No abstract

The starting point of this article is the argument that scholars of foreign policy-in contrast to international relations theorists-have not sufficiently faced up to the explanatory implications of the agency-structure issue in the philosophy of social science. This claim is discussed with reference to four fundamental perspectives in foreign policy analysis, defined in terms of ontological and epistemological assumptions regarding the nature of social order and individual action. Taking its cue primarily from recent philosophical discussions within sociology and social theory, it proposes a metatheoretical framework based on a dynamic conception of the interplay over time between interpretative, purposive agents and a structural domain defined in terms of both constraining and enabling properties. On the basis of this suggested solution to the agency-structure problem, the article subsequently elaborates an explanatory framework premised on a morphogenetic conception of the contextually bound nature of the foreign policy behavior of states, arguing that this reconceptualization can incorporate not only (1) certain rationality assumptions of action, (2) psychological-cognitive explanatory approaches, and (3) the role, broadly speaking, of situational-structural factors, but also (4) an institutional perspective combined with (5) comparative case study analysis. ' The suggested geographical division of this debate is by no means watertight. Thus, e.g., although British to the core, the two authors of what is arguably the most accomplished recent inquiry into the philosophical foundations of international relations theory (Hollis and Smith, 1990) have nevertheless chosen to discuss the agency-structure issue primarily in terms of the level-of-analysis problem a la amnzicain. For an American response to this way of tackling the subject matter, see Alexander Wendt's recent review of their book (Wendt, 1991), and for the ensuing transAtlantic debate, Hollis and Smith (1991, 1992) and Wendt (1992).

The analysis presented here departs from the conventional conceptualization of foreign policy change in terms of input-output modes of analysis, here represented by two of its most recent and acknowledged practitioners. It is argued that approaches of this kind tend to fail on at least three counts: their account of the function of human agency in such change, which is not given the central role which this factor arguably deserves; their negligence of the agency-structure issue and its implications for analysing the dynamic interaction between decision-makers and social structures; and their inability to incorporate `learning' as an endogenous characteristic of foreign policy systems. An alternative mode of analysis is then presented which rejects the input-output imagery while specifically addressing the problems highlighted above. Although it defines the explanandum of foreign policy wholly in terms of agential behaviour, it includes structural factors as a crucial explanans and outlines a conceptualization of the dynamic nature of foreign policy which explicitly incorporates the reciprocal causal links between agents and structures, particularly in the form of the interplay — both adaptive and innovative — between institutions and discursive practices in foreign policy behaviour.

No abstract

This chapter examines how actors and structures make foreign policy an extremely complicated field of study and how, in view of this complexity, these actors and structures have been treated in the literature on foreign policy analysis. It first provides a historical background on the field of foreign policy before discussing the role of actors and structures in ‘process’ and ‘policy’ approaches to foreign policy. In particular, it describes approaches to foreign policy based on a structural perspective, namely: realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and social constructivism. It then considers evaluates approaches from an actor-based perspective: cognitive and psychological approaches, bureaucratic politics approach, new liberalism, and interpretative actor perspective. The chapter also looks at the agency–structure problem and asks whether an integrated framework is feasible before concluding with a recommendation of how to resolve the former in terms of a constructive answer to the latter.