London,Paris,Berlin,and Moscow,but thesewere not thensubjected
to comparative
analysis(op. cit.,pp. 99-153).
VOLUME

12, NUMBER

3, SEPTEMBER

1968

300

JAMES

N.

ROSENAU

withcapabilities.That the lessonsof historymightbe variously

experiencedby different
policymakingsystemswas not accounted

forin the abstractmodelsand thus,to repeat,theywereno more

orientedtowardcomparative
analysisthanwere the case histories
thatconstituted
themainstream
of foreignpolicyresearch.
Nor did thetextbook
editorstakeadvantageof theopportunity
afforded
by the accumulation
of materialsabout the externalbehavior of different
countriesand presentconcludingchaptersthat

attempted
to identify
thesimilarities
and differences
uncoveredby
the separate,but juxtaposed,analyses of several policymaking
systems.
Ironically,
in fact,the one textthatused theword"comparative"in connection
with the studyof a foreignpolicy also
explicitlyraised doubts about the applicabilityof this formof
analysis:in the firsteditionof thisworkthe introductory
chapter
on the "ComparativeStudy of ForeignPolicy"was writtenby
GabrielA. Almond,who notedthe "lack of the mostelementary
knowledge"about foreignpolicyphenomenaand concludedthat
"it will be some time beforerigorousand systematic
therefore
Even more ironically,
the comcomparisonbecomespossible."'15
parable chapter of the second edition of the same text, written
four years later by Kenneth W. Thompson and Roy C. Macridis,

and rejectedthepremisesof comparative

wentevenfurther
analysis on the groundsthatforeignpolicyvariablesinvolvea "comofthefew'scientific'
plexity[that]makesa mockery
toolswe have,"
therebyrenderingany attemptto generalize on the basis of comparative assessments"a hopeless task."'16

The existenceof thisattitudeof hopelessness

and of the traditionalinclination
towardcase histories
raisesthe questionof why
have appearedwithinpronouncedsignsof a majorreorientation
in the mid-1960s?
The answerwould seemn
creasingfrequency
to
butmajortrends,
one historical
be thattwounrelated
and theother
have convergedat thispoint,and whileneitheralone
intellectual,
would have stimulatedthe impulseto compareforeignpolicy
theircoincidence
in timehas servedto generatestrong
phenomena,
in thisdirection.
pressures
Macridis,ed., op. cit.,pp. 5-6.
16 Roy C. Macridis,ed., Foreign Policy in World Politics (Englewood
Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1962, Second Edition), pp. 26-27.
15

INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

COMPARATIVE
FOREIGN
POLICY

301

Let us look firstat the intellectualfactors.It seemsclear,in

retrospect,
thatthe rapid emergenceof a heavy emphasisupon
in the analysisof domesticpoliticsservedas a potent
comparison
impetusto reorientation
in thestudyofforeign
policy.The turning
pointforthefieldof comparative
politicscan be tracedto themid1950s,whenstructural-functional
analysiswas firstappliedto politicalphenomena,17
an eventthatin turnled to the formation
of
the Committee
on ComparativePoliticsof the Social ScienceResearch Council18and tlhepublicationof its many pioneering
volumes.19
Theseworkshighlighted
theidea, explicitly
set forthin
t-hefirst
chapterof thefirst
volume,thatcertainkeyfunctions
must
be performed
if a politicalsystemis to persist,and that these
functions
can be performed
bya widevariety
ofstructures.20
Whateverthelimitations
of structural-functional
analysis-andthereare
many2l-thiscentralpremiseprovideda way forstudentsof doUntil
mesticprocessesto compareseemingly
dissimilar
phenomena.
structural-functional
analysiswas made part of the conceptual
of politicalsysequipment
of thefield,themostsalientdimensions
temsweretheiruniquecharacteristics
and thereseemedto be little
reasonto engagein comparison,
exceptperhapsto showhow differentgovernmental
formsgive rise to dissimilarconsequences.
it was quite commonplace
to show
Indeed,priorto themid-1950s
17 Cf. Gabriel A. Almond,"ComparativePolitical Systems,"Joutnalof
Politics,18 (1956), pp. 391-409.
18 GabrielA. Almondand JamesS. Coleman (eds.), The Politicsof the
DevelopingAreas (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1960); Lucian W.
and Political Devolopment(Princeton:Princeton
Pye, ed., Communications
Press,1963); JosephLaPalombara,ed., Bureaucracyand Political
University
Press,1963); RobertE. Ward
Development(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
and DankwartA. Rustow,eds., PoliticalModernizationin Japanand Turkey
Press, 1964), JamesS. Coleman,ed., Edu(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
cation and Political Development (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,
1965); Lucian W. Pye and SidneyVerba,eds., PoliticalCultureand Political
Press,1965); JosephLaPalomDevelopment(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
bara and MyronWeiner, eds., Political Parties and Political Development
Press,1966).
(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
20 Cf. GabrielA. Almond,"A FunctionalApproachto ComparativePolitics,"in Almondand Coleman,op. cit.,pp. 3-64.
see Ernest
21 For a succinctreview and assessmentof these limitations,
Explanation
of Science:Problemsin theLogic of Scientific
Nagel,The Structure
(New York: Harcourt,Brace and World, Inc., 1961), pp. 520-35. Also see
Logic," World Politics,18 (1966), pp.
RobertE. Dowse, "A Functionalist's
607-22.
vOLumE

12, NUMBER 3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

302

JAMES

N.

ROSENAU

formscan give rise to dissimilar

thateven similargovernmental
consequences:"Look at this Westernparliamentand contrastit
a studentat thattimewould
legislature,"
withtlhatnon-Western
"They both go throughthe
observewitha sense of satisfaction.
but how diverseare theresultsl"
same procedures,
analysis
Then the breakthrough
occurred.Structural-functional
and put all political
liftedsightsto a higherlevelof generalization
was much
tracingdifferences
systems
on an analyticpar.Thereafter,
and stuequivalents,
thanprobingforfunctional
less exhilarating
dentsof domesticpoliticswere quickto respondto the challenge
Since the mid-1950spoliticalscientists
and reorienttheirefforts.
endlessseriesof articlesand books
have turnedout a seemingly
of similarities
analysis-toa delineation
to comparative
committed
based modelsof thepolitiuponwhichempirically
and differences
materialson
cal processcouldbe founded.A spateof comparative
the
of this
in
was
vanguard
polities
governance underdeveloped
means
confined
no
were
analyticupheaval,butitsrepercussions by
to Africa,Asia,and Latin America.No typeof systemor area of
subjectforcomparative
theworldwas viewedas an inappropriate
analysis.Even the two systemswhich an earliergenerationof
the UnitedStatesand
viewedas polarextremes,
politicalscientists
and as apt
theSovietUnion,wereconsideredas fitforcomparison
Similarly,
while the
subjectsto testa "theoryof convergence."22
had been regardedas representing
mudistinction
Westnon-West
it was nowtreatedas descriptive
of two
tuallyexclusivecategories,
segmentsof the same continuumof whateverclass of political
to
Norwas thereanyreluctance
was beingexamined.23
phenomena
break systemsdown and look at only one of theircomponent
and so were political
parts: politicalpartieswere compared,24
Communist
movements,27
revolutionary
cultures,25
oppositions,26
22 ZbigniewBrzezinskiand Samuel P. Huntington,
PoliticalPower: USAI
USSR (New York: The VikingPress,1964), pp. 3-14 and passim.
23 For example,see Samuel P. Huntington,
"Political Developmentand
PoliticalDecay," World Politics,17 (1965), pp. 386-430.
24 LaPalombaraand Weiner,op. cit.
25 GabrielA. Almondand SidneyVerba,The Civic Culture:PoliticalAttitudes and Democracyin Five Nations (Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press,
1963).
26 RobertA. Dahl (ed.), Political Oppositionsin WesternDemocracies
(New Haven: Yale University
Press,1966).
27 ChalmersJohnson,
Revolutionary
Change (Boston: Little,Brown and
Co., 1966).
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

