The Analysis of Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

Kaarbo, Juliet; Lantis, Jeffrey S.; Beasley, Ryan K.; White, Brian; Zhu, Zhiqun; Davies, Graeme A. M.

doi:10.4135/9781544308470.n1

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It appears, however, that the main sources of power upon which institutions draw in influencing foreign policy derive from the characteristics of institutional organization, namely, which institutions are in charge of, and participate in, foreign policy making. In general, democracies and democratizing states tend to diffuse decision making responsibilities among institutions, so that the policy making process involves several actors, both at the governmental and non-governmental levels (Kaarbo et al 2002). Yet, in spite of these efforts to engage multiple actors, the actual process of decision-making is often centralized at the top of the institutional hierarchy of government.…”

Section: Why Focus On Political Institutions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such intra-institutional game- playing can have different effects on the players involved (e.g., adaptation of behavior; change of goals for the purposes of survival; reorganization; demise or downfall; reintegration into other institutional structures; or division), depending on how successfully institutions use the rules of the game to their advantage. More importantly, it may lead to inconsistency in foreign policy and the advocacy of options and preferences that favor the interests of a particular bureaucratic institution (Kaarbo et al 2002).…”

Section: Why Focus On Political Institutions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Baltic foreign policy making establishments of the 1990s: Influential institutional and individual actors

Park

2005

Journal of Baltic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines, evaluates, and compares the role of political institutions in the foreign policy making process of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the 1990s. The central claim advanced is that the extent of influence exercised by political institutions in transitional states was largely conditioned by, and depended on, the individuals who headed these institutions. It is argued that the stronger the personality at the top of a political institution, the greater and more influential role it played in the foreign policy making process of the country.

show abstract

Section: Why Focus On Political Institutions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Focus On Political Institutions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Baltic foreign policy making establishments of the 1990s: Influential institutional and individual actors

Park

2005

Journal of Baltic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Foreign policy analysis aims at bringing theoretically informed explanations to the factors that shape foreign policy decisions. In one of the most significant contributions to the literature, Juliet Kaarbo et al (2013) classify various factors into two wide categories that are the international and the domestic environment. To analyse the impact of international system they benefit from the explanatory power of the theories of international relations including realism and alternates of liberalism and constructivism.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Transformation From Realism To Liberamentioning

confidence: 99%

Turkey’s Changing Security Environment and Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy

Aknur

Durmuşlar

2019

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turkey's security-oriented foreign policy during the 1990s, which changed dramatically by the 2000s towards a more liberal mode and which can also be considered as the "Europeanization of Turkish foreign policy", returned to its re-securitized phase in the 2010s by resorting to hard power. This article aims at explaining this reversal by analysing changes in the intensity of Turkey's internal and external threats. In this analysis, it will mainly concentrate on the ongoing civil war in Syria, as an enabling factor for the revival of PKK terror in Turkey and terrorist attacks from ISIS. Consequently, the unstable political and security environment surrounding the Southeastern borderline of Turkey has led to the use of hard power in national foreign policy. In contrast with the previous decade, the use of military power has become inevitable in the pursuit of national security interests against intra-country and cross-border terror threats.

show abstract

“…35 Under multipolarity, non‐global powers have most autonomy and regional influence as they have a greater choice of global alliance partners. Under unipolarity, regional powers are expected to have more opportunities than under bipolarity, yet the respective states are no match for the global hegemon and often must follow its lead, particularly in issues of strategic importance to the global power (Kaarbo and Lantis 2002:10).…”

Section: The Impact Of Regional Openness On Regional Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood

Prys¹

2010

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The end of the Cold War has reinvigorated academic interest in the regions of the world, as well as in the regional powers and potential regional hegemons that inhabit them. Yet, what is missing, for regional research to be meaningful and successful, is a well‐defined understanding of the variance of regional powers. An anomaly yet to be explained by the existent literature is, for instance, that these states, unlike what might be typical, and expected, for traditional hegemons, do not seem to provide public goods, such as order and stability, nor do they always have an extraordinary impact on the behavior of other states in their region. The driving impulse of this study is, thus, the question of why an ‘achievement‐expectations gap’ can be observed in almost all cases of potential regional hegemons. This article, in specific, then makes the argument that in order to deal with this challenge, we need to move away from the implied assumption about the uniformity of these actors and, rather, that we should begin to deliberately think about the concept of a regional power as a variable that can take on different forms and values. The suggestion of a typology to study these important second‐tier states is, therefore, at the heart of this article.

show abstract

The Analysis of Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

Cited by 17 publications

References 2 publications

Baltic foreign policy making establishments of the 1990s: Influential institutional and individual actors

Baltic foreign policy making establishments of the 1990s: Influential institutional and individual actors

Turkey’s Changing Security Environment and Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy

Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About