Levels of analysis of the foreign policy of modern states. Foreign policy and its analysis

World politics covers a very wide range of problems and participants in international communication and interaction. The researcher is always faced with the question: how to explain this or that phenomenon, due to a number of factors, which, moreover, has many aspects? Let us use the example of B. Buzan, who writes that the reasons for the outbreak of the Second World War can also be sought in the desire to the revenge of Germany, and in the weakness of France, and in the personal characteristics of Stalin or Hitler, and in the instability of the system of international relations of the late 1930s. generally. In other words, an explanation for any event in international life can be found at the level of individual politicians, states, and the entire world system. This raises a methodological question. about how to identify cause and effect relationships. The very idea of ​​distinguishing levels of analysis arose in the late 1950s. under influence of scientism in international studies. scientist skye orientation required a clearer understanding by researchers of the relationship between individual elements and a system like that kova. The term "levels of analysis" became widely used thanks to the article by J. D. Singer "The problem of levels of analysis in international relations", published in 1961. He distinguished two levels - the international system as a whole and the level of an individual state, however, the main contribution to the development of the problem of the system and individual elements even earlier, in 1954, he introduced the work “Man, sovereign stvo and war” K. Waltz. True, he spoke not about the levels of analysis, but about the ways in which the researcher operates.

Currently, as a rule, three levels of analysis are distinguished:

individual level;

the level of an individual state;

global level.

Individual level involves an analysis of the individual characteristics of people involved in the political process on the world stage. Most research in this area is carried out within the framework of political psychology, where studies of the political elite and the masses stand out. When studying the political elite, much attention is paid to the personality of politicians. To do this, when describing psychological portraits, historical, psychoanalytic and other methods are used. Another line of analysis of the political elite is the analysis of the decision-making process. Thus, O. Holsti notes that the development of events in 1914, which led to the First World War, was strongly influenced by such a factor as stress.

At the level individual state analysis For example, political decision-making processes are studied, but not from the point of view of psychological characteristics, but from the point of view of what the decision-making mechanism is in a particular country. Comparative political science works are of great importance for the study of the level of individual states.

At the level of the political masses, questions such as

as the perception of other peoples, attitudes, values, ideas that exist in society and relate to the international sphere. Much attention in these works is paid to the formation of perception in a conflict, including the desire to simplify information, which leads to the fact that the entire diversity of reality fits into the framework of polar ideas.

Global level of analysis is perhaps the most difficult. It involves the study of both the interaction of states and non-state participants in the world political system. At the same time, the latter is considered as a kind of integrity. The role of individual structural elements in the formation and functioning of this system is revealed, issues of cooperation and competition of various actors are considered, and trends in the development of the system itself are determined.

Other important components for international research are data and choice of method. World politics uses all sorts of data to obtain information and the widest range of research methods.

It is customary to distinguish between primary and secondary data. TO primary usually refer to such as statements and speeches of political figures, official documents and other sources of information: statistical data, historical facts, etc. TO secondary own materials based on primary data and reflected in scientific publications.

Research methods in world politics and international relations are often divided into two groups: qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative Methods involve the use of analytical procedures to study certain facts, processes, etc. At the same time, researchers using qualitative methods of analysis (traditionalists) are based on different methodological and theoretical approaches. Previously, these methods were often called historical and descriptive involving an appeal to historical knowledge, as well as intuitive-logical, those. focused on scientific work in the form of an essay. Nevertheless, today they are quite widely used in world politics and international relations.

Quantitative Methods appeared in international studies later than qualitative ones (for this reason, the scientists who used them were called modernists) and were intended to identify certain numerical parameters. Their use was especially popular in the 1960s. At that time, many mathematicians were involved in the study of social sciences and international relations in particular: then it seemed that such an approach would make it possible to avoid subjectivism in the study.

Researchers who use quantitative methods pay special attention to such a criterion as validity those. determining whether the method actually provides the information that is needed. Another important parameter when choosing a method is its reliability. She assumes that when using this method by another researcher, similar results will be obtained.

Also used to study world politics statistical methods. For example, they can be used to determine who in mainly committed terrorist acts in European countries And USA - immigrants or citizens of these countries.

The most common among quantitative research methods are content and event analysis.

Content analysis, introduced by G. Lasswell, is the study of the text in terms of the frequency of occurrence of certain keywords and phrases in it. After analyzing in this way the articles published in one of the newspapers, G. Lasswell showed its pro-fascist orientation, which was the reason for the trial of the issue of closing the newspaper.

When using content analysis, choosing the right keywords is important. The restriction on the use of content analysis is imposed by the problem of context. If an article, speech, document and similar texts are written in the so-called Aesopian language, where not so much the words themselves are significant as the context, then they are difficult to study using content analysis.

Event analysis focused on identifying the frequency of occurrence of certain events. As in the case of content analysis, criteria are initially determined by which events are taken into account and classified. In other words, some analogues of “keywords” are identified that characterize the frequency, intensity, duration of an event (for example, conflict relations). Next, determine the dynamics of the development of the process. Using event analysis, one can, in particular, trace the dynamics of concessions in negotiations, determine how quickly they are made, which of the participants is the first to compromise, etc.

Less common than previous methods cognitive mapping. It is based on ideas according to which, in order to understand behavior, it is extremely important to know how a person perceives and organizes the information received. In international studies, this method is focused on the study of the so-called natural logic, especially politicians. The bottom line is that based on the texts of the speeches, the key categories that this or that politician uses are identified, and causal relationships are determined between them.

There are other quantitative methods of analysis. In general, they are quite labor intensive. This limited their use from the very beginning. Attention to quantitative methods was again attracted in the 1990s. in connection with the widespread introduction of computer technology, which allows, to a certain extent, to solve the problem of the laboriousness of work and give a quick quantitative assessment.

In the meantime, in line with qualitative methods, procedures began to be introduced that provide for some formalized points, but from the point of view of not so much quantitative assessments as the organization of the study. During its implementation, in a number of cases, the requirements for organizing work, formulating, and substantiating a hypothesis began to be taken into account, which is typical for the natural sciences.

Situation analyzes, which are expert seminars, have been developed to analyze the situation, identify key points, and make forecasts regarding possible scenarios for further development. Situational analyzes are widely used, especially in scientific and practical organizations and institutions.

Situational analysis is essentially a special case of such an analytical procedure as the analysis of specific situations, which involves the application of theoretical provisions in the study of specific events on the world stage. If the situational analysis is focused on the forecast, then in the analysis of specific situations, usually possible scenarios for the development of events are not considered.

At present, methods of related scientific disciplines - sociology, political science, psychology, etc. are widely used in international studies. Thus, the interview method used in sociological research is quite common.

The arsenal of qualitative methods also includes such traditional methods as the study of documents, evidence, statistical data, and analytical materials.

The convergence of the two groups of methods - quantitative and qualitative - has made the separation of "logo-descriptive" and "historical-intuitive" approaches obsolete. At present, the dichotomy of methods "quantitative - qualitative" in general has been removed in international studies. Accordingly, the division of researchers into modernists and traditionalists is also a thing of the past.

TEST QUESTIONS

What main scientific disciplines have contributed to the formation of world politics (what did it consist of)?

What is the ratio of the subject areas of world politics, comparative politics and international relations?

What are the main characteristics that define world politics as a scientific discipline?

What trends emerged in the development of the theory of international relations in the 1990s?

How did the development of Russian international studies proceed? What are their main stages, discussed problems?

On the basis of what are the levels of analysis distinguished in world politics (what approaches are there)?

What is the problem of method in international research?

What is meant by quantitative and qualitative methods in world politics and international relations (why is it said that their distinction is conventional)?

Borishpolets K.P. Methods of political research. M. : Aspect Press, 2005.

Lebedeva M.M. World politics: political reality and the subject field of the discipline // World politics in a crisis / ed. S.V. Kortunov. M., 2010.

World politics: agenda for tomorrow (virtual round table) // Polis. 2005. No. 4.

Tyulin I.G. The study of international relations in Russia: yesterday, today, tomorrow // Cosmopolis. Almanac. M. : Polis, 1997.

World politics as a system of knowledge, which has its own subject, appeared relatively recently - in the second quarter of the 20th century. Until this moment interstate interactions as the most essential component of global politics were the subject theory of international relations.