COMPARATIE

303

FOREIGN POLICY

constitutional
regimes,28
bureaucracies,29
subsystems,80
military
all themajorinstitutions,
elites,3'and so on,through
and
processes,
ofpolities.As thecomparative
movement
personnel
gainedmomenit generatedefforts
tum,moreover,
to clarifythe methodological
problemsposedby thenew orientation32
and,moreimportantly,
to
providecomparable
dataformostorall ofthepolitiesextant.88
Like
all majormovements,
the trendtowardcomparative
analysisalso
evokedprotestsand denunciations
of its legitimacy.34
If theultimatepurposeof politicalinquiryis the generation
of
testedand/ortestabletheory,thenthisupheavalin comparative
politicshad alreadybegunto yieldsolidresultsby the mid-1960s.
One couldlookonlywithwonderment
upon theprogressthathad
28 RobertC. Tucker,"On the Comparative
World
Studyof Communism,"
Politics,19 (1967), pp. 242-57.
29 LaPalombara,op. cit.,and FerrelHeady, PublicAdministration:
A ComparativePerspective(Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1966).
30 HerbertJacob and KennethN. Vines, eds., Politics in the American
States:A ComparativeAnalysis(Boston: Little,Brownand Co., 1965); Frank
Munger,ed., AmericanStatePolitics:ReadingsforComparativeAnalysis(New
York:ThomasY. CrowellCo., 1966); and Lewis A. Froman,Jr.,"An Analysis
of Public Policiesin Cities,"Journalof Politics,29 (1967), pp. 94-108.
31 MorrisJanowitz,The Militaryin the Political Developmentof New
of Chicago
Nations:An Essay in ComparativeAnalysis(Chicago: University
ed., The Role of the Militaryin Underdeveloped
Press,1964); JohnJ.Johnson,
Press,1962); and SydneyNettleCountries(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
ton Fisher,ed., The Militaryin the Middle East: Problemsin Societyand
Press,1963).
(Columbus: Ohio State University
Government
32 Cf. RichardL. Merrittand Stein Rokkan,eds.), ComparingNations:
Research(New Haven: Yale
The Use of QuantitativeData in Cross-National
UniversityPress, 1966), passim; ArthurK. Kalleberg,"The Logic of Comparison: A MethodologicalNote on the ComparativeStudy of PoliticalSystems,"World Politics,19 (1966), pp. 69-82; SigmundNeumann,"Comparative Politics:A Half-Century
Appraisal,"Journalof Politics,19 (1957), pp.
369-90; SigmundNeumann,"The ComparativeStudyof Politics,"Comparative
Studiesin Societyand History,1 (January1959), pp. 105-12; Michael Haas,
"ComparativeAnalysis,"WesternPoliticalQuarterly,15 (1962), pp. 294-303;
and HarryEckstein,"A Perspectiveon ComparativePolitics,Past and Present,"
in HarryEcksteinand David E. Apter,eds., ComparativePolitics:A Reader
(New York: The Free Press,1964), pp. 3-32.
33 See ArthurS. Banks and Robert B. Textor,A Cross-PolitySurvey
(Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1963), and Bruce M. Russett,Hayward R.
Alker,Jr.,Karl W. Deutsch, and Harold D. Lasswell, World Handbook of
Press,1964).
Politicaland Social Indicators(New Haven: Yale University
84 Leslie Wolf-Phillips,"Metapolitics:Reflectionson a 'Methodological
Revolution,"'PoliticalStudies,12 (1964), pp. 352-69.
VOLUmE

12, NUMBER 3,

SEPTEMER

1968

304

JAMES N. ROSENAU

occurredin a decade'stime:notonlyweredatabeinggatheredand
broadnewways,buta varietyofstimulating,
processedin entirely
domestic
and empiricallybased models of
gauged, systematic,
politicalprocessesin generalizedtypesof politieshad made their
Curiously,
however,foreignpolicypheway intothe literature.35
nomenawerenotcaughtup in thesetidesof change.None of the
muchless any of the new conceptualfornew empiricalfindings,
dealtwiththeresponsesofpolitiesand theirinstitutions,
mulations,
eventsand trends.For
processes,and personnelto international
was comparedbut foreverything
reasonssuggestedelsewhere,"6
and onlybelatedlyhave studentsof comeignpolicyphenomena,
the need to makeconceptual
parativepoliticseven acknowledged
variablesupon domestic
allowancefortheimpactof international
processes.37
35 For example,see GabrielA. Almondand C. BinghamPowell,Jr.,ComparativePolitics:A DevelopmentApproach(Boston: Little,Brown and Co.,
1966); David E. Apter,The Politicsof Modernization(Chicago: University
of Chicago Press,1965); Louis Hartz, et al, The Foundingof New Societies
(New York: Harcourt,Brace and World,1964); RobertT. Holt and JohnE.
Turner,The Political Bases of Economic Development:An Explorationin
ComparativeAnalysis(Princeton:D. Van NostrandCo., 1966); and A.F.K.
Organski,The Stages of PoliticalDevelopment(New York: AlfredA. Knopf,
1965).
36 JamesN. Rosenau (ed.), Linkage Politics:Essays on the Convergence
of Nationaland International
Systems(New York: Free Press,forthcoming),
Chap. 1.
37 The conference
thatoccasionedthispaper,along withthe one thatled
to the volumeeditedby R. BarryFarrell (op. cit.), is one of the few efforts
to examinenational-international
relationships
organizedby studentsof domesticpoliticalsystems.For anotherbelatedacknowledgment
of the relevance
of international
variables,see Almondand Powell (op. cit.), pp. 9, 203-04.
Actually,in all fairnessit should be noted that some years ago Almonddid
of the domesticpoliticalsystem
acknowledgethatstudiesof "the functioning
. . .have commonlyneglectedthe importanceof the international
situation
theformof thepoliticalprocessand the contentof domesticpublic
in affecting

policy .

. .

. We do not know until this day whether the differencesin the

of the multiparty
functioning
systemsof the Scandinaviancountriesand those
of France and Italy are to be attributedto internaldifferences
in culture,
economics,and political and governmental
structure,or whetherthey are
in the 'loading' of these systemswith difficult
attributable
to the differences
and costlyforeignpolicyproblems,or whetherboth and in what proportions"
(in Macridis,op. cit., 1958, pp. 4-5). In his ensuingpioneeringworkson
domesticsystems,however,Almonddid not followthe line of his own reasoning.Not even his highlygeneralstructural-functional
modelof the political
process,presentedtwo years later in The Politicsof the DevelopingAreas,
made conceptualroomforthe impactof international
variablesor the funcINTERNATIONAI.

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

COMPARATIVE
FOREIGNPOLICY

305

The recentsignsof interestin comparative

foreignpolicy,in
otherwords,ariseoutoftheworkof studentsofinternational
politics and foreignpolicyand not froman extensionof the models
and inquiriesof thosewho focuson nationalor subnationalphenomena.As indicated,however,it seems doubtfulwhetherthe
formerwould have becomeinterested
in comparative
analysisif
the latterhad not successfully
weathereda decade of upheaval.
This spilloverthusconstitutes
the primeintellectual
sourceof the
reorientation
towardcomparative
foreignpolicy:in largemeasure
the reorientation
stemmedfromthe desireof studentsof internationalprocessesto enjoysuccesssimilarto thatof theircolleagues
in an adjoiningfield.38
The othermajorsourceof the reorientation
is to be foundin
certainpostwarhistoricalcircumstances
that coincidedwith the
upheavalin thefieldof comparative
politics.At leasttwotrendsin
worldpoliticswouldappearto have attracted
the attention
of studentsof foreign
policyto thevirtuesof comparative
analysis.Perhaps the mostimportant
of theseinvolvestheproliferation
of nationalactorsthatoccurredduringthe 1955-1965
decade as a result
of the withdrawalof colonialpowersfromAfricaand Asia. Not
also proliferate
at a comparable
onlydid foreign
policyphenomena
rateduringthisperiod(therebeingmoreactorsengagingin fortherecurrence
ofsimilar
eignpolicyactions),but,moreimportantly,
in a world of
patternswas far morediscernibleand impressive
some120nationsthanit had been whenhalfthisnumberof actors
the morethe incomprisedthe international
system.Conversely,
ternational
systemgrewin size, the less did concentration
upon
ofinternational
seemlikelyto unravelthemysteries
uniquepatterns
as moreand morenationsacquiredindepenlife.Stateddifferently,
and greatpowdenceand soughtto cometo termswithneighbors
ers,themoredid contrasts
amongtwoor moreof themloomas the
tionsservedby politicalactivitiesorientedtowarda system'sexternalenvironment.
38 For evidencethatthe foreignpolicyfieldwas not the only one to experiencethe spilloverfromthe comparativemovementinitiatedby students
of nationaland subnationalpolitics,see JohnUseem and Allen D. Grimshaw,
"ComparativeSociology,"Items,20 (December 1966), pp. 46-51, whichoutlines developmentsthat have recentlyculminatedin the appointmentof a
new committeeon comparativesociologyby the Social Science Research
Council.
VOLUME 12, NUMBER

3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

JAMESN. ROSENAU

306

of
routeto comprehension
of worldpolitics.The decolonization
sub-SaharaAfricawas especiallycrucialin thisrespect.The resultsocial
ing nationalactorswereso similarin size,culturalheritage,
and stage of economicdevelopcomposition,
politicalstructure,
system
ment,and the problemstheyfaced in the international
werethusso parallel,thatthe analysisof theirforeign
policiesvirAt least thiswould seem to be the
tuallycompelledcomparison.
mostlogicalexplanation
forthefactthatmanyof the earlyefforts
about foreignpolicy fromthe
to derivetheoreticalpropositions
comparative
analysisof empiricalmaterialsfocusedon Africain
politiesin general.40
particular89
and underdeveloped
of Red
era and theemergence
The adventofthethermonuclear
China as a buddingand recalcitrant
of
superpower
are illustrative
in foreign
anotherhistorical
trendthathas fostered
a reorientation
of problemsthatare worldpolicyanalysis,
namely,theemergence
in
and
As
wide scope.
more
moresituationshave arisentoward
whichall nationalactorsmustnecessarily
takea position,analysts
witha policy-oriented
concernhave becomeincreasingly
inclined
thereactionsand policiesof nationsthat
to juxtaposeand contrast
theypreviously
treatedas singlecases. Manyanalysesof the 1963
thecontinuing
nucleartestban treaty,
problemof nuclearproliferaofa nuclearcapability
are obvious
tion,and theChineseacquisition
ofChina'semergence
implications
examples.Indeed,theworldwide
resultedin whatis probablythefirst
workto focuson an
recently
immediate
policyproblemby analyzinghow a numberof different
nationalactorsare inclinedto respondto it.41
II. The studyof comparative
foreignpolicyand the comparative
studyofforeignpolicy
of analyticmodesneveroccurswithouta period
Reorientation
thatis oftenslow and difficult.
and adjustment
of transition
Apthestudyofforeign
Some
policyis notto be an exception.
parently
39 See, for example,McKay, op. cit., and Doudou Thiam, The Foreign
Policyof AfricanStates:IdeologicalBases, PresentRealities,FutureProspects
(New York: FrederickA. Praeger,1965).
40 For a particularly
effort
of thiskind,see HenryA. Kissinger,
stimulating
"Domestic Structureand ForeignPolicy,"Daedalus, 95 (Spring 1966), pp.
503-29.
41 A. M. Halpern,ed., Policies Toward China: Views fromSix Continents
(New York: McGraw-HillBook Co., 1965).
INTERNA1IONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

