This edited volume examines how and under which conditions foreign policy
analysis can be enriched by “domestic realm” public policy approaches, concepts,
and theories. Public policy scholars dealing with the analysis of domestic
policy fields, such as social and economic policy, interior affairs, or
environmental policy, use a broad array of heuristics, concepts, and theories,
including, for example, multiple streams, advocacy coalition or punctuated
equilibrium approaches. However, the possible contribution of such approaches to
the analysis of foreign policy has yet to be fully explored. With this purpose
in mind, this edited volume devotes a chapter each on a selection of arguably
the most important domestic public policy approaches and examines their
transferability and adaptability to foreign policy analysis. Thereby the book
points out how bridging the intra-disciplinary divide between the analysis of
public policy and foreign policy can enrich foreign policy studies and shows how
exactly foreign policy analysis can benefit from broadening its instruments for
analysis. The edited volume also discusses under what conditions such a transfer
is less promising due to the “sui generis” character of foreign policy.
Since the 1970s, policy learning has been examined in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), bringing it more in line with publicpolicy studies (PPS) where such changes have been analyzed since the 1940s. It follows that policy learning constitutes no stand-alone approach in PublicPolicy (PP) but rather figures as a central theoretical template in several approaches. The major difference vis-à-vis FPA learning, however, is that the latter foregrounds fundamental policy changes involving the learning agent’s identity or interests rather than
country’s external behavior. This is the opening for introducing veto player approaches, which are among the most prominent approaches in comparative publicpolicy, 1 to the analysis of foreign policy.
This chapter argues that while veto player analyses of foreign policy will likely have to overcome particular challenges, veto player approaches do indeed hold significant promise for Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). The remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows: the next section outlines the core tenets of veto player approaches and gives an
The promise and pitfalls of studying foreign policy as public
One of the most intellectually stimulating roundtables at a professional political science conference that I have been to was about connecting the study of publicpolicy with the study of foreign policy. It was inspiring because it was a meeting of minds and the participants, as representatives from both areas of research, discovered common grounds as well as new ways of thinking. The two subfields shared similar conceptual ideas, methods, and challenges, although they communicated in different languages. In other ways, there were clear
Klaus Brummer, Sebastian Harnisch, Kai Oppermann and Diana Panke
distinct from publicpolicy (Sprout and Sprout 1956 ; Snyder et al. 1962 ; Allison 1971 ; Hudson 2005 ). While publicpolicy usually concerns policies in the domestic sphere, such as health, labor market, or infrastructure policies, foreign policy is about how a country acts in the international arena, for example vis-à-vis other state or non-state actors or within international organizations (IOs).
The two policy realms are also often seen to differ systematically with regard to the distribution of formal decision-making authority and the
; their coupling opens an “opportunity window” for change associated with focusing events or policy entrepreneurs who use it in pursuit of their favorite policy alternative (Kingdon 1995 ). Since its original inception and application by Kingdon in the fields of public health and transportation in the United States, the MSA has been refined and further elaborated conceptually (Zahariadis 2014 ; Herweg et al. 2015 ; Zohlnhöfer and Rüb 2016 ). It is widely recognized as one of the most prolific and influential approaches in the realm of publicpolicy analysis
preventing new policy issues from gaining political attention, is also responsible for the occasional outbursts of attention causing disproportionately large policy shifts. While previous publicpolicy theories had been relatively successful at explaining either policy stability or large policy changes, the main originality and novelty of PET was that it proposed a single theoretical model of policy-making that explains how the same governmental processes cause both stability and major policy shifts.
PET is based on the assumption that, due to their cognitive limitations
As scholars in the field of PublicPolicy (PP) have pointed out, the new institutionalism (NI) in its rational, sociological, historical, and discursive variants is arguably one of the main theoretical frameworks for analyzing domestic institutions (Radaelli et al. 2012 ). 1 The claim that political institutions “matter” is not only central to the identity of the discipline of political science, but has also served “as a mantra for the social sciences for almost thirty years” (Gandhi and Ruiz-Rufino 2015 : 1). While it is common to
analysis of foreign policy choices.
The following section outlines policy diffusion and transfer as publicpolicy approaches, which is followed by a proposal for ways in which these two concepts could enrich FPA. The fourth section illustrates the application of a policy diffusion lens to foreign policy decisions, namely the case of planning doctrine for military crisis response operations. It explores the historical origins of NATO’s operational planning doctrine and how it has diffused to other international organizations such as the EU and
career development, the value chains connecting contractors and sub-contractors in economic networks, transport networks moving people and goods around the globe, and digital networks enhancing the speed of communication and data processing. We even talk about terror networks and network-centric warfare (Cebrowski and Garstka 1998 ). The networks that we shall focus on in this chapter link public and private actors in a negotiated interaction that contributes to publicpolicy-making and governance of society and the economy. We shall refer to this type of network as