Correlation of disciplines "world politics" and "international relations"

It can be argued that international relations theory became an independent discipline with the formation in 1919 of the Department of International Relations at the University of Aberystwyth (Great Britain). The theory of international relations is an interdisciplinary field of knowledge, including history, economics, culture, and law. It is based on chronology events, usually associated with some idea of ​​progress. There are three stages in the development of the subject of the theory of international relations:

• 1) idealistic stage (progressive theories dominated) - 1920-1930s;
• 2) realistic period (conservative theories prevailed) - 1930-1940s;
• 3) behavioral stage (social scientific theories dominated) - 1950-1960s.

In the 1970s a new independent science was constituted - global politics, which explores both interstate relations and actions in the international arena of other subjects of the world political process(international non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations, etc.). The methodologies of realism, idealism and behaviorism were transferred to the theory of world politics. As a scientific direction, idealistic ideas gradually took shape in irenology(from Greek. eipynh- peace). Opposite in name scientific movement - polemology(from Greek. polemos- war) as a direction in foreign political science, within which wars and armed conflicts are studied, is closely connected with peace studies, i.e. irenology. The leading irenological institution is the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, founded in 1959 by I. Galtung. An influential international institution is the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), as well as the International Peace Institute in Vienna. In the United States, among the irenological centers, a prominent place belongs to the Institute of World Order, created by S. Medlowitz.

Subject world politics (or international theory of politics) as a scientific discipline is global context of political reality, identification current trends its development, factors determining political structure modern world. World politics is the result of the interaction of a wide range of political actors (subjects) with different resources.

The typology of these actors in terms of power resources makes it possible to single out different levels of analysis of world politics:

• 1) individual(analysis of the behavior of leaders, elites, political styles);
• 2) level separate state(analysis of the formation of foreign policy, the mechanisms for its implementation, the degree of influence on world processes);
• 3) global level (analysis of interaction between states and international organizations).

Today, the world political system is formed not only by independent states, but also by various economic, trade, military alliances, blocs and structures that have developed on a bilateral or multilateral basis. In addition to them, the UN, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as specialized institutions and organizations dealing with political issues, social and economic development, disarmament and security issues are actively operating in the international arena. They all perform subjects international relations.

In this way, international relationships represent a system of economic, political, social, diplomatic, legal, military and cultural ties and interactions that arise between the subjects of the world community. However, not all relations between peoples, state organizations have political character. World politics is core international relations and represents the political activity of the subjects of international law (states, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, unions, etc.) related to the solution of issues of war and peace, ensuring universal security, environmental protection, overcoming backwardness and poverty, hunger and disease . World politics is aimed at solving the issues of survival and progress of the human community, developing mechanisms for coordinating the interests of the subjects of world politics, preventing and resolving global and regional conflicts, and creating a fair order in the world. It is an important factor of stability and peace, development of equal international relations.

The system of laws of international politics. As a scientific discipline, world politics is called upon to identify laws interstate interactions. Austrian sociologist L. Gumplovich(1833–1909) considered the struggle for existence to be the main factor in social life. Based on this thesis, Gumplovich formulated system of laws international politics, among which the most important is law of constant struggle between neighboring states because of the border line. From this basic law, he also deduced a second one, which is that any state must hinder strengthening the power of the neighbor and take care of the political balance. In addition, any state strives for profitable acquisitions, for example, to gain access to the sea in order to achieve sea power. Finally, the meaning of the third law is expressed in the fact that internal policy should be subordinated to goals military buildup, through which the survival of the state is ensured.

Basic category "national interest"

The content of world politics is revealed in the system of categories - the basic concepts of science. The basic category of scientific discipline is the concept "national interest". Indeed, what drives the activities of the state in the international arena, in the name of what does it enter into relations with other countries? In politics, generally significant or group interests are always expressed, and in international politics - mainly national interests. national interest represents the awareness and reflection in the activities of its leaders of the fundamental needs of the nation-state. These needs are expressed in ensuring national security and conditions for self-preservation and development of society.

As already noted, the concept of "national interest" was developed by the American political scientist Hans Morgenthau. He defined the concept of interest with the help of categories vla-

sti. In Morgenthau's concept, the concept of the national interest consists of three elements: 1) the nature of the interest to be protected; 2) the political environment in which the interest operates; 3) rational necessity, which limits the choice of ends and means for all subjects of international politics.

According to Morgenthau, the foreign policy of an independent state should be based on physical, political and cultural reality, helping to realize the nature and essence of the national interest. Such a reality is nation. All the nations of the world in the international arena strive to satisfy their primary need, namely, the need physical survival. In a world divided into blocs and alliances, where the struggle for power and resources does not stop, all nations are concerned with protecting their physical, political and cultural identity in the face of outside invasion. Probably, this statement was relevant for the times of the Cold War, when the world community was divided into two opposing camps - socialist and capitalist.

IN modern world With the end of the Cold War and the globalization of politics, for various reasons, states are becoming more interdependent and interconnected. Now their survival and development can be ensured only under the condition of comprehensive cooperation and interaction. Any state, protecting its own national interest, must respect and take into account the interests of other states, only then can it not only ensure its own security, but also not violate the security of other states. Survival strategy is related to providing national security(within the borders of one state), regional security(within the boundaries of a particular region of the world, for example, the Middle East), international security(globally).

National security means the state of protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and the state from internal and external threats, the ability of the state to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity and act as a subject of international law. The concept of security for the individual, society and the state does not coincide in everything. Personal security means the realization of its inalienable rights and freedoms. For society security consists in the preservation and multiplication of its material and spiritual values. National security applied to state implies internal stability, reliable defense capability, sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity. In our day, when the danger of nuclear war persists, national security is an integral part of general (international) security. Until recently, universal security was based on the principles of "deterrence through deterrence", confrontation and confrontation between nuclear powers (USSR, USA, France, Great Britain, China). But truly universal security cannot be ensured by infringing on the interests of any states; it can be achieved only on the principles of partnership and cooperation. The turning point in the formation of a new system of universal security was the recognition by the world community of the impossibility of winning and surviving in a world nuclear war.

ESSAY

Comparison as a method of analysis. Types and levels of comparative studies

Comparison acts as a general setting of knowledge. Comparing some (at least two) processes, facts, elements of structure, qualities of phenomena, concepts, a person tries to find something common or different between them. If we do not think further about the essence of how a person compares, then it is enough to say that comparedknowledge as a method of cognition represents a way to identify the general and the special in the studied phenomena. If we raise the question of how a person makes a comparison, then many problems and topics arise here. Comparison as a person's ability to navigate in the world of things and words can be described through a priori forms of sensibility, the idea of ​​values, constructed ideal types, the production of concepts, etc. In political science, the comparative method is considered through a comparison of its advantages and disadvantages with the methods of experiment, statistics and the study of individual cases (“case-study”). Along with this, there are problems of quantitative and qualitative comparisons, static and dynamic aspects of comparison.

The comparative method in political science has become one of the central ones, because. many researchers considered and consider it the most suitable substitute for the experimental method widely used in the natural sciences. Highlighting the reasons for the use of comparison in political science, Tom Mackie and David Marsh write: “The main reason for comparative research reflects the basic nature of the social scientific research; it is almost always unable to use the experimental method. Unlike physicists, we cannot devise precise experiments to establish the extent to which policy outcomes depend on leaders. Thus, we could not ask Mrs Thatcher to resign in 1983 so that we could ascertain whether another leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, faced with the same political and economic circumstances, would pursue a less radical policy. However, ...we can use other comparisons to approach the same question. More specifically, we can identify two main reasons why comparative analysis is essential: firstly, to avoid ethnocentrism in the analysis, and secondly, to generalize, test and reformulate accordingly theories and related concepts and hypotheses about the relationships between political phenomena. The desire of political scientists to use the comparative method means an orientation towards obtaining scientific results, i.e. on the formation of scientific political knowledge. But does this mean that the comparative method completely replaces the experiment?