POLICY
COMPAiRATIVE
FOREIGN

307

of the earlychangessuggestthatthereorientation
is based partly
upona headlongand ill-considered
rushto getaboardthecomparative bandwagon.Perhapsbecause the intellectualand historic
factorsthathave fosteredchangeconvergedand reinforced
each
otherin sucha shortspan of time,littlethought
has been givento
whatcomparison
entailsin relationto foreignpolicyphenomena.
"Afterall,"somestudentsof foreign
policyseemto say,"thecomparativepeopleare doingit,whyshouldn't
we?"What"it"is in this
context,
however,is rarelyexaminedand is oftenassumedto involveno morethanthejuxtaposition
of theforeign
policyphenomena oftwoor moresystems.
Whataspectsof foreign
policyshould
be compared,how theyshouldbe compared,whytheyshouldbe
suchas these
compared,
whether
theycan be compared-questions
are notraised.Rather,havingpresumedthatsimplyby juxtaposing
suchphenomena
an endeavorcalled"comparative
foreign
policy"is
established,
manyanalystsproceedin theaccustomedmannerand
as a case
examineeach unitof thejuxtaposedmaterialsseparately
history.
A good illustration
of thecontinuing
predisposition
to settlefor
juxtaposition
without
comparison
is providedbytheaforementioned
workonhowmorethansixteendifferent
nationalactorsare inclined
to respondto Communist
China.42Despitethe abundanceof comparable materialmade available by the commonfocus of the
variouschapters,
neitherthe editornorthe authorssaw fitto contrastsystematically
the relativepotenciesof the variablesunderlyingresponsesto China.Instead,each of the sixteensubstantive
chaptersdeals withthe policiesof a different
countryor region
and concluding
towardChina,and theeditor'sintroductory
chapters
withpresenting
an overviewof China
are concerned,
respectively,
that were revealedto
all the differences
itselfand summarizing
the workconsistsof sixteen
underliepoliciestowardit. In effect,
separatestudiesconveniently
broughttogetherin one place.43
In short,comparative
foreign
policyhas to someextentbecome
a newlabelforan old practice.It is in thissense-in thesensethat
is madeto comparative
reference
analysiswithoutadherenceto the
Ibid.
see myreviewof thebookin
of thisassessment,
For an elaboration
26 (1967), pp. 287-88.
TheJournal
ofAsianStudies,
42

43

VOLUME

12, mnmm 3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

308

JMnESN. ROSENAU

proceduresit requires-thatsomeof therecentsignsof reorientation are essentially

no morethana passingfad, an emulationof
formratherthanof substance.Even worse,to the extentthatthe
label is morethan an emptysymbolof modernity,
it has been
investedwithmisleadingconnotations.
An unfortunate
tendency,
perhapsalso stemming
fromill-considered
emulation,has developed wherebycomparative
foreignpolicyis viewedas a body of
knowledge,as a subjectto be explored,as a fieldof inquiry.
Scholarsand textbookpublishersalike tendto referto the study
of comparative
foreignpolicyas if thereexistedin thereal world
a set of phenomenathat could be so labeled. Scholarsspeak of
engagingin researchon comparative
foreign
policyand publishers
talkofissuingeightor tenpaperbacksas theircomparative
foreign
policyseries.Such nomenclature
is unfortunate
because the benefitsof comparative
analysiscannotbe enjoyedif it is conceivedin
termsof subjectmatterratherthanin methodological
terms.Comparisonis a method,nota bodyof knowledge.
Foreignpolicyphenomena-and not comparativeforeignpolicy phenomena-comprisethe subjectmatterto be probedand thesecan be studiedin
a varietyof ways,all of themusefulforcertainpurposesand irmethodis onlyone
relevantto otherpurposes.The comparative
thebestmethodforall purof thesewaysand it is notnecessarily
and testing
poses. It is mostusefulwithrespectto the generation
that
about
behavior
of propositions
foreignpolicy
applyto two or
similarities
and differmorepoliticalsystems.
Onlyby identifying
behaviorof morethanone nationalactorcan
encesin theexternal
case to higherlevelsof genanalysismovebeyondthe particular
with
is concerned
On theotherhand,iftheresearcher
eralization.44
method
thenthecomparative
theprocessesofonlya singlesystem,
maynotbe as valuableas thecase history.45
at which the
44 For a discussionof the different
levels of generalization
see Tucker,op.
comparativeanalysisof politicalsystemscan be undertaken,
cit., pp. 246-54.
45 Under special circumstances,
however,it is possibleto apply the comparativemethodto a single system.If certainconditionsremain constant
to the one system
fromone pointin timeto another,thenvariablespertinent
hiscan be contrastedand assessed in termsof theiroperationat different
toricaljunctures.For an extendeddiscussionand applicationof this procedure,whichhas been designatedas "quantitativehistoricalcomparison,"see
The RelativePotency
and Political Responsibilities:
my "PrivatePreferences
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

309

COMPARATIVE FOPEIGN POLICY

Strictly
speaking,therefore,
it makesa difference
whetherone
definesoneselfas engagedin the comparativestudyof foreign
policyor in the studyof comparative
foreignpolicy.The former,
it is arguedhere,is a legitimateand worthwhile
enterprise
that
may well lead to the formation
of a disciplinedfieldof inquiry,
whereasthelatteris an ambiguouslabel thatservesto perpetuate
a
fad ratherthanto establisha field.
Stillanotherkindof confusion
has arisenoutof theinitialburst
of enthusiasm
fora moresystematic
approachto the analysisof
foreignpolicyphenomena,
namely,a tendencyto positsuch phenomenaas encompassing
the entirerangeof actionsand interactionsthroughwhichthe interdependence
of nationsis sustained.
Justas thisever-increasing
has stimulated
interdependence
analysts
at foreign
to lookmorecarefully
policy,so has it spurreda greater
concernwithlinkagesbetweennationaland international
political
systems.Also referred
to as "transnational
politics"or "nationalinternational
interdependencies,"
theselinkagesare seen as comprisingall thewaysin whichthefunctioning
ofeach typeofpolitical system
is a consequenceoftheother.46
Whiletheforeign
policy
and linkageapproachesoverlapin important
ways,theyare not
identical.The latteris broaderthantheformer
and can be viewed
it. Foreignpolicyphenomenacomprisecertainkinds
as subsuming
relatethemselves
to all or
of linkages,thosein whichgovernments
partof the international
systemthroughthe adoptionof purposefulstancestowardit,but thereare othermajorkindsin whichthe
actorsor by the unlinksmaybe fashionedby nongovernmental
action.Theseotherkinds
intentional
ofgovernmental
consequences
of linkagescan, of course,be highlyrelevantto the formulation,
conduct,and consequencesof foreignpolicy,but theyemanate
fromand are sustainedby a set of processesthatare analytically
separablefromthe processesof foreignpolicy.Yet, impressedby
the extentto whichnationalsystemshave become pervadedby
externalstimuli,someanalyststendto emphasizethe factthatin
to these stimulithe nationalsystemis responding
to
responding
of Individual and Role Variables in the Behaviorof U.S. Senators,"in J.
Politics:Insightsand Evidence
David Singer,ed., QuantitativeInternational
(New York:The Free Press,1968), pp. 17-50.
46 For an elaboration
of thisconception,see my LinkagePolitics,op. cit.,
Chap. 3.
VOLUME

12,

NUNIBEi

3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

310

JAMES N. ROSENAU

elements"foreign"
to it,an emphasiswhichleads to the erroneous
equation of national-international
linkageswith foreignpolicy
phenomena.47
III. Tracingtheoutlinesofa field
To note thatforeignpolicyphenomenainvolvegovernmental
undertakings
directedtoward the externalenvironment
neither
justifies
treatingthemas a separatefieldof inquirynor indicates
wherethe boundariesof such a fieldlie. While it is possibleto
arguethatthe comparative
studyof foreignpolicyis a subfieldof
politicalsciencebecause manypoliticalscientistsresearchsuch
mattersand see themselvesas engagedin a commonenterprise
whentheydo so, plainlya,fieldmusthave an intellectual
identity
For a fieldto exist,
apartfromthe activitiesof its practitioners.
presumably
it musthaveitsowndiscipline-itsownsubjectmatter,
itsownpointofview,and itsowntheory.
In theabsenceof a subject matterwithan internalcoherenceof its own,of a viewpoint
thatstructures
thesubjectmatterin uniqueways,and of a bodyof
thathave not been or cannotbe derived
theoretical
propositions
thesubject,researchers
can never
fromanyotherwayofstructuring
be surewhetherin facttheyare engagingin a commonenterprise.
on highly
Undersuchcircumstances,
theymayactuallybe working
diverseproblemsthatshareonlytlle labels thatare attachedto
them.Whatis regardedas "thefield"maybe no morethana comthatoverlapin somerespects
positeof severaldifferent
enterprises
and proposibut thathave distinctive
subjectmatters,
viewpoints,
tionsof theirown.
Thus it is conceivablethatthe comparativestudyof foreign
policyis nota fieldat all. Perhapsthesearchforitssubjectmatter,
willyieldtheconclusionthatit is best
and propositions
viewpoint,
ofnationaland international
viewedas a composite
politics-asthe
one
concernof two fields, treating
appropriate
foreignpolicypheofnationalpolitical
variablesin theoperation
nomenaas dependent
variablesin theoperationof
and theotheras independent
systems
Needlessto say,it wouldmakematinternational
politicalsystems.
tersmucheasier if a separatefieldcould not be delineatedand
47 See Hanrieder,op. cit.,and my critiqueof thisarticle,AmericanPolitical Science Review,59 (1967), pp. 983-88.
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

