Does Context Matter? Advisory Systems and the Management of the Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process

Abstract

In examining the management of the foreign policy process, scholars have determined that variations in management style have implications for how the policy process is organized and how policy is deliberated. The research has been less attentive to how management varies depending on the issue area. This study examines the decision making of the Bill Clinton administration and compares the management of foreign policy on concurrent international economic and security issues. I find that there is little variation between cases in management style, but important differences within cases resulting from advisor influence and contextual factors. By examining the potential variations between issue areas, it is possible to better understand the connections between decision‐making process, context, and the effectiveness of certain management styles.

Competition, Conflict, and Conformity: Foreign Policy Making in the First Year of the Trump Presidency

“…Initially modeled on the Kennedy administration’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis, this model has been referenced on numerous occasions for its alleged benefits to foreign policy decision making (Bose ). The model has since been associated with Presidents Lyndon Johnson (Pfiffner ; Hess ), Jimmy Carter (Moens ; Da Vinha ), George H. W. Bush (Snow and Haney ), Bill Clinton (Mitchell ; Snow and Haney ), and Barack Obama (Rothkopf ; Hook ; Snow and Haney ). The collegial model is essentially characterized by the following distinctive features: Advisors function as a problem‐solving team and are incentivized to openly air and discuss their differing views; Policy discussions are kept informal enough to encourage forthright discussions of all the information and the competing ideas and proposals; Advisors are encouraged to act as policy generalists rather than functional experts; Information flows into the problem‐solving team from multiple sources in the bureaucracy and is not subject to individual filters; The president acts as a magistrate who is directly exposed to the competing arguments and proposals of the different policy advocates; The president occasionally allocates overlapping assignments and will occasionally seek alternative sources of advice from subordinates. …”

Normative and strategic framework of foreign policy of the Republic of Serbia: “Europeanisation” and (non)transparency

“…43 Takođe, govori se o upravljanju procesom donošenja spoljnopolitičkih odluka, kao i specifičnim aspektima donošenja odluka u oblasti spoljne i bezbednosne politike EU. 44 Transparentnost spoljnopolitičkih odluka razmatra se u kontekstu transparentnosti rada organa uprave u celini. 45 Pri tom bi trebalo imati u vidu i ograničenja u vidu utiska da su spoljna politika i diplomatija oduvek i "po prirodi stvari" smatrani kao aktivnosti sa inherentnim udelom tajnovitosti.…”

Decision Making: Models, Processes, Techniques

“…Decision-making is a critical function in management that overshadows different aspects from controlling the staff to directing and organizing them [15,[17][18]. Furthermore, decision-making can be considered the most common and moderately ill-structured type of problem-solving that is a vital skill in the more complex and ill-structured problemsolving kinds.…”