Comparison is not identical with the experiment and its weaker analogue - the statistical method, but the logic of comparative analysis is to a certain extent comparable with the logic of experimental science. First, the comparative researcher is able to choose those conditions of the studied phenomenon in which the relationship under study manifests itself in the purest form. True, this raises a number of methodological and methodological problems (comparability, equivalence, etc.), but in general, comparison allows us to form something like an experimental situation that a researcher can control, moving from one country to another, from one region to another etc. Secondly, the manipulation of conditions is relative here; it is carried out by the researcher rather conceptually than in reality, but this is often sufficient for a comprehensive verification of the relationship under study. In this regard, the technique of quantitative or qualitative comparison is not used mechanically, but always in conjunction with the researcher's theoretical work. Thirdly, the comparison resembles an experiment in the sense that it allows you to control the conditions included in the research process. Note that this control, of course, is not absolute (it is not such in the experiment either), but nevertheless, given the similarity of the group of countries in a number of conditions, they can be taken as unchanged. Fourthly, the researcher-experimenter seeks to obtain a certain result in the presence of certain conditions that he can introduce artificially. Here the logic of research is connected with the search for a consequence. The comparative researcher often has a consequence that has already been repeatedly observed, and his task is to look for conditions rather than results. Although apparently different, these strategies are, in fact, comparable to the general logic of finding dependencies with different starting points of the analysis. Fifth, comparative and experimental sciences are based on a general idea of ​​the possibility of quantitative measurement of the qualities of the studied phenomena. Although measurement is a problem in relation to social knowledge, nevertheless, this attitude has led to the formation of a broad movement in comparative politics for the use of statistical techniques for analyzing empirical material obtained as a result of the use of metric scales. At present, the limitations of this approach seem obvious, but this does not mean that it turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the advantage of the comparative method of policy research turned out to be that it allows you to combine quantitative and qualitative Methodology while maintaining a focus on obtaining scientific results.

Charles Ragin also draws an analogy with the experimental method, pointing out two types of comparative studies: (1) quantitative, focused on the study of dispersions of features of phenomena, (2) qualitative, focused on comparing categorical variables. In both cases, there is an experimental logic of limiting conditions and a search for causal dependencies between variables (in quantitative analysis, also correlations).

It should be emphasized that comparison rarely acts as an end in itself in scientific political science research. Rather, it acts as a certain approach of the researcher to the subject he is studying, i.e. its predisposition to adopt a particular view of the political phenomenon, which is taken in advance along with the diverse national and regional political conditions and with its possible modifications. The task, therefore, is not to compare the forms of political phenomena and their conditions, but to search for dependencies, concepts and models. Comparison in this case is not just a method, but a research methodological strategy that affects the image of the subject of study, the initial conceptual structure, formulated research hypotheses, recruited tools for measuring and analyzing empirical material, and the scientific result obtained - synthesized concepts and classifications, models and theories. In this regard, comparison is not so much a technique for comparing, distinguishing or combining, but rather an exploratory worldview.

Types of comparative studies

The description of the comparative method in political science should be supplemented with an indication of the variety of types of comparisons that are practiced in it today. The types of comparisons are established using various criteria (method, number of countries studied, orientation), but in reality it is difficult to establish some single measure of differentiation. In this case, let's pay attention to those types of comparisons that are most often mentioned and discussed in the literature: "case-study", binary, regional, global, cross-temporal comparisons.

« case - study » comparison. This type of comparison is used when one country (any political phenomenon in a separate country) is analyzed against the background of its comparison with other countries. Not everyone considers such a study to be comparative, but still, the majority believes that among the studies of the "isolated case" type, a comparative emphasis can be found. For confirmation, the typology of research according to the type of "individual case", proposed in 1971 by Arend Leiphart, is taken as the basis. He distinguished the following types: (1) interpretive study of the "individual case", which uses existing theory to describe the case; (2) case studies to test and validate the theory; (3) case studies to generate hypotheses; (4) studies of deviant individual cases. With the exception of the first type, all the rest, one way or another, are connected with comparative studies and can be interpreted as some of their modifications.

In general, a case-study strategy is defined as follows: A single case study is empirical research, in which, firstly, the existing phenomenon is analyzed within its real life context, secondly, when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clear, and thirdly, many sources of evidence are used. In general, case-study comparison (or the study of many individual cases, as well as an individual case in a comparative context) for a project does not differ from the usual study of a single case. It has its advantages and disadvantages. But it differs from other types of comparisons in that each case is considered separately and should serve a special research purpose in the general complex of cases. This type of comparison is guided not by the logic of "selection", but by the logic of "replication", i.e. the logic of multiple experiments.

"Case-study" comparison is one of the most common types of comparative strategies. Thus, out of 565 articles published in the two main journals in comparative politics - "Comparative Politics" and "Comparative Political Studies" - for the period from 1968 to 1981, 62% were publications in individual countries.

Binary comparison. A description of binary comparison can be found in the book published in Russian by M. Dogan and D. Pelassi "Comparative Political Sociology". Binary comparison is a research strategy between two countries, which allows to identify the common and special in their political development. There are two types of binary comparisons: indirect and direct. Binary comparison, as the authors write, is indirect in the sense that any other, considered dissimilar, object of comparison is considered depending on the researcher's own vision. As an example, Tocqueville's study of democracy in America is given, which allowed him to form a different idea of ​​the political institutions of France. Direct binary comparison is direct and allows the researcher, using the historical method, to include two countries at once in the orbit of study.

Lipset, who also analyzes the features of binary comparison, distinguishes two similar strategies: implicit and explicit. He emphasizes the importance of research hypotheses for the selection of two countries to be compared. In this regard, not every comparison of the two countries is useful. He pays special attention to the problem of exclusivity in the choice of compared countries. Considering a comparative study of Japan and the United States as two examples of the most successful industrial development, Lipset talks about another characteristic of the binary comparison strategy: the choice of the most characteristic difference between the compared countries that is relevant to the subject of analysis. In this case, we can talk about completely different ways to achieve industrial success, which are found not at a specific level of analysis, but at a global level. Consequently; the uniqueness or exclusivity of the two countries under study is seen with the different levels of binary comparison.

Regional comparison. A common type of comparison is the comparison of regions, i.e. groups of countries chosen because of the similarity of their economic, cultural, political, etc. characteristics. Regional comparison refers to the type of comparison now under discussion in comparative politics that compares the most similar countries, as opposed to examining a group of countries with differing characteristics. The researchers emphasize the fruitfulness of such a study, as it allows solving a number of comparison problems (comparability, equivalence). As a rule, in comparative politics, the countries of Western Europe, Scandinavian countries, Latin America, English-speaking countries, Eastern Europe, etc. are studied. True, the premise of the similarity of the region often leads the researcher away from the possible search for life differences in the corresponding group of countries, which can act as explanatory variables.

John Matz makes the following recommendations for country-like comparisons based on comparative studies of Latin American countries: (1) in order to apply the country-like comparison strategy and generate meaningful theories, it is necessary to limit the spatial domain; i.e., instead of exploring the whole of Latin America, you need to limit the object of study to a sub-region - Central America, the South Cone, etc.; (2) it is necessary to focus not on macrotheories, but on average-rank theories built on multivariate empirical analysis and suitable for average-level generalizations; (3) practice more analytical eclecticism, and in particular include cultural variables in the analysis along with economic and institutional ones; (4) in order to avoid regional provincialism, it is necessary to link regional research methodologically, theoretically and substantively with global problems and trends.

Previously noted strategy for comparing dissimilar countries; it was isolated in the 70s and received some support from researchers. It was based on a critique of the basic premise of regional studies, according to which it is possible to find a group of countries that differ in only two conditions, while all the others are similar. Adam Przeworski wrote: “I am not aware of any study that successfully applied Mill's canon of single difference. I continue to be convinced that "designing the most similar systems" is really just a bad idea. The premise is that we can find a pair (or more) of countries that differ in only two characteristics, and that we will be able to confirm the hypothesis that X causes Y in a kind of natural experiment where all other conditions are equal. There are no two countries in the world that differ in only two characteristics, and in practice there are always many competing hypotheses. This type of comparative strategy is used by some researchers who are trying to test any hypotheses under a variety of conditions. It is also based on Mill's inductive canons, but exaggerates the importance of the canon of single resemblance. More moderate researchers believe that both strategies (similar and different systems) complement each other, make it possible to reduce the negative features of using only one strategy, and can be applied to solve various research problems.

Global comparison. Although interest in global comparisons based on a large array of empirical data and statistical type of analysis declined in the 1990s, they nevertheless constitute an independent type of comparison and are observed today. A feature of global studies is that the entire political system, its main characteristics, is taken as the unit of analysis. The opportunity to conduct global research appeared in the 60s in connection with the development of comparative statistics, the appearance of data on most countries and the development of computer programs for processing statistical and sociological data. Particular attention in global comparative studies of politics began to be paid to the socio-economic conditions for the emergence and strengthening of regimes, the ranking of countries by the level of democracy, the ratio of different types of states and regimes, the problem of equality and politics, etc. Shortcomings of global studies have been noted previously. Let us emphasize that the "third wave" of democratization again forced to pay attention to the global comparative analysis, though without the engagement of quantitative and statistical strategies.