311

FOREIGNPOLICY
COMPARATIVE

studiesof foreignpolicycould be assessedin terms

comparative
ofeitherthenationalor international
oftheconceptsand standards
and argumentaconceptualization
politicsfields.Muchpreliminary
tioncould therebybe avoidedand analystscould push on to the
data and advancingcomprehension.
main taskof gathering
Temptingas such a conclusionmay be, however,it mustbe
fieldsdo
rejected.The factis thatthe nationaland international
not encompassall the phenomenato whichthe label of "foreign
of
policy"mightbe attached.No matterhow muchtheviewpoints
remainunexplained.
somephenomena
thesefieldsmaybe stretched,
reveals
moreover,
aboutthenatureof thesephenomena,
Reflection
in its
thatis distinctive
coherent,
a subjectmatterthatis internally
its own
pointof view,and thatis at least capable of generating
uniquebodyof theory.
thephenomenathatare not otherwise
Statedmostsuccinctly,
regardas the subject
accountedfor,and thatwe shallhenceforth
thatreflect
an assothose
policy,
are
of
foreign
of
the
field
matter
national
actorsand
in the behaviorof
ciationbetweenvariations
in theirexternalenvironments.
The distinctive
pointof
variations
viewof thisfieldis thatinquirymustfocuson the associationbeand thatthisassociationcan only
tweenthetwosetsof variations
if it is examinedand assessedundera variety
be comprehended
The theoretical
unique to the fieldare
propositions
of conditions.
betweenthetwosetsof variations
thosethatpredicttheassociation
thanonlythebehaviorofthenationalactororonlytheevents
rather
in its environment.
Let us firstlookmorecloselyat the subjectmatterof the field
Thus
coherent.
and indicatethoseaspectswhichrenderit internally
if
as their
to foreign
policyphenomena
farwe havelooselyreferred
of the major
Obviously,an enumeration
naturewas self-evident.
is necessaryif
phenomenaencompassedby thisloose terminology
a coherent
is to be made of whethertheyconstitute
an assessment
seemsbest begun with the
body of data. Such an enumeration
premisethatat the heartof foreignpolicyanalysisis a concern
whichspan
withsequencesofinteraction,
perceptualor behavioral,
nationalboundariesand whichunfoldin threebasic stages.The
and inconditions,
or initiatory,
stageinvolvesthe activities,
first,
to
actors
stimulate
national
and
nonhuman-that
fluences-human
VOLUME

12,

NUMBER

3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

312

JAMESN.

ROSENAU

undertake
efforts
to modify
circumstances
in theirexternal
environments.The second,or implementive,
stageconsistsof theactivities,
conditions,
and influences
through
whichthestimuli
oftheinitiatory
stageare translated
intopurposeful
actionsdirectedat modifying
objectsin theexternalenvironment.
The third,or responsive,
stage
thatcomprisethe
denotestheactivities,
and influences
conditions,
reactionsof the objects of the modificationattempts.48The three
stages so defined encompass,respectively,the independent,inter-

vening,and dependentvariablesof foreignpolicyanalysis.

The independent
variablescan be usefullydivided into two
majortypes,thosethatare internalto the actorthatinitiatesa
and those that are externalto it. The
foreignpolicy undertaking49

former
includeanyhumanor nonhuman
and
activities,
conditions,
influences
operativeon the domesticscene thatstimulategovernmentalofficials
to seek,on behalfof thenationalactor,to preserve
or altersome aspectof the international
system.Examplesof internalindependent
variablesare elections,
groupconflicts,
depleted
hisoil reserves,
demandsforhighertariffs,
geographicinsularity,
toricvalueorientations,
a lackofsocietalunity,executive-legislative
all thediversefactorsthatcontribute
frictions,
and so on, through
48 This three-stage
formulation
of foreignpolicy sequences derivesfrom
a conception,elaboratedelsewhere,which posits certainkinds of effortsto
modifybehavior,togetherwith the modifications
that do or do not subsequentlyensue,as the essenceof politicalbehavior.Cf. my CalculatedControl
as a UnifyingConcept in the Study of InternationalPolitics and Foreign
Policy (Princeton:Centerof International
Studies,ResearchMonographNo.
15, 1963).
49 The use of the word "undertaking"
throughout
is intendedto emphasize thatby "foreignpolicy"is meantconsiderably
morethanmerepronouncementsindicatingpresentor futurelines of action. Such a designationhelps
to remindus thatforeignpolicycan arise out of complexsourcesand require
the mobilizationof complexresourcesas well as lengthyand continuouseffortsto bringabout modifications
of situationsand conditionsin the external
environment.
Stateddifferently,
it seems insufficient
to describeforeignpolicy
solelyin decisionalterms.The centralunitof actionis too multi-dimensional
to be seen as merelya choicethatofficials
make amongconflicting
alternatives.
By the time officialshave mobilizedresourcesin supportof theirdecisions
and coped withthe responsesof thosetowardwhomthedecisionsare directed,
is no longerenoughto describethe actionin whichthe anadecision-making
lystis interested.
For officials
to translatethe stimulito externalbehaviorinto
that
behaviorintendedto be effective
externally
requiresa vast undertaking
encompassesmanydecisionsby manypeople. Hence it seemsdesirableto use
nomenclature
thatis descriptiveof the complexityand scope of the behavior
beingexamined.
INTERNATIONA,

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

313

CoMpARATivE Fo1REIGNPOLIcy

to nationallife and thatcan therebyserveas sourcesof foreign

policy.Externalindependentvariablesalso include humanand
but these occur
and influences,
nonhumanactivities,conditions,
by
abroad and operateas foreignpolicystimuli servingas the
seekto preserveor alterthroughtheirunderobjectsthatofficials
economies,crop failtakings.Diplomaticincidents,deteriorating
buildups,elections,and historicenmitiesare but a
ures,military
abroadthatmightstimulate
fewofthemanydiversecircumstances
cannotbe
officialaction.Obviously,foreignpolicyundertakings
completelydivorcedfromeitherthe societyout of which they
abroad towardwhichtheyare diemanateor the circumstances
rected,so thatsome externaland internalindependentvariables
will be presentin everyundertakingalbeit the mix of the two
to the next.
fromone undertaking
typesmayvaryconsiderably
variablesin foreignpolicyanalysisare hardly
The intervening
less extensive.They includenot only any attitudes,procedures,
thatshapethewayin whichgovernmental
and conflicts
capabilities,
and agencies assess the initiatorystimuliand
decision-makers
decidehow to cope withthem,but theyalso embraceanyand all
and actionsthatmayaffectthe way
of the resources,
techniques,
circumstances
inwhichthedecisionsdesignedto preserveormodify
of values
in theinternational
systemare carriedout. The priority
their
theirtoleranceforambiguousinformation;
held by officials;
and analyticskills;
pasterrors;theirtraining
capacityforadmitting
structure
of theirdecision-making
practices;the
the hierarchical
of agenciesformoney,power,and prestige;the administrarivalry
the
tiveprocedures
employedin thefield;thereadinessto threaten
forceand the availabilityof men and materialto
use of military
ofpropagandatechniques;
backup thethreats;theappropriateness
of foreignaid programsare examplesof the
and the flexibility
variablesthatcan operatein foreignpolicyunmanyintervening
dertakings.
the responsivestage are
The dependentvariablescomprising
attiequally complexand extensive.They includethe activities,
institutions,
capacities,and conditionsin the
tudes,relationships,
international
systemthatare altered(or notaltered)or preserved
(or not preserved)as a resultof the foreignpolicyundertakings
directedtowardthem.As in thecase of theindependent
variables,
VOLUME

