This classic work has helped shape the field of international relations and especially influenced scholars interested in how foreign policy is made. At a time when conventional wisdom and traditional approaches are being questioned, and when there is increased interest in the importance of process, the insights of Snyder, Bruck and Sapin have continuing and increased relevance. Prescient in its focus on the effects on foreign policy of individuals and their preconceptions, organizations and their procedures, and cultures and their values, "Foreign Policy Decision-Making" is of continued relevance for anyone seeking to understand the ways foreign policy is made. Their seminal framework is here complemented by two new chapters examining its influence on generations of scholars, the current state of the field, and areas for future research.

Additional Contributors Are Herbert McClosky And Richard A. Brody.

Foreign policy decisions are influenced by many factors. The real world is complex and many variables have to be considered when making a decision. A psychological approach to decision-making facilitates the understanding and explaining of the complexity of foreign and global policies precisely because of the prolonged transitional stage of the contemporary international system. The course of world politics is shaped by the decisions of leaders. Uncertainty involved in decision-making in foreign policy can relate to the motivations, beliefs, intentions or calculations of the opponents. If it is not possible to understand how decisions are made, then maybe it is at least feasible to understand these decisions and, perhaps more importantly, predict various results with regards to international politics. This book provides a new perspective on the study of international relations by analyzing the subjective elements (idiosyncrasies) that occur in decision-making at the individual level. The use of psychological methods of analysing the foreign policy decision-making process proposes a necessary investigation path into international relations.

Why do some leaders and segments of the public display remarkable persistence in confrontations in international politics, while others cut and run? The answer given by policymakers, pundits, and political scientists usually relates to issues of resolve. Yet, though we rely on resolve to explain almost every phenomenon in international politics—from prevailing at the bargaining table to winning on the battlefield—we don't understand what it is, how it works, or where it comes from. Resolve in International Politics draws on a growing body of research in psychology and behavioral economics to explore the foundations of this important idea. Joshua Kertzer argues that political will is more than just a metaphor or figure of speech: the same traits social scientists and decision-making scholars use to comprehend willpower in our daily lives also shape how we respond to the costs of war and conflict. Combining laboratory and survey experiments with studies of great power military interventions in the postwar era from 1946 to 2003, Kertzer shows how time and risk preferences, honor orientation, and self-control help explain the ways leaders and members of the public define the situations they face and weigh the trade-offs between the costs of fighting and the costs of backing down. Offering a novel in-depth look at how willpower functions in international relations, Resolve in International Politics has critical implications for understanding political psychology, public opinion about foreign policy, leaders in military interventions, and international security.

Discusses the way leaders deal with risk in making foreign policy decisions

Uncertainty surrounds every major decision in international politics. Yet there is almost always room for reasonable people to disagree about what that uncertainty entails. No one can reliably predict the outbreak of armed conflict, forecast economic recessions, anticipate terrorist attacks, or estimate the countless other risks that shape foreign policy choices. Many scholars and practitioners therefore believe that it is better to keep foreign policy debates focused on the facts - that it is, at best, a waste of time to debate uncertain judgments that will often prove to be wrong. In War and Chance, Jeffrey A. Friedman shows how foreign policy officials often try to avoid the challenge of assessing uncertainty, and argues that this behavior undermines high-stakes decision making. Drawing on an innovative combination of historical and experimental evidence, he explains how foreign policy analysts can assess uncertainty in a manner that is theoretically coherent, empirically meaningful, politically defensible, practically useful, and sometimes logically necessary for making sound choices. Each of these claims contradicts widespread skepticism about the value of probabilistic reasoning in international politics, and shows how placing greater emphasis on assessing uncertainty can improve nearly any foreign policy debate. A clear-eyed examination of the logic, psychology, and politics of assessing uncertainty, War and Chance provides scholars and practitioners with new foundations for understanding one of the most controversial elements of foreign policy discourse.