Cross-temporal comparisons. Increasing importance in comparative studies is beginning to be given to time as an operational variable. Time is included in the study to overcome the static nature of comparison, Neil Smelser considered dynamic comparative analysis to be more difficult than static one, since the time variable was included in the study of the relationship between dependent and independent variables. So, if the researcher simply takes two points of development of a phenomenon in time and compares them, then this, according to Smelser, is not yet a dynamic comparison. Comparison acquires the quality of dynamism when the researcher considers the dynamics of changes in any quality in a given period of time.

One of the traditional types of cross-temporal comparison is defined as asynchronous comparison. This strategy involves comparing the same country (region) or different countries at different historical times. For example, the political dynamics of modern Africa and medieval Europe, the Weimar Republic and the formation of democracy in post-war Germany, various historical types of social revolutions, etc. Historically oriented research is opposed to synchronous comparative research.

Stefano Bartolini suggested a more complex construction of including time as a comparative analysis variable. To a certain extent, he develops the idea of ​​including time as a variable in a comparative study. “If differences in time are put forward as a special unit equivalent to the unit put forward by differences in space,” he writes, “then inference is that the relationship between variables in time is equivalent to the relationship revealed in space. The inclusion of a time variable raises a number of methodological problems. First, it is necessary to find a method by which a temporal change in qualities can be ascertained. To this end, it is necessary to accurately determine the temporal units of analysis. A similar problem can be called the problem of defining temporal units or periodization. Second, it is necessary to determine the extent to which the relationships established between quality variables over time are special, either in status or in some other sense, and differ from the variables established in cross-spatial analysis. This is the problem of the specificity of generalizations about development. Third, it is necessary to determine the extent to which multicollinearity can be a feature in the analysis of temporal change. Is it possible to investigate one or the general tendencies of development in causal terms on the basis of one temporal change? This is the problem of temporal multicollinearity. Bartolini proposed methods for solving these problems, pointing out the need to use both methodological traditions: comparative research in space and time.

This chapter has described the main approaches to defining the essence of the comparative method in political science. The comparative method in unity with the theories of the middle level form a specific branch of political science - comparative political science. The development of comparative studies has given rise to a number of methodological problems, the discussion of which continues today. The whole set of problems testifies to the tension that exists today between qualitative and quantitative comparative research. In this regard, one seems to agree with Carl van Meter, who writes: “When looking at the literature on the differences between "qualitative" and "quantitative" methodologies, and when analyzing the evolution of sociological methodology in general over the past decades, it turns out that both approaches are productive and that the conflict between them is mainly institutional in nature. The controversial nature of the comparative method is also expressed in the types of comparisons that comparative political science offers today.

Types and levels of variables

These methodological requirements for comparison actually fix attention at the initial stage of comparative political analysis - conceptualization and selection of research hypotheses. Considerable importance is also attached to the organization of a comparative study by defining variables for collecting quantitative and qualitative data. The identification of types and levels of variables in comparative political science does not actually differ from any social research focused on the measurement and analysis of empirical data. Since in the future we will use the concept of "variable", we note here only the following.

A variable is understood as the changing quality of the political phenomenon under study, to the measurement of which non-metric or metric scales can be applied. The organization of variables in the study involves dividing them into groups depending on the goals and hypotheses of the study. The choice of variables is also determined by the general conceptual scheme of the study and is based on its main concepts.

The set of studied variables can be defined as operational variables. Among them are dependent, independent and confounding variables. The dependent variable is understood as the changing quality of the object of study, which is considered as a consequence or result of the action of certain conditions, factors, circumstances. The variables that characterize these influencing conditions, factors and circumstances are called independent. There is some relationship between the dependent and independent variables that is being investigated. When studying the nature of this relationship, it must be borne in mind that, in addition to the dependent and independent variables identified by the researcher, it is necessary to take into account the influence of other conditions, i.e. control conditions. With regard to operational variables, this means that the relationship between the dependent and independent variable can be influenced by some third variable, which is called the confounding variable. Its influence must be controlled, and sometimes in the course of the study, if a greater influence of the intervening variable is found than the independent one, then the first one receives the status of independent. Along with the operational variables, the changeable qualities of the object are distinguished, which the researcher takes as constants. They are called parameters. Just when choosing countries in a comparative study, one of the most difficult problems is the definition of parameters, i.e. the group of characteristics in which the countries under study differ the least. Quantitative and qualitative relationships can be established between dependent and independent variables. How this methodological scheme works will become clear when reading the subsequent chapters of this book.

Concerning levels dependent variables in a comparative study, then Smelser, based on the ideas of Talcott Parsons about the dual hierarchy of social life (one: biological organism, personality, social system, cultural system; the other in the social system: roles, teams, norms, values), builds the following hierarchy levels of dependent variables: aggregative qualities of the population, estimates of behavioral precipitation, social structures, cultural structures. He emphasizes that the transition from the lowest level (aggregative qualities of the population) to the highest level (cultural structures) complicates the organization of variables, since a significant part of them cannot be interpreted as parameters, but must be included in operational variables.

Since the concept of variables is one of the central ones in organizing a comparative study, the definition of the comparative method itself is given based on the specifics of the attitude to control over variables. Thus, Arendt Leiphart writes that the boundaries of the comparative method are determined by a strategy in which cases are "chosen in such a way as to maximize the variance of the independent variables and minimize the variance of the controlled variables." Spencer Wellhofer defines the comparative method as "a strategy of choosing among a small number of cases or systems (usually countries) in order to include controlled variables in the search for causal or functional relationships within systems."

INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICA

PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

«INTERNATIONAL SLAVIC UNIVERSITY. KHARKOV"

Lecture notes

by discipline:

"Foreign Policy Analysis"

Faculty of International Relations

specialty 6.030400 "International information"

Department of International Economic Relations

and international information

Simferopol 2006

Topic number 1. Foreign policy as a phenomenon. Foreign policy activity.

Subjects of the foreign policy process.

Object and subject of foreign policy analysis.

The object of analysis of foreign policy is the foreign policy itself - the activity of the state, in the international arena, regulating relations with other subjects of foreign policy activity: states, foreign partners and other organizations.

The foreign political activity of the state in the international arena arises when at least two institutionalized societies enter into relations.

The subject of "Foreign Policy Analysis" is the study of foreign (international) policy from the perspective of a particular state in order to explain its essence and, possibly, predict further development.

Subjects of the foreign policy process

As you know, in sociology, several terms have developed to designate carriers or participants in social relations. Of these, the term "social subject" is the broadest in its content - an individual is a group, class or community of people entering into relationships with each other, that is, interacting with each other about and / or with the help of this or that object. One of the main criteria for selecting a subject is his endowment with consciousness and the ability to act. However, this one is too general characteristics not enough to study one or another certain types social relations.

The most common term used in the science of international relations to designate participants in interaction on the world stage is the term "actor". In Russian translation, it would sound like "actor". An “actor” is any person who takes an active part, plays an important role, write F. Briar and M.-R. Jalili. In the field of international relations, they emphasize, an actor should be understood as any authority, any organization, any group, and even any individual capable of playing a certain role and exerting influence.

State is an undisputed international actor that meets all the above criteria for this concept. It is the main subject of international law. The foreign policy of states largely determines the nature of the international relations of the era; it has a direct impact on the degree of freedom and the level of well-being of the individual, on human life itself. The activities and even the existence of international organizations and other participants in international relations largely depend on how states treat them. In addition, the state is a universal form of political organization of human communities: at present, almost all of humanity, with few exceptions, is united in states.

Among non-state actorsinternational relations distinguish intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), transnational corporations (TNCs) and other social forces and movements operating on the world stage. The growth of their role and influence is a relatively new phenomenon in international relations, characteristic of the post-war period.

There are various typologies of IGOs. The most common is the classification of IGOs ​​according to the "geopolitical" criterion and in accordance with the scope and direction of their activities. In the first case, there are such types of intergovernmental organizations as: universal (for example, the UN or the League of Nations); inter-regional (for example, the Organization of the Islamic Conference); regional (for example, Latin American Economic System); sub-regional (for example, Benelux). In accordance with the second criterion, there are general purpose (UN); economic (EFTA); military-political (NATO); financial (IMF, World Bank); scientific ("Eureka"); technical (International Telecommunication Union); or even more narrowly specialized IGOs ​​(International Bureau of Weights and Measures).