12,

NUMBER

3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

314

JAMESN. ROSENATu

thedependent
variablescan be dividedintotwomajortypes,those
thatinvolvean alterationor preservation
of behaviorinternalto
and thosethatpertain
theobjectoftheforeign
policyundertaking
to the object'schangedor unchangedexternalbehavior.Again a
numberofobviousexamplescan be cited.The readinessof another
actorto enterintoand/orconcludenegotiations,
the inclination
to
complywithor resistdemandsforsupporton issuesin the United
or weakeningof an allianceexemNations,and the strengthening
plifyexternaldependentvariables.The abilityor inabilityto put
armiesintothe fieldas a consequenceof military
assistance,the
and theemergence
continuance
ordownfall
ofa hostilegovernment,
ofan old one as a result
or thepersistence
ofa newsocialstructure
of circumof a multi-faceted
foreignaid programare illustrative
variables
internal
whentreated
as
stancesthatwouldbe
dependent
evertheybecomethefocusof foreign
policyundertakings.
The fieldof foreign
policyis thusseen to covera vastrangeof
can arisewhereby
Circumstances
phenomena.
virtually
everyaspect
of local, national,and international
politicsmay be part of the
or responsive
initiatory
stageof theforeignpolicyprocess.Indeed,
offoreign
theforegoing
examplesindicatethatstudents
policymay
oftenbe led by theirsubjectmatterto move beyondpolitical
in theothersocialsciences.They
scienceto investigate
phenomena
mayevenfindthemselves
investigating
phenomenain the physical
sciences.This mightoccur,forexample,if the foreignpolicyunof interestaim to modifythe externalenvironment
dertakings
by
for depletedoil reserves.To comprehendthe becompensating
or complianceof the
haviorofthenationalactorand theresistance
actorsabroadwhoseoil depositsmakethemthe objectsof modifimustacquire some familiarity
cationattempts,
with
investigators
and economyof discovering,
thegeology,technology,
mining,and
oil.50
transporting
50 Of course,all of thisis not to say thatthe individualstudentof foreign
policy should or can be so broad-gaugedas to be able to handle all the
phenomenathat fall withinhis puirview.We have been tracingthe outlines
of a fieldto be probedby manypersonsand not of a researchdesignto be
implementedby one. Plainly the diversityand range of materialsencompassed by the fieldare too greatforone analystto masterfully.On the other
mustbe capable of communicating
the individualresearcher
hand,presumably
withthemanytypesof specialiststo whomhe may have to turnforguidance
thatlie outsidehis competence.
on thoseaspectsof undertakings
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

FORGN POLICY
CompARATIvE

315

Yet, despite its breadth of coverage, the subject matterof the

foreignpolicy field is internallycoherent.All the phenomena of
interestto foreignpolicy analystsacquire structureand coherence
throughtheirconcernwith the three stages of the interactionprocess throughwhichnationalactorspurposefullyrelate themselvesto
the internationalsystem.If individual, group, organizational,or
societal phenomenaare not relevantto one of the stages of a particularforeignpolicy undertaking,then the analystdoes not investigate them.A vast range of phenomenamay fall withinthe scope
of his concerns,but theyalways do so in a specificcontext-thatof
whethervariationsin the initiatoryand implementivestages can be
related to variationsin the responsivestage. Often,to be sure, the
analyst may find that the two sets of variationsare unrelated to
each other. Some, perhaps many, foreignpolicy undertakingsare
and thus do not reflectan associationin the two
totallyineffective
sets of variations.However, the internalcoherence of the subject
matterof a field derives from logical possibilitiesand not from
empiricalrealities.It is the legitimacyof the search for,not the
fact of, associationbetween the two sets of variationsthat renders
foreignpolicy phenomena internallycoherent.
This is not to deny that the subject matterof the foreignpolicy
field overlaps many other fields at many points. As already indicated, the phenomena encompassed by the initiatoryand implementivestages can be of considerable concern to studentsof national politics,just as those comprisingthe responsivestage can be
highly relevant to the analysis of internationalpolitics. Furthermore, variationsin any one of the stages may also be related to
variationsin sequences of behavior that span national boundaries
but are not part of eitherof the other two stages. Foreign policy
undertakingsdo have unintended consequences for social, economic,and political life,and, to the extentthat they do, the phenomena of the fieldbecome centralto these other disciplines.Yet
such overlap,the foreignpolicy analyststructures
notwithstanding
his subject matterin such a way as to distinguishit fromthat of
any otherfield.He is interestedin the entirerelationshipthat naand not in
tional actors establishwith theirexternalenvironments
for
has
the
three
None
of
it.
of
meaning
a
any
stages
only segment
attention
hold
his
of
each
The
characteristics
stage
him by itself.
VOLumE

12, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 1968

316

JAMES

N.

ROSENAU

only insofaras they may be associated with the characteristicsof

onlyto
theothertwo.For himforeignpolicybecomesintelligible
the extentthatits sources,contents,
and consequencesare considof thefield.No other
eredjointly.This is thedistinctive
viewpoint
fieldconcernsitselfwiththeassociationbetweenvariableson both
sides of national boundaries. The phenomena embraced by this
associationare the ones that always remainunexplainedeven after

to their
thefieldsofnationaland international
politicsare stretched
limits.Studentsof national (or comparative)politicshave no
theoretical
justification
forsustaining
an interestin foreignpolicy
once thebehavioralsequencesit initiatesare extendedintotheexallowance
ternalenvironment.
Althoughslow to make theoretical
forthepoint,theydo have a vitalconcernwiththeinternalconseand withthe
quencesoftheprocessesof foreign
policyformulation
whichforeign
feedbackeffects
thatmayresultfromthealterations
The
policyundertakings
bringabout in the externalenvironment.
responsivestageitself,however,lies outsideof the scope of their
field.Similarly,
foundations
of internanothingin the theoretical
for
tionalpoliticsprovidesstudentsof thatfieldwithjustification
probingthe sourcesof foreignpolicythatare locatedwithinnational actorsor the responseto foreignpolicy undertakingsthat are

confinedto the targetsocietyand do not becomeforeignpolicy

initiatives
on the part of that society.Theoriesof international
of nationalactorsand not on the
politicsfocuson theinteractions
sourcesor consequencesof interaction
whichare notpartof prior
or subsequentinteractions.
forthe
Although
theproblemsposed by the thirdrequirement
are
existenceof a field,a uniquebodyof theoretical
propositions,
discussedat greaterlengthin a latersection,it can be seen from
theforegoing
thatthe studyof foreignpolicyalso meetsthisconin the
dition.Propositions
abouttheassociationbetweenvariations
in theirexternalenvironbehaviorof nationalactorsand variations
mentscannotbe derivedfromany otherfieldof inquiry.Foreign
borrowsfromtheoriesof local and napolicytheorynecessarily
tional politics in order to manipulate properlythe internalindependent variables of the initiatorystage, the interveningvariables
of the implementivestage, and the internaldependentvariables of
the responsivestage. It must also rely on theoriesof international
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

COMPARATIVE

FOREIGN
POLICY

317

politicsforguidancein manipulating
theexternalindependent
and
dependentvariablesof theinitiatory
and responsive
stages.Yet,by
virtueof combining
theoryabout domesticand international
processes,foreignpolicytheoryis neitherdomesticnorinternational
theory.
It bearsthesamerelationship
to thesealliedfieldsas social
psychological
theorydoes to psychology
on theone hand and sociologyon the other."'Like social psychology,
it alone consistsof
propositions
thatrelatethe behaviorof an actorbothto its own
and to its environment.
functioning
The list of foreignpolicy
theorists
is notlongand containsno namescomparableto Lewin,
Hovland,Newcomb,Asch,or Festingerin social psychology,
but
presumably
thisis due to thefactthatthereorientation
towardthe
comparative
analysisofforeign
policyhas justbegunratherthanto
an inherent
inabilityof the fieldto supportits own unique body
of theory.
IV. Someunderlying
assumptions
Havingtracedin bold strokes
theoutlineof thefield,somefiner
touchesare in order.A numberof problemsrequirefurther
discussion.Perhapsthemostimportant
oftheseis thequestionof why
theresponsivestagemustbe partof foreignpolicyanalysis.Why
not treatgovernmental
decisionsas the dependentvariablesand
bypasstheresponsive
stage?Afterall, it mightbe argued,aspects
oftheinternational
systemare beingtakenintoaccountas external
independentvariables-whymusttheyalso be regardedas dependentvariables?If thefocusis on the nationalactorin relation
to its environment,
whyis it necessaryto investigatethe consequencesof foreignpolicyundertakings
forotheractors?Furthermore,how is one to knowwhetherthe presumedor modifiedbehaviorthatconstitutes
theresponsive
stageis in facta responseto
the foreignpolicyundertaking
beingexamined?Are therenot insurmountable
methodological
problemsinherentin the task of
separatingresponsesto externalinfluences
frombehaviorgeneratedby otherfactors?
51 For a discussionof how the distinctiveness
of social psychologyis not
diminisheddespitethe large extentto whichit borrowsfrompsychology
and
sociology,see Theodore M. Newcomb,Social Psychology(New York: The
DrydenPress, 1950), Chap. 1; and MortonDeutsch and RobertM. Krauss,
Theoriesin Social Psychology(New York: Basic Books,Inc., 1965), Chap. 1.
VOLuME

12,

NUMBER

3,

SIEPTEMBER

1968

318

JAMES N. ROSENAU

A similarline of questioningcan be pursuedwithrespectto

theinitiatory
and implementive
stages.Sinceforeignpolicyundertakingsare beingtreatedas purposeful,
whynotregardthe governmental
decisionsthatlaunchthemas theindependent
variables
and bypasstheinitiatory
stage?Whynotfocuson the purposeful
behaviordirectly,
ratherthanpositingit as an intervening
process?
If theinteraction
of nationalactorsand theirenvironments
constitutesthesubjectmatterof thefield,whydoes notits scopeinclude
unplannedactionsas wellas purposeful
ones?How does one assess
therelativepotenciesof all theindependent
variablesthatmaybe
operativeas a sourceof a foreign
policyundertaking?
Indeed,how
does one determine
whetherthe undertaking
is a consequenceof
the externaland internalindependentvariablesbeing examined
ratherthanof the decision-making
processthatlaunchedit?
Anotherset of problemsposed by the suggestedoutlineconcerns the natureof foreignpolicy theory.What are the main
questionsthatsuch theoryis designedto answer?Are not all the
uninteresting
questionsansweredby otherfields?Do not national
and international
politicaltheory,
respectively,
cope withtheways
in whichforeign
policyphenomenaare functional
or dysfunctional
Posed differently,
fornationaland international
theories
systems?
of nationaland international
politicsdeal with the fascinating
questionsof whysystemsendureor collapseand how theydo or
do not achieveequilibria-butwhat kindsof systemicquestions
can be asked about foreignpolicyphenomena?If foreignpolicy
analysisdoes not pose funtionaland systemicquestions,what
To repeat,is it a fantasy
does it haveto offer?
theoretical
challenges
of
construction
theories
to aspireto the
offoreign
generalized
policy
If so, whycompare?Whynot simply
thatare viableand relevant?
thatparticular
nationalactors
examinethe particular
relationships
establishwiththeirparticularenvironments?
Obviouslythisis not the place to developfull answersto all
of someof the basic asthesequestions.However,an explication
our delineationof the foreignpolicyfield
sumptionsunderlying
someoftheseproblemsand pointtheway to a more
shouldclarify
formaland extendedattemptto resolveall of them.52
52 For a more detailed discussionof the problemsposed by the independentand dependentvariablesof the field,see my "Moral Fervor,SysteINTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

COMPARATrIEFORJIaGN
PoucY

319

The centrality
of the responsivestage is unquestionably
the
mostradicalconclusionof our effort
to tracethe outlinesof the
foreign
policyfield.Probablybecauseoftheenormous
methodological difficulties
theypose, responsesto foreignpolicyare usually
examinedwithmuchless care thanare the variablescomprising
theinitiatory
and implementive
stages.Ordinarily
analyststendto
in which
settlefora briefaccountof theinternational
environment
thenationalactoris located,notinganylimitations
and opportunitiesthattheenvironment
mayimposeand offer,
and thenmoving
on to examinewhatthe actorseeksto accomplishin thisenvironmentand why.53
The problemof sortingout the consequencesof
fromthe eventsthatwould have ocforeign
policyundertakings
curredanywayis so awesomethat,in effect,
the responsivestage
is ordinarily
viewedas consisting
of constants
ratherthanvariables.
Yet,herewe are insisting
thatit cannotbe bypassed,thatit is a
centralaspectof the field,and thatthe methodological
obstacles
mustbe confronted
and surmounted.
Severalreasonsand one assumptionunderliethis insistence.
The assumption-perhaps
bettercalled an articleof faith-is that
themethodological
problemis at least theoretically
solvable.Difintended
betweenresponses
ferentiating
by politicalactorsand
thosethatwouldhave occurredanywayis the centralproblemof
politicalanalysisand hauntsresearchin all areas of the discipline.
Yet it has notdeterredinquiryintothe responsesof votersto canto interest
didates,of legislatures
groups,of bureaucracies
to leaders.Why,then,shouldit blockthe analysisof attempts
to modify
maticAnalysis,and ScientificConsciousnessin ForeignPolicy Research,"in
AustinRanney,ed., PoliticalScience and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham,
1968), Chap. 9.
53 Interestingly,
worksconcernedwith national
and perhapssignificantly,
to the international
actorspassingthroughperiodsof dynamicreadjustment
systemstand out as exceptionsto this generaltendency.Recent workson
postwarGermany,forexample,are notablefor the equal attentionthat they
the foreignpolicy
of all threeof the stagescomprising
pay to the interaction
field.Cf. Karl W. Deutschand Lewis J.Edinger,GermanyRejoinsthe Powers:
GermanForeign
Mass Opinion,InterestGroups,and Elites in Contemporary
Policy (Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress, 1959); James L. Richardson,
Germanyand the AtlanticAlliance: The Interactionof Strategyand Politics
(Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1966); and WolframF. Hanrieder,
Pressureand Domestic
West GermanForeignPolicy,1949-1963: International
Press,1967).
Response(Stanford:StanfordUniversity
VOLUmE 12. NUMBEIR 3. SEPTEMBER

1968

320

JAMES

N.

ROSENAU

behaviorthatspan nationalboundaries?To be sure,the crossing

morecomof nationalboundariesrendersforeignpolicysituations
in degreeand notin
plexthanothertypes,but thisis a difference
kind.Morevariablesmay have to be examinedin foreignpolicy
behaviorthat
analysis,
but theproblemremainsthatofidentifying
would not have occurredin the absenceof a specifiedstimulus.
equipmentpresentlyavailable
The fact tlhatthe methodological
solutionof theproblemdoes notmean
a satisfactory
rarelypermits
to abandoninthatit can neverbe solved.For politicalscientists
quiryon thesegroundswould be the equivalentof astronomers
aboutthe farside of the moon
havinglongago ceased theorizing
becauseit couldnotbe observedthroughtelescopes.Old methodand new typesof equipment
ologicaltechniquesdo get perfected
Politido getdevelopedin politicalscienceas wellas in astronomy.
cal scienceis stilla long way fromhavingthe equivalentof the
and otherprospace capsule,but recentprogresswithsimulation
indicatesthatmethodologceduresfortracingtheflowofinfluence
is whether
ical innovation
is farfromover.Hencewhatis important
responsesto foreign
it is at leasttheoretically
possibleto translate
into observablebehavior.The answerseems
policyundertakings
and is the basis forthe assumption
to be clearlyin theaffirmative
thatthe methodological
obstaclesto treatingthe responsivestage
as a setofdependentvariablescan be surmounted.
thatthe responsive
reasonsforinsisting
As forthe substantive
stage cannotbe bypassed,one is the simplefactthata concern
forforeignpolicycannotbe sustainedwithoutthe questionof its
and consequencesarising.Some conceptionof the
effectiveness
systemto the behaviorof the naof the international
receptivity
is
tionalactorbeingexamined necessaryeven if the degreeof reis treatedas a constantratherthana variable.Whether
ceptivity
theirresearchis orientedtowardt-hesolutionof practicalpolicy
models,foreignpolicyanproblemsor the buildingof theoretical
alystscannotavoid assessingthelikelihoodof one or anothertype
in the
of undertaking
bringingabout the desiredmodifications
All theirconceptualtools
structure
of the externalenvironment.
If one examinesanyof the standardconlead to suchassessments.
it
soon
becomesclearthatwhatwe have called
the
of
field,
cepts
theresponsive
stageis a centralelement.To refer,say,to "foreign
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

FOGN
COMPARATIVE

PoLIcY

321

about generalor specific

is to denotejudgments
policyattitudes"
or altered;to describe
abroadthatoughtto be preserved
conditions
at home about
policyissues"is to depicteitherconflicts
"foreign
abroad that
actionabroad or conflicts
effective
what constitutes
may have adverseconsequencesat home if attemptsto modify
policydecision-making"
to study"foreign
themare notundertaken;
tleir
hope to preserveor alterthrough
is to analyzewhatofficials
externalbehavior.Since the responsivestage thuscannotbe byas a central
passed,it seemsonlyprudentto treatits variability
aspectof thefield.
reasonforplacingthe reBut thereis an evenmoreimportant
and implesponsivestage on an analyticpar withthe initiatory
mentivestages.Not onlydo the responsesthatunfoldin the enof foreign
vironment
providea meansof assessingtheeffectiveness
but theyalso lead the analystto treatthe
policyundertakings,
foreignpolicyprocessas dynamicratherthanstatic,since many
of the dependentvariablesthatcomprisethe responsivestage of
variablesin the initiatory
one undertaking
operateas independent
For
example,havingfostered
undertaking.
stageof a subsequent
viable social and politicalinstitutions
abroadthroughan effective
nationmaythenbe facedwith
aid program,
theaid-giving
foreign
recipient
a changingalliance systemas the newlystrengthened
foreignpolicylines
societiesare able to followmoreindependent
in
of theirown. Neitherthe nationalactornor its environment,
Botharein a stateofflux,alterotherwords,everremainsconstant.
ing in responseto each otherin a dynamicfashionthatservesto
betweenthe actorand its environment.
maintainthe distinction
and it is
The foreign
policyprocessis thusmarkedby continuity,
are examined
only for analyticconveniencethat undertakings
separately.The ultimategoal is comparisonacrossmanyunderabout
takings,sinceonlythencan higherlevelsof generalization
be attained.Treatingeach
nationalactorsin theirenvironments
as an analyticunitfacilitates
movement
towardthis
undertaking
stageservesas a means
goal,whiletheinclusionof theresponsive
discontinuity
to whichsuch a procedure
of bridgingthe artificial
givesrise.

There is anotherimportant
advantagein the notionthat the
dependentvariablesof the responsivestagemay operateas indeVOLUME 12. NUmBER

3, SEPTEMBER 1968

322

JAMESN.

ROSENAU

stage of subsequentundertakpendentvariablesin the initiatory

a boundarybeyondwhichthe
ings.It providesa basisfordraNving
studentof foreignpolicyno longerneeds to analyze the consequences of attemptsto modifybehaviorabroad. If the foreign
of an underpolicyanalystwere to examineall the repercussions
taking,eventuallyhe would become,in effect,a studentof the
was directed.Such a transsocietytowardwhichtheundertaking
policyanalystto nationalpoliticsspecialist,
formation
fromforeign
betweenthose
however,is preventedby utilizingthe distinction
dependentvariablesthatare and thosethatare notlikelyto serve
That is, havas independent
variablesin subsequentundertakings.
ing examinedthe responsivestage with a view to establishing
whetherit is associatedwithvariationsin the initiatory
and implementive
stages,the foreignpolicyanalystloses interestin the
actionon the
responsesif theydo notemergeas stimulito further
are the focusof his
partof thenationalactorwhoseundertakings
attention.
Much thesameline of reasoningunderliestheinclusionof the
initiating
stageas a majoraspectof thefield.Whiletheanalysisof
deterif pre-decisional
foreignpolicywould be greatlysimplified
policymaking
and governmental
minantsweretreatedas constants
variables,such a procedurewould omit
processesas independent

fromconsiderationan importantbody of phenomenaof interestto

studentsof the field.As in the case of the responsivestage,both

conand theory-building
analystshave substantive
policy-oriented
cernsthatlead themto inquireintothe factorsthatgive rise to
and to assesstherelativepotenciesof
foreignpolicyundertakings
to improvethe qualityand
t-hefactorstheyidentify.
In his effort
thepolicy-oriented
analystmustexamine
direction
ofundertakings,
in theirdegrees
theirsourcesor he canlotaccountforthevariation
colleague
ofsuccessand failure.Likewise,histheoretically-oriented
influences
amongthemanydomesticand foreign
mustdifferentiate
modelsthatare
in orderto construct
actingupon decision-makers
bothsusceptibleto empiricalproofand capable of explainingan
To be sure,bothtypesof analysts
evenwiderbodyofphenomena.
approachand
could followthe preceptsof the decision-making
determinants
in termsof the stimulito
analyzethe pre-decisional
see themselves
as reacting.54
In doing
officials
whichgovernment
54

Snyder,Bruck,and Sapin,op. cit.,p. 37.

INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

323

COMPARATIVEFoREIGNPOLICY

be treatingthe antecedents
so, however,theywould nevertheless
variables.They would stillbe asking
of decisionas independent
thatoccurredpriorto decisionwere associated
whethervariations
Hence it seemspreferable
withthosethatoccurredsubsequently.
stage directlyratherthan indirectly
to examinethe initiatory
That is, since assessing
throughthe perceptionsof officialdom.
it
difficult,
the strengthof causal factorsis at best extremely
to make the task that of first
complicating
seems unnecessarily
determining
how others(officials)assessthe relevantfactorsand
may not reBesides,officials
thenassessingthese assessments.55
in
the variations
construct
theworldin sucha way as to highlight
with
in correlating
stagethattheanalystis interested
theinitiatory
in theresponsive
stage,in whichcase he wouldhave to
variations
approachanyway.The procedureof
foregothe decision-making
does not,however,neglect
stagedirectly
focusingon theinitiatory
perceiveand experiencethe world
the factthatthe way officials
is crucialto theactiontheytake.It willbe recalledthatthedimenby the
sionsof purpose,timing,and stylegivento undertakings
are
stimuli,
the initiating
experience
way in whichdecision-makers
stage.Furthervariablesin theimplementive
treatedas intervening
processitselfthatopermore,thoseaspectsof thedecision-making
forprestige,power,or
stimuli(e.g. competition
ate as initiatory
are regarded
personnel)
and
their
among
agencies
appropriations
as independent
variablesand analyzedaccordingly.
behaviorservesas an
Turningto thequestionofwhypurposeful
focusof the foreignfield,it mustfirstbe emphasized
organizing
morethanthefactthatofficials
thatby "purpose"is meantnothing
do not act at random.Theyalwayshave somegoal in mind,some
notionofhow theactiontheytakewillhelpto preserveor modify
The goals
environment.
one or moreaspectsof the international
need notbe highlyconcreteor rational.Nor need theybe integral
our conceptionof goals
partsof an overallplan. On the contrary,
and not fullyformed.
tentative,
allowsforthemto be ambiguous,
Theymightamountto no morethan"stallingfortime"or be no
They mightwell be
clearerthanan effort
to "muddlethrough."5"
55 For an elaborationof this point,see my "The Premisesand Promises
ed., op. cit.
Analysis,"in JamesC. Charlesworth,
of Decision-Making
56 Althoughpolicymakingdesigned to "muddle through"situationsis
VOLUME

12,

NUMBER

3,

SEPTEMBER

1968

324

JAMES

N.

ROSENAU

unrealisticgoals and give rise to a host of unintendedand undesirable consequences. Imprecise,ineffective,

and counterproductive
as theymay be, however,foreignpolicy undertakingsare launched
for some reason. They do envision some futurestate of affairsas
being served and it is in this sense that they are regarded as purposeful.
The emphasis on the purposefulnessof foreignpolicy undertakingsservestwo needs. One is obvious. Withoutthe presumption
of goal-orientedbehavior, there would be no basis for knowing
which variationsin the externalenvironmentshould be examined
in order to determinewhetherthey are associated with variations
in the behaviorof foreignpolicy actors.The variable circumstances
in the environmentare so numerous that many are bound to be
associated merelyby chance with the foreignpolicy undertakings
being considered.The studentof foreignpolicy,however,is interested in systematicassociationsand not in those founded on happenstance.The goal-orientednature of foreignpolicy provides the
analyst with a referencepoint for selecting associations around
which to organize his inquiry.To be sure,he may be interestedin
associationsinvolvingvariationsin the initiatorystage that officials
do not formallyinclude among their purposes; and he may also
wish to probe associations involvingvariationsin the responsive
stage that are unintendedconsequences of the purposefulundertakings.But, even in cases where his focus extendsbeyond the goalorientednature of foreignpolicy, such orientationsstill serve as a
baseline forhis assessments.
A second reason for emphasizingthe purposefulnessof undertakingsis that it helps to distinguishforeignpolicy fromthe total
set of interactionst-hatoccur between a society and its environment.As previouslyindicated,foreignpolicy phenomenaconstitute
only one kind of linkage that a societyestablisheswith its environbehavior,some analyststend to posit it
here conceivedto be goal-oriented
as lacking this characteristic.(Cf. Charles E. Lindblom,"The Science of
Review,29 [1959], pp. 79-88.)
'MuddlingThrough," Public Administration
narrowview that only beThe latterpositionarises out of the unnecessarily
well planned,and duly consideredends
havior directedtowardlong-range,
poorlyplanned,and impetuEnds may be short-range,
can be goal-oriented.
ously considered,but action designed to serve them is nonethelessgoaloriented.Even the "muddler"hopes to get "through"and thus it is difficult
to conceiveof his behavioras purposeless.
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

FopEIGNPOLICY
CoMPARATvIF

325

and
by businessmen,
scientists,
artists,
ment.Othersare established
tourists,
to namebuta fewofthemanytypesof privateindividuals
span nationalboundaries.These
and groupswhose interactions
linkagescan be so relevant
cultural,
social,economic,
and scientific
to theprocessesofforeign
policythattheanalystmayoftenfindit
and/ordependentvariappropriate
to treatthemas independent
In themselves,
however,suchlinkables operativein undertakings.
policyanalyst.He is interested
agesarenotofinterest
to theforeign
in the nationalactor,notin subnational
actors-in publicindividuals or groups,notin privateones.Statedin anotherway,the foreign policyanalystis concernedwiththe linkagesthatthe entire
society,ratherthan segmentsof it, establisheswith the external
can link the personneland reenvironment.
Only governments
abroadand this,to repeat,
sourcesoftheentiresocietyto situations
governments
always do for some purpose.On the otherhand,
whether
linkagesare or are notintendedby those
nongovernmental
who sustainthem,thereis a limitbeyondwhichtheycannotbe
purposes.Up to a pointtravelcan be
controlled
by governmental
and othertypesof exand so can tradeand scientific
forbidden,
is perceptual,
change.But,if onlybecausesomeof theinteraction
ties.
government
cannotarrogateto itselftotalcontroloverexternal
Hence, fromthe perspectiveof the nationalactor,the linkages
establishedby subnationalgroupsor by individualsare not purare the
the actionsof governments
poseful.Fromthisperspective,
of theentiresociety.This
onlygoal-oriented
externalundertakings
characteristic
distinguishes
foreignpolicyfromall othernationalinternational
linkages.
V. Whycompare?
There remainsthe problemof what questionsforeignpolicy
theoryis designedto answer.As impliedearlier,theforeignpolicy
and functional
chalanalystis notfacedwiththekindsof systemic
in the nationaland internalengesthatimpresshis counterparts
tionalfields.Foreignpolicytheorycan neverin itselfexplainwhy
and how a nationalsystemmanagesto persistor whyand how it
recollapses.Such theorycan shed lighton one of the functional
all
national
of
of
systems-thenecessity adaptingto
quirements
itdoesnotpretendto deal withthefullrange
theenvironment-but
VOLUm:E

12, NUMBER 3, SEPTEIMBER

1968

326

JAMES

N.

ROSENAU

ofintegrative
mechanisms
through
whichnationalsystems
maintain
theirinternal
coherence.
Thus it can neverprovidemorethanpartial answersto the intriguing
questionsof systemicpersistence.
Similarly,
the enduranceor deterioration
of international
systems
lies outsidethe competenceof the foreignpolicytheorist.
By explainingwhyand how one or morenationalactorsinteractwith
theirenvironments,
foreignpolicy theoryprovidessome of the
materialneededfora functional
analysisof international
systems,
it
the
of
but does notaddressitselfto thesumof
separatepatterns
interaction
maintained
actorsand thusthe studentof
by different
foreignpolicymustagain standaside whenthe fascinating
questionsof systemic
stability
and changeare posed by his colleagues
in the international
field.
It is exactlyat thispointthatforeignpolicytheorists
run the
for
riskof engagingin unrealistic
Thosewhoseaspirations
fantasy.
foreignpolicytheoryincludethe capacityto explainand predict
systemiccoherenceand collapseare bound to be thwarted.The
is worthy,
butneithercan ever
is enticing
fantasy
and theaspiration
be realized.Foreignpolicyis theonlyfieldthatrelatesthebehavior
and to its own funcof a nationalactorbothto its environment
that
a
is
the
boundariesof the
but thepriceof such focus
tioning,
fielddo notcorrespond
to thoseof any empiricalpoliticalsystem.
can be judged as functional
While a foreignpolicyundertaking
forthe nationalsystemthat undertakesit and
or dysfunctional
or dysfunctional
functional
forthe international
systemwithrethereis no concrete"foreign
spect to whichit has consequences,
forwhichits functionality
can be assessed.
policysystem"
What,then,are thetheoretical
challengesposed by theforeign
policyfield?The answeris thatthechallengesare endlessifaspirationsare scaled downto thelevel of middle-range
theoryand not
castin systemic
termsat thehighestlevel of generalization.57
The
questionis paralyzingonlyif the foreignpolicyanalystwantsto
construct
broad-gaugedmodelsthataccountforthe dynamicsof
57 The distinction
betweenmiddle-range
and generaltheoriesis best describedby RobertK. Merton,who notes that the formerare "intermediate
evolvedin abundanceduringthe day-by-day
to the minorworkinghypotheses
routinesof research,and the all-inclusivespeculationscomprisinga master
conceptualschemefromwhichit is hoped to derivea verylarge numberof
empiricallyobserveduniformities
of social behavior,"in Social Theoryand
Social Structure(Glencoe,Ill.: The Free Press,1957, revisededition),pp. 5-6.
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

FOREIGN
POLICY
COMPARATIVE

327

ofactionwhoseboundariesare rootedin historical

concrete
systems
Once he acceptsthefactthathis
experience
and politicalauthority.
subjectmatterdoes not permitemulationof colleaguesin allied
analysisand systemstheory,a host
fieldswho employfunctional
and compel
oftheoretical
taskscomeintoviewthatenliventhought
inquiry.

thesetasks,it is usefulto note thatthe act

Beforeidentifying
theorists
Too manyfirst-rate
of identification
is itselfimportant.
theforeign
policyfieldbecauseofitsfailureto excite
haveforsaken
For example,two of the most distinguished
theirimaginations.
in the modernera of politicalscience,Almond
empiricaltheorists
worksdealingwith
and Dahl, startedtheircareerswithimportant
turnedtheirtalentsto phenomena
and subsequently
foreign
policy58
thatoriginateand unfoldwithinnationalboundaries.Neitherever
theconfinding
policy,apparently
returned
to thestudyof foreign
about unitsboundedby a commonsystemof
struction
of tlheory
Hence the drama of foreignpolicy
authority
more challenging.
of nationalactorscopingwith theirenvironments,
undertakings,
needsto be emphasizedif thefieldis to recruitand keep theorists
analytowardcomparative
there-orientation
capable of exploiting
sis.
in foreignpolicyphenomenaare
The manychallengesinherent
to two maintypes,
identified
by callingattention
mostsuccinctly
thosethatderivefromthetrulypoliticalqualityof the field'sunit
and thosethatare posedby theadapofanalysis,
theundertaking,
set of challengesare
The former
of nationalsystems.
tivefunction
do not seemto recograrelyappreciated.Manypoliticalscientists
may
of foreignpolicyundertakings
nize thatwhilecomprehension
and
it
will
prostability
change,
notexplainor anticipatesystemic
vide fundamental
insightsinto the dynamicsof politics.For the
attemptto modifybehavioracrossnationalboundariesis perhaps
thepurestof all politicalacts. Unliketheirdomesticcounterparts,
cannotappeal to thecommontiesof culture
foreign
policyofficials
and history
to securethe complianceof thosewhosebehaviorthey
to modify.Unlikedomesticofficials,
are attempting
theycannot
58 Gabriel A. Almond,The AmericanPeople and Foreign Policy (New
York: Harcourt,Brace and Co., 1950), and RobertA. Dahl, Congressand
ForeignPolicy (New York: Harcourt,Brace and Co., 1950).
VOLUME 12, NUMBER

3, SEPTEMBER

1968

328

JAMES N. ROSENAU

merelyrelyon thestructures
fromwhichtheirownauthority
is derivedto inducecompliance.The foreignpolicyofficial
is the only
politicianwhoseactionsare directedtowardpersonsand situations
thatare normally
responsive
to culturalstandards,
historical
aspirations,and sourcesof authority
that are different
fromhis own.
Hence theforeign
policyundertaking
is themostdelicateof political actionsand themostfragileofpoliticalrelationships.
It involves
a degreeofmanipulation
ofsymbolsthatis unmatched
in anyother
politicalsituation.
It requiresa balancebetweentheuse of persuasionon the one hand and theuse or threatof forceon the other
thatis moreprecariousthanit is in any otherkindof politics.It
revealsthe limitsof legitimacy,
the sourcesof loyalty,and the
dynamics
of bargaining.
It demonstrates
theinertiaofhabitas well
as thecontinuities
to whichhabitualbehaviorgivesrise.It exposes
the
the universality
of resistanceto changeand, correspondingly,
largeextentto whichchangecan be introduced
onlyin smallincrements
at themarginsof organizedlife.
In short,the fieldof foreignpolicycontainsthe promisethat
of politicswillbe examinedin its purest
virtually
everydimension
form.In a profoundsense the challengeof foreignpolicytheory
is at themiddle-range
levelhardlylessthanthatofempiricalpolitical theoryitself.Thereis no problemthatthe empiricalpolitical
theorist
it be thatof authority,
confronts-whether
law, influence,
commuresponsibility,
federalism,
rationality,
order,sovereignty,
nity,leadership,communications,
or revolution-thatcannotbe
fruitfully
investigated
in the foreignpolicyfield.59
The otherclearlyidentifiable
set of theoretical
challengesarises
out of theaforementioned
notionthatforeignpolicyundertakings
an adaptivefunction
Generalsystems
perform
fornationalsystems.
analysismay lie beyondthe scope of the foreignpolicytheorist,
but the functional
problemsposed withinthe area of his concern
are nonethelesscompelling.Even thoughnationalsystemsmay
internalreasons,theycannotpersistwithout
collapseforstrictly
and this never-ending
copingwith theirenvironments
effortto
5D For an elaborationof the notionthat the quintessenceof politicscan
be foundin the foreignpolicyfield,see my CalculatedControlas a Unifying
Conceptin the Studyof International
Politicsand ForeignPolicy,p. 16, and
my "ForeignPolicyas an Issue-Area,"in JamesN. Rosenau (ed.), Domestic
Sourcesof ForeignPolicy (New York: Free Press 1967), passim.
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

QUARTERLY

329

COMPARATIVEFOREIGN POLICY

maintainboundariesand achievean accommodation

withthe environment
commandsattention
and provokesinquiry.It is just as
dramaticas a newbornchild'seffort
to make the transition
to an
oxygen-filled
world,an adolescent'ssearchforidentity
in a world
that seemsto engulfindependenceand demandacquiescence,a
marriage'sendeavorto survivein a worldof possessiverelatives
and tempting
lovers,a businessfirm'sstruggleto keep up witlh
technologicalchange and a world of aggressivecompetitors,
a
minority
group'sfightto bringabout a worldof fair and equal
treatment,
a politicalparty'sstriving
to extendits popularity
and
createa worldthatit can govern.For noneofthese-or foranyof
themanyotheractorsthatcouldbe listed-is accommodation
with
theenvironment
At anymomentthebouneasyor predetermined.
dariesseparating
a systemfromits environment
can giveway and
if not elimination.
suffer
drasticrevision,
At no pointcan an actor
assumethata permanent
accommodation
has been attained.Peris nevercompleted.It mustbe
formance
of the adaptivefunction
serviced.Thus foreignpolicy undertakings
continuously
are inherently
bothin thebasic emotionalsensethattheyare
intriguing,
to surviveand prosperand in thetheoretical
rootedinhumanefforts
sensethatit is no simplematterto fathomwhyand how national
systems
manageto remaindifferentiated
fromtheirenvironments.
thechallengesinherent
Butwhycompare?Granting
in thestudy
of foreign
policyundertakings,
whyis it also necessaryto reorient
the fieldtowardcomparative
analysis?Althougha fulldiscussion
an essayin itself,theycan be asof the reasonswould constitute
here.
is necessarybecause
and
sertedsimple
concisely
Comparison
the two majortheoreticalchallengeswe have identifiedcannot
of the externalactivitiesunderbe met.Comprehension
otherwise
to answerthe questakenby one nationalsystemis not sufficient
tionsof systemic
adaptationand politicalprocessthatare inherent
The repeatedexperiences
of two or
in foreignpolicyphenomena.
foran answerto such
contrasted
mustbe carefully
moresystems
questionsto beginto emerge.Onlyin thisway can thetheoretically
hiscuriosity
and thepolicy-oriented
oriented
analystbeginto satisfy
analystbeginto accumulatethereliableknowledgeon whichsound
and choicesare made.Onlyin thiswaywillit be
recommendations
and comprehend
move
possibleto
beyondhistoricalcircumstance
of nationallifein a worldof othernations.
the continuities
VOLUME 12, NUMBER

3, SEPTEMBER

1968