Such specific non-governmental organizations as transnational corporations (TNCs) have a considerable influence on the essence and direction of changes in the nature of international interactions.

To a lesser extent, other participants in international relations correspond to these signs - such as, for example, national liberation, separatist and irredentist movements, mafia groups, terrorist organizations, regional and local administrations, and individuals.

The structure of the foreign policy process.

Foreign policy is based on:

Economic;

Demographic;

Military;

Scientific and technical;

Cultural potential of the country and the state.

Their combination determines the possibilities of foreign policy activities of the state in one direction or another. The priorities in the setting and implementation of foreign policy goals are determined.

The geopolitical position of the state has historically dominated the choice (by this state) of partners and the development of relationships with its opponents.

Interrelation of foreign and domestic policy.

International and world politics are closely connected with foreign policy. If international politics is the interaction of subjects of international relations in a certain historical period.

That world politics is a part of international politics that has global significance.

The analysis of foreign policy is the identification of the factors that shape it and determine its development.

Foreign policy is always considered in context with the domestic policy of the state.

Since the foreign policy of the state reflects the internal political situation in this state in the setting of its goals in the choice of means and methods.

At present, the contradictions of global development are forcing the participants in international relations to pay more and more attention to issues related to the security system, the organization of measures to prevent regional conflicts and their localization, the prevention of man-made disasters and cooperation in order to eliminate their consequences as soon as possible; the fight against international terrorism and drug trafficking, joint measures to protect the environment and eliminate the sources of the consequences of its pollution, help third world countries in the fight against hunger, disease, etc.

Literature: 1, 5.

Topic number 2. Theoretical studies foreign policy.

Stages of formation of science.

The theory of personality, elites in foreign policy.

Stages of formation of science.

Foreign policy has long occupied a significant place in the life of any state, society and individual. The origin of nations, the formation of interstate borders, the formation and change of political regimes, the formation of various social institutions, the enrichment of cultures, the development of art, science, technological progress and an effective economy are closely related to trade, financial, cultural and other exchanges, interstate alliances, diplomatic contacts and military conflicts - or, in other words, with international relations. Their significance grows even more today, when all countries are woven into a dense, ramified network of diverse interactions that affect the volume and nature of production, the values ​​and ideals of people.

The systematic, purposeful study of foreign policy is associated with the interwar period of the first half of the 20th century, when the first research centers and university departments appeared in the United States and Western Europe, and curricula appeared that summarized and presented the results of a new scientific direction. At first, its formation took place within the framework of philosophy, as well as such traditional scientific disciplines as history, law and economics.

The separation from them, respectively, of the history of diplomacy, international law and international economics into relatively independent branches of knowledge has become milestone on the way to the development of science. Thanks to the works of such scientists as E. Carr, N. Spykman, R. Niebuhr, A. Wolfers, and especially G. Morgenthau, who in 1948 published his main work "Politics among Nations", a relatively independent political science is firmly established within the framework of political science. direction that studies international relations and is based on the methodology of "political realism". His criticism of the normative approach to international relations, insisting on the need for an objective, free from bias and ideology analysis of interaction between states, which is based on "national interest expressed in terms of power", the force factor, the preservation of peace through intimidation, etc., had enormous consequences for the science of international relations and for a long time determined the path of its development. At the same time, the very conceptual foundations of political realism also contained shortcomings, which become more and more obvious as international relations evolve and change in their nature.

main theoretical schools.

Many build their typology on the basis of the degree of generality of the theories under consideration, distinguishing, for example, global explicative theories (such as political realism and the philosophy of history) and particular hypotheses and methods (which include the behaviorist school). Within the framework of such a typology, the Swiss author G. Briar classifies political realism, historical sociology, and the Marxist-Leninist concept of international relations as general theories. As for private theories, among them are the theory of international authors (B. Korani); the theory of interactions within international systems (OR Young; S. Amin; K. Kaiser); theories of strategy, conflicts and peace studies (A. Beaufr, D. Singer, I. Galtung); integration theory (A. Etzioni; K. Deutsch); theory of international organization (J. Siotis; D. Holly). Still others believe that the main dividing line is the method used by certain researchers and, from this point of view, they focus on the controversy between representatives of the traditional and "scientific" approaches to the analysis of international relations.. The fourth single out the central problems characteristic of this or that theory, emphasizing the main and turning points in the development of science. Finally, the fifth are based on complex criteria. Thus, the Canadian scientist B. Korani builds a typology of theories of international relations based on the methods they use (“classical” and “modernist”) and the conceptual vision of the world (“liberal-pluralistic” and “materialistic-structuralist”). As a result, he identifies such areas as political realism (G. Morgenthau, R. Aron, H. Buhl), behaviorism (D. Singer; M. Kaplan), classical Marxism (K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin) and neo-Marxism (or the school of "dependence": I. Wallerstein, S. Amin, A. Frank, F. Cardozo). In a similar way, D. Kolyar focuses on the classical theory of the "state of nature" and its modern version (that is, political realism); the theory of "international community" (or political idealism); Marxist ideological trend and its numerous interpretations; doctrinal Anglo-Saxon current, as well as the French school of international relations. M. Merle believes that the main directions in modern science about international relations are presented by traditionalists - the heirs of the classical school (G. Morgenthau, S. Hoffmann, G. Kissinger); Anglo-Saxon sociological concepts of behaviorism and functionalism (R. Cox, D. Singer, M. Kaplan; D. Easton); Marxist and non-Marxist (P. Baran, P. Sweezy, S. Amin) currents.

The main theoretical approaches to the study of foreign policy:

1. Classical idealism

2. Marxist

3. Classic realism

4 Mondealism.

3. The theory of personality, elites in foreign policy.

At the end of the second millennium of our era, the idea that history is primarily determined by the deeds of "kings and heroes" looks archaic. Nevertheless, the personality of a political leader has been and remains one of the important variables in the analysis of foreign policy. This is evidenced by history textbooks, where the "first persons" of the most influential states are mentioned on almost every page, and the media, in which up to a third of the time in news releases is occupied by all the same "first persons", and the tendency to "personalize" certain periods history, and political concepts: "Stalinism", "Thatcherism", "Reaganomics", "Brezhnev's doctrine".

One can, of course, argue about whether the absence of this or that outstanding personality on the historical arena would radically change its course.

The first approach to the study of the personality of a leader in foreign policy, which became widespread, was the so-called psychohistory, or psychobiography, heavily influenced by Freudianism. When considering the influence of a politician's personality on political decision-making, researchers who belonged to this direction paid attention to the problems and traumatic experiences that the future political leader faced in childhood. All these experiences become a source of motivation, cause a desire to assert oneself, to prove one's usefulness. This effect in psychology is called"hypercompensation".The options may be different, but in any case, some character traits of a politician become hypertrophied: excessive cruelty and suspicion, a tough and straightforward desire for an ideal, excessive activism and pressure.

"Psychohistory" was subjected to fair criticism, pointing to reductionism and mythologization of the meaning of childhood experiences that are characteristic of this concept.

The next direction was a variety of trait theory, whose attention was focused not so much on the origin of certain types and personal profiles of politicians, but on their influence on the effectiveness of decisions made. The main question for this direction is: “What should be the personality of an effective political leader?” One of the options for this approach ischarismatic leader theory(Weber), which suggests that prominent politicians have a special quality - "charisma", which defies rational explanation, but forcing people to follow the leader, trust him and obey him. The main drawback of this theory is that the phenomenon of "charisma" by definition does not lend itself to operationalization and, therefore,rigorous scientific research.

A successful solution to the problem of leadership modeling at the highest level requires the synthesis of all these parameters. One attempt close to solving this problem is the classification developed by Margaret Hermann (Hermann) and Thomas Preston (Preston), which pays special attention to the fact that presidents very rarely make important decisions alone. In the decision-making process, they constantly interact with the apparatus of advisers and assistants. It is this "brain trust" of the first person and the style of the president's interaction with him that are the defining variable of this typology. Hermann and Preston identified four leadership styles.

The type named "top leader"(Chief Executive Officer), seeks to dominate, builds a clear hierarchy, a system of commands and control over their implementation. The focus is on building organizational structure and its management. The authors refer Presidents G. Truman and R. Nixon to this type.

"Director/Ideologist"(Director/Ideologue, an example - R. Reagan), just like the previous type, seeks to dominate, but he is more interested in problems that need to be addressed, and not in the organizational structure."Team Leaders"(Team Builders and Players, an example is J. Ford, J. Carter) strive for a collective organization of work, decisions are made after reaching consensus, the leader is in the center information network and serves as moderator of the discussion."Innovative Analysts"(Analyst / Innovators, an example - F. Roosevelt), just like "team leaders", they focus on the collection and analysis of information on the problem, while they strive for a multivariate analysis and look for the optimal solution, taking into account all parameters and points of view. These four types are described in more detail in the table.

Another possible approach to exploring the value personality traits leaders for foreign policy is based on an attempt to identify a number of personality types, which are characterized by a combination of certain character traits and worldview features, and to trace their influence on foreign policy decision-making. For example, Charles Kegley and Eugene Wittkopf (Kegley and Wittkopf) identify 10 such types: Nationalists, Militarists, Conservatives, Pragmatists, Paranoids, machiavellianism, faithful followers,authoritarian individuals,Antiauthoritarians, Dogmatists.

All the types discussed above are rarely found in their pure form among representatives of political elites, since the latter experience too tight social control.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the influence of a politician's personality on decision-making is mediated by a number of circumstances, ranging from his position in the state hierarchy to topics how ordinary or extraordinary, how critical is the situation. In the latter case, the influence of the leader's personality traits is more pronounced and important.

One of the most important components of foreign policy research is the study of its driving forces.Almond defines the role of elites, pointing out that any social form activity (including foreign policy) entails the division of labor and the division of influence, which is the function of the elite.

Almond proposed the following classification of foreign policy elites:

political;

administrative;

elite interest groups;

media elite.

Topic 3. Theoretical and methodological specifics of the direction of research.

The meaning of the problem of the method.

The meaning of the problem of the method.

The problem of method is one of the most important problems of science, since ultimately it is about teaching, obtaining new knowledge, how to apply it in practice. It is the result of the study, because the knowledge obtained as a result of it concerns not only the object itself, but also the methods of its study, as well as the application of the results obtained in practical activities. Moreover, the researcher is faced with the problem of method already when analyzing the literature and the need to classify and evaluate it.

Hence the ambiguity in understanding the content of the very term "method". It means both the sum of techniques, means and procedures for the study of science of its subject, and the totality of already existing knowledge. This means that the problem of method, while having an independent meaning, is at the same time closely connected with the analytical and practical role of theory, which also plays the role of method.

The widespread opinion that each science has its own method is only partly true: most of the social sciences do not have their own specific, only inherent method. Therefore, they refract in one way or another in relation to their object general scientific methods and methods of other (both social and natural sciences) disciplines. The foregoing also applies to the so-called methodological dichotomy, which, however, is often observed not only in domestic, but also in Western science of international relations. In this regard, for example, it is argued that the main shortcoming of the science of international relations is the protracted process of its transformation into an applied science. Such statements suffer from excessive categoricalness. The process of development of science is not linear, but rather mutual: it does not transform from historical descriptive into applied science, but refines and corrects theoretical positions through applied research (which, indeed, is possible only at a certain, fairly high stage of its development) and "return of debt" to "appliers" in the form of a more solid and operational theoretical and methodological basis.

Here it is important to note the illegitimacy of the opposition between "traditional" and "scientific" methods, the falsity of their dichotomy. In fact, they complement each other. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to conclude that both approaches "are on an equal footing, and the analysis of the same problem is carried out independently by different researchers." Moreover, within the framework of both approaches, the same discipline can use - albeit in different proportions - different methods: general scientific, analytical, and concrete empirical (however, the difference between them, especially between general scientific and analytical, is also rather arbitrary). In this respect, the political sociology of international relations is no exception. Turning to a more detailed consideration of these methods, it is worth once again emphasizing the conditionality, the relativity of the boundaries between them, their ability to “flow” into each other.

Basic methods of applied analysis of foreign policy.

The most common of them are content analysis, event analysis, cognitive mapping method and their numerous varieties.

Cotpent analysis in political science was first applied by the American researcher G. Lasswell and his collaborators in the study of the propaganda orientation of political texts and described by them in 1949. In its most general form, this method can be represented as a systematic study of the content of a written or oral text with the fixation of the most frequently repeated phrases or plots in it. Further, the frequency of these phrases or plots is compared with their frequency in other written or oral messages, known as neutral, on the basis of which a conclusion is made about the political orientation of the content of the text under study. The degree of rigor and operationality of the method depends on the correctness of the allocation of primary units of analysis (terms, phrases, semantic blocks, topics, etc.) and units of measurement (for example, a word, phrase, section, page, etc.).

Event analysis (or event data analysis) is aimed at processing public information showing "who says or does what, in relation to whom and when." The systematization and processing of the relevant data is carried out according to the following criteria: 1) the initiating subject (who); 2) plot or "issue-area" (what); 3) the target subject (in relation to whom) and 4) the date of the event (when). Events systematized in this way are summarized in matrix tables, ranked and measured using a computer. The effectiveness of this method requires the presence of a significant data bank.

As for the method of cognitive mapping, it is aimed at analyzing how one or another politician perceives a certain political problem. American scientists R. Snyder, H. Brook and B. Sepin showed in 1954 that the basis for making decisions by political leaders can be based not only and not so much on the reality that surrounds them, but on how they perceive it. An analysis of cognitive factors makes it possible to understand, for example, that the relative constancy of the state's foreign policy is explained, along with other reasons, by the constancy of the views of the respective leaders.

The method of cognitive mapping solves the problem of identifying the basic concepts used by a politician and finding the cause-and-effect relationships between them. “As a result, the researcher receives a map-scheme, on which, based on the study of the speeches and speeches of a political figure, his perception of the political situation or individual problems in it is reflected.”

To date, more than a thousand such techniques are known - from the simplest (for example, observation) to quite complex ones (such as situational games approaching one of the stages of system modeling). The most famous of them are questionnaires, interviews, expert surveys, and expert meetings. A variation of the latter is, for example, the "Delphian technique" - when independent experts submit their assessments of this or that international event to the central body, which generalizes and systematizes them, and then returns them to the experts again. Taking into account the generalization carried out, the experts either amend their initial assessments, or strengthen their opinion and continue to insist on it. In accordance with this, the final assessment is developed, and practical recommendations are given.

The most common of the analytical methods: observation, study of documents, comparison, experiment.

Methods system analysis in foreign policy.

The concept of a system (it will be discussed in more detail below) is widely used by representatives of various theoretical trends and schools in the science of international relations. Its generally recognized advantage is that it makes it possible to present the object of study in its unity and integrity, and, therefore, by helping to find correlations between interacting elements, it helps to identify the "rules" of such interaction, or, in other words, the laws of the functioning of the international system. On the basis of a systematic approach, a number of authors distinguish international relations from international politics: if the components of international relations are represented by their participants (actors) and "factors". The systems approach should be distinguished from its specific incarnations - systems theory and systems analysis. System theory performs the tasks of constructing, describing and explaining systems and their constituent elements, the interaction of the system and the environment, as well as intra-system processes, under the influence of which a change and / or destruction of the system occurs. As for system analysis, it solves more specific problems; representing a set of practical techniques, techniques, methods, procedures, thanks to which a certain ordering is introduced into the study of an object (in this case, international relations).

From the point of view of R. Aron, "the international system consists of political units that maintain regular relations with each other and which can be drawn into a general war." Since the main (and in fact the only) political units of interaction in the international system for Aaron are states, at first glance one might get the impression that he identifies international relations with world politics. However, limiting, in fact, international relations to a system of interstate interactions, R. Aron at the same time not only paid great attention to the assessment of resources, the potential of states that determine their actions in the international arena, but also considered such an assessment to be the main task and content of the sociology of international relations. At the same time, he represented the potential (or power) of the state as an aggregate consisting of its geographical environment, material and human resources, and the ability of collective action. Thus, proceeding from a systematic approach, Aron outlines, in essence, three levels of consideration of international (interstate) relations: the level of the interstate system, the level of the state and the level of its power (potential).

Decision Process Analysis (DPR) is adynamic measurementsystem analysis of international politics and, at the same time, one of the central problems of social science in general and the science of international relations in particular. The study of the determinants of foreign policy without taking into account this process can turn out to be either a waste of time, from the point of view of predictive capabilities, or a dangerous delusion, because this process is the "filter" through which the totality of factors influencing foreign policy is "sifted" by a person (persons) decision maker (DM).

The classical approach to the analysis of PPR, reflecting the "methodological individualism" characteristic of the Weberian tradition, includes two main stages of research. At the first stage, the main decision-makers are identified (for example, the head of state and his advisers, ministers: foreign affairs, defense, security, etc.), and the role of each of them is described. This takes into account that each of them has a staff of advisers with the authority to request any information they need from a particular government department.

Topic number 4. Levels of foreign policy analysis.

System approach in the work of D. Rosenau.

System approach in the work of D. Singer.

International politics is a complex phenomenon, and in order to explore it, it is necessary to analyze all its components. This approach was proposed in the 1960s. David Singer, who was one of the first to raise the issue of levels of analysis international politics. The identification of levels of analysis is necessary, first of all, in order to understand what factors shape international politics and determine its development. In the literature on the theory of international relations, there are several variants of such a division, three of which we present below.

D. Singer identifies two levels of analysis:

international system. This level allows, abstracting from details, to explore international relations as a whole and to understand the essence of processes of global significance;

state. The state as the main subject of international relations has autonomy
and the ability to choose the direction of their policies. Therefore, from the point of view of a sovereign state, it is possible to analyze international politics in more detail and in depth.

The above model is an attempt to isolate the most general levels of analysis.

System approach in the work of P. Morgan.

Patrick Morgan proposed a five-level model with slightly different emphasis:

interaction between states is ultimately the result of the decisions and behavior of individuals;

in addition, interaction between states is the result of decisions and activities
various groupings such as cabinets, elites, interest groups, bureaucratic structures;

international politics is dominated by states, so it is necessary to investigate the behavior
each of them as a whole;

states do not act alone, it is necessary to take into account regional groupings, alliances, blocs, etc.;

international politics as a whole forms a system that, more than other factors, determines
state behavior.

3. System approach in the work of D. Rosenau.

A more detailed model was developed by James Rosenau. It already consists of six levels:

individual features,decision maker. At this level, the focus is on
personal characteristics of a participant in the decision-making process;

role function of the individual making decisions.The actions of the individual depend not only on
individual characteristics, but also on the place that he occupies in the
organization or political system that defines the scope of its activities;

government structure.The structure of the government determines the powers of individual politicians, as well as the specific conditions for their activities (the need for public support
in a democratic system and the suppression of opposition in an authoritarian one);

characteristics of society.In this case, factors are taken into account that influence or
conditioning government decisions. One such factor is, for example, the presence
or lack of resources at the disposal of the government, which determines the development of goals and means
their achievements;

international relationships.The interaction of states depends on the relations between them. |
A strong state, for example, will behave towards a weak one in a completely different way than
relation to another strong;

world system.The structure of the world system determines the international, regional and global environment in which the state operates.

The above models demonstrate how complex and complex the phenomenon of international politics is. It is this complexity that forces researchers to divide the problem into its constituent parts and choose different angles so that the analysis is comprehensive. One of the angles is the analysis of international politics from the point of view of a state acting in the international arena. In each of the models, we can draw a line between the domestic and supranational levels, thus highlighting the levels related to the concept of "foreign policy".

Topic number 5. The value of the analysis of foreign policy processes in modern conditions.

The purpose of foreign policy analysis.

The growing role of foreign policy analysis in modern conditions.

Forecasting the development of foreign policy as the main task of foreign policy analysis.

Comparative analysis of the system of development and implementation of foreign policy in Ukraine, Western countries and developing countries.

Foreign Policy Analysisis an attempt to explore international politics from the perspective of an individual state in order to explain its essence and, possibly, predict further development.

Having determined the direction, it is necessary to choose the method of analysis. Methods of foreign policy analysis will be discussed in this section.

The traditional method of such analysis iscomparison method,and several comparisons can be made. Based on the assumption that international relations develop in soo accordance with certain patterns, then the search for analogies in history can help identify these patterns. The history of the state's foreign policy makes it possible to compare its actions inpersonal situations and identify their origins and essence. The historical approach formed the basis of the case-study method. As Richard Neustadt and Ernest May note, the study of history is also of great practical importance for politicians involved in the development and implementation of foreign floor itics, helping them to more accurately define goals and ways to achieve them.

Another comparison option is a horizontal cut, a comparison of the policies of various states. This method allows you to put the foreign policy of each state in a broader perspective. The task in this case remains the same - to identify patterns, for which it is necessary to find and explain the similarities and differences in the behavior of the subjects of international relations. Both the policy as a whole, its options and results, and its individual components, such as foreign policy concepts, decision-making systems, the use of various means to achieve political goals, etc. can be compared.

The famous scientist James Rosenau believes that comparative analysis is not yet truly scientific, but rather precedes it. From his point of view, the foreign policy of the state must on the to speak from a broader perspective and with a higher degree of generalization. D. Rosenau considers foreign policy as behavior aimed at adapting the state to environment drawing analogies with a biological organism one . He defines foreign policy as the actions that the government takes or intends to take in order to preserve the factors of the international environment that satisfy it or change those that do not.At the same time, comparative and adaptation approaches are not mutually exclusive options, but the development of the discipline from empirical to scientific analysis.

According to many researchers, the main method of analyzing foreign policy today is still its consideration from the point of view of decision-making. D. Singer noted that one of the advantages of studying international relations from the standpoint of an individual state is the possibility of successfully using decision analysis. Decision-making analysis is built on the basis of the following provisions: foreign policy consists of decisions made by individual politicians, which can be identified. Therefore, decision-making is behavior that needs to be explained.

It is politicians who determine what the essence of each particular situation is. Decisions that determine foreign policy have internal, public sources. The decision-making process itself can be an important and independent source of decisions.

Decision analysis is thus an attempt to break down foreign policy into individual, specific decisions and examine what factors influence their adoption. In this case, the state is no longer the main object of study. We have to admit that it is not monolithic and not homogeneous, and take into account the levels of analysis located below the level of the state.

What is the essence of the decision making process? At first glance, the answer is quite simple: in each specific situation, the politician must make a choice between several alternatives. However, upon closer examination, the decision-making process includes the search and formulation of alternatives, the analysis and evaluation of the consequences, and the choice itself. In addition, situations where the decision is made by one person are extremely rare, since the state is a rather complex bureaucratic mechanism. Thus, in order to understand what factors ultimately determine the decision, it is necessary to explore this process in all its diversity. In decision theory, the most widely usedmethod of building and analyzing models,each of which focuses the researcher's attention on one of the factors. The classic set of models in modern decision theory is the concept of Graham Allison, formulated in his book "The Essence of the Decision". Chapter 6 discusses these and other models in more detail.

A special place in the theory of decision-making is occupied by studies devoted to the problem of decision-making in a crisis. The crisis is like a microcosm in which all aspects of the decision-making process are highlighted most clearly. Features of the situation - lack of time to search for and analyze alternatives, stress, consciousness of responsibility, etc. - leave a special imprint on decision-making. In a crisis situation, often even in states with a developed bureaucratic structure, the responsibility for decision-making falls on the politician at the head of the state or a small group of people.

Topic number 6. The role of conflict in foreign policy analysis.

The main sources and forms of conflicts in the modern world.

The problem of war in the theories of international relations.

Political settlement of internationalconflicts as an independent area of ​​scientific research.

Relations between states consist of elements of conflict and cooperation, it is hardly possible to find an example of relations based only on cooperation. At the same time, with the development of military technology, conflicts are becoming more and more dangerous, and this calls for an early scientific approach to the problem of their resolution. This section will focus on the need to apply foreign policy analysis methods to resolve conflicts. First of all, it is necessary to understand what the concept of conflict resolution is. This will be discussed further.

In the modern theory of international relations, interest in such a phenomenon as conflict is constantly growing. Many researchers have tried and are trying to answer questions about the origins of conflicts, what is their essence and how the state can and should act in a conflict. Followers of the traditional direction are mainly trying to answer the first question. From the point of view of classical realism, conflict is an inevitable and natural element of international relations in the context of the struggle of states for dominance and influence. The incompatibility of interests, defined in terms of power, gives rise to conflict. Neo-realists, sharing the main ideas of classical realism, while studying the origins of conflicts, focus on the consequences of the anarchic nature of the world system and the operation of the security dilemma. In neoliberalism, conflict is recognized as natural, but is not considered an inevitable element of international relations. Neoliberals share the anarchism of the international system and selfish interests, but see ways to overcome them in the development of international institutions, complex interdependence and the spread of liberal democracy, which should lead to a decrease in the proportion of conflicts in international affairs.

A relatively independent trend in conflict research emerged in the 1950s. The global conflict of nuclear superpowers has called for an integrated, more scientific approach to the study of such a phenomenon as conflict. The "behavioral revolution" made this approach possible. The creation of the theory of conflicts began with the recognition of conflict as an independent phenomenon. This was followed by an attempt to answer all three questions at once: what is a conflict, why do conflicts arise, how can and should one act in a conflict? The first two questions can be answered by studying, first of all, the structure and dynamics of conflicts. The third question can be answered in different ways. First, one can consider conflict not only as a danger, but also as an opportunity to achieve certain goals. In this case, it becomes necessary to develop a conflict strategy in order to know how the state should act in order to achieve its goals and avoid undesirable consequences. This approach can be characterized as the concept of conflict management.

The other way is conflict resolution, the way to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with a long-term perspective. In international relations, two types of policies also correspond to these approaches - based on the strategy, a policy of ending conflicts is built, aimed only at ending violence, while the policy of conflict resolution aims to establish long-term peaceful relations by eliminating the sources of conflict.

Conflict resolution is a fairly broad area of ​​activity and research and includes many aspects. Nevertheless, all this diversity can be reduced to two elements: an analysis of the structure and dynamics of conflicts and a conflict resolution strategy. international conflict associated mainly with any forceful actions. It seems that by stopping the violence, the conflict can be resolved. However, history, especially the history of the post-Cold War period, shows that conflict resolution requires a more detailed approach. In order to really resolve the conflict, it is necessary to understand its structure and act on all its components, not all of which are distinguishable at first glance.

The first thing to be identified is sources conflict. Conflict, as we have seen, can arise for various reasons:

due to the existence of truly incompatible aims pursued by the parties;

because of the belief of the parties in the incompatibility of goals;

a source of conflict can be a misperception of goals by the opposite side.

In each of these cases, different approaches must be taken when trying to resolve the conflict.

In general, truly incompatible interests become a source of conflict much more often. In this case, the very goals of the parties create another important element of the conflict - a conflict situation. One of the most difficult conflict situations is a dispute over the division of any benefits (territory, raw materials, etc.). Game theory describes such a situation as a "zero-sum game" where one side wins as much as the other loses. When resolving such a conflict, the obvious thing is not to become isolated within the narrow framework that caused the conflict of interest, but to expand the angle of view on the problem in order to try to find an area in which the benefit can be mutual.

An even more complicated situation arises when the conflict is caused not only by the goals of the parties, but alsothe incompatibility of their value systems.Usually, the parties to the conflict build their goals on the basis of their value systems, which they consider to be universal, and these systems may differ. In this case, the incompatibility of goals is determined not only by the distribution of goods, but also by differences in value systems. The resolution of such a conflict requires influencing the perceptions of the parties of the situation and each other.

Perception is another important component of the conflict. It often happens that the origins of the conflict lie not in the sphere of reality, but in the perception of its participants. Suspicions based on traditional mistrust or prejudice cause parties to a conflict to perceive each other's actions as a threat, even when they are not. Another option is when the parties incorrectly believe that their goals are incompatible. In this situation, the way to resolve the problem is to clarify the goals and intentions of the parties.

The most obvious element of conflict is action or conflict behavior. It is difficult to determine exactly what can be called "conflict behavior", especially if the conflict has not yet passed into an open phase with the use of force by the parties. The criteria for such behavior can be action goals, such as:

force the enemy to change their goals;

counteract the actions of the enemy;

punish the enemy for his behavior.

In accordance with this, violent actions, promises, and even concessions can fall into the category of “conflict behavior”. This fact must be remembered in order to determine the presence of a conflict situation at the stage of a latent conflict and act on it as early as possible.

The structure of the conflict is dynamic. In its development, the conflict goes through various stages, although often, the development can be hidden. For a successful resolution of a conflict, its development must be identified in three areas - within the parties (change in goals, perception, position and internal structure), relations between the parties (escalation, intensification, expansion), in relations between conflicts! mi parties and environment (isolation, intervention, etc.).

It is also very important to understand what the concept of conflict resolution is. Although there are no generally accepted definitions of conflict resolution and conf settlement, there is a noticeable difference between them. Of all the elements of the conflict, behavior usually attracts the most attention, and therefore they try to influence it first of all. This approach can be calledstrategy for ending the conflict.It is often used by third parties seeking to end violence and restore peace, which can be achieved, for example, through peace enforcement operations. At the same time, the goal of the efforts is not to harmonize the interests of the conflicting parties, but only to stop the actions that cause concern.

The main problem with this approach is temporary The nature of what has been achieved. At least one of the parties to the conflict will consider that its interests have been infringed and the goals have not been achieved, while dissatisfaction and the desire to change the situation in its favor will remain. And this means that relative calm will be maintained only as long as the pressure persists.

Strategy Conflict resolution, on the contrary, involves efforts aimed at reconciling the goals and interests of the conflicting parties. The main goal in this case is to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. in the best way its achievements are considered direct negotiations of the parties, and the task of the third party is to help the parties to the conflict find an acceptable solution for them. In this case, not only behavior is affected, but also the perception and position of the parties, a favorable outcome eliminates the need for forceful actions and forceful control.

It happens that the conflicting parties are not inclined to negotiate, especially if the conflict i is long and cruel. In such situations, a two-stage approach may be applied. At the first stage, measures are taken to stop the violence. When this is done, the suit of compromise begins, that is, the way to actually resolve the conflict. The main methods of resolving conflicts arenegotiations and mediationand in this area they have a certain specificity. Mediation, for example, does not end when an agreement is reached. For a long-term result, the agreement must be the starting point for the new role of the mediator.

Thus, we see that the conflict resolution strategy is aimed primarily at changing the policy of the conflicting parties in relation to each other and the perception underlying it. Effective application of such a strategy requires a comprehensive scientific analysis of the factors that determine the policy of each participant in the conflict. It is the application of the concepts and methods of foreign policy analysis, especially in times of crisis, that gives us such an opportunity.

What should be the function of the leaders of developed countries? What can they do to prevent conflicts and wars? K. Annan answers this question as follows:

“Virtually everyone agrees that prevention is better than cure, and that prevention strategies should address the root causes of conflicts, not just their outward manifestations in the form of violence. However, such agreement is not always supported by deeds. It is difficult for political leaders to convince the public of their country of the need for a foreign policy aimed at prevention, since the costs of this are immediately obvious, while the benefits of such a policy - which is to prevent some undesirable or tragic future event - are much more difficult to convey to the public consciousness. Therefore, prevention is first and foremost a task that must be addressed by the political leadership.

Finally, for prevention strategies to be successful, old conflicts must be prevented from recurring. The world community must provide the necessary support for post-conflict peacebuilding.

While prevention is a key element of human security efforts, it must be recognized that even the best prevention and containment strategies can fail. Therefore, other measures may be required. One of them is to increase our readiness to protect vulnerable people.”

3. The genesis of the foreign policy of the state. NATO-Russia relations after the Lisbon ...

Presentation - World politics and international relations

abstracts

• 205 KB
• added 07/23/2011

10 pages, 2011
International relationships.
Global politics.
Foreign policy.
Geopolitics.
Features of the foreign policy of modern Russia
Features of modern international relations International relations - a system of relations between the subjects of the world community
World (international) politics...

Topic number 4. Levels of foreign policy analysis.

1. System approach in the work of D. Singer.

2. System approach in the work of P. Morgan.

3. System approach in the work of D. Rosenau.

1. System approach in the work of D. Singer.

International politics is a complex phenomenon, and in order to explore it, it is necessary to analyze all its components. This approach was proposed in the 1960s. David Singer, who was one of the first to raise the issue of levels of analysis international politics. The identification of levels of analysis is necessary, first of all, in order to understand what factors shape international politics and determine its development. In the literature on the theory of international relations, there are several variants of such a division, three of which we present below.

D. Singer identifies two levels of analysis:

1) international system. This level allows, abstracting from details, to explore international relations as a whole and to understand the essence of processes of global significance;

2) the state. The state as the main subject of international relations has autonomy
and the ability to choose the direction of their policies. Therefore, from the point of view of a sovereign state, it is possible to analyze international politics in more detail and in depth.

The above model is an attempt to isolate the most general levels of analysis.

2. System approach in the work of P. Morgan.

Patrick Morgan proposed a five-level model with slightly different emphasis:

1) interaction between states is ultimately the result of the decisions and behavior of individuals;

2) in addition, interaction between states is the result of decisions and activities
various groupings such as cabinets, elites, interest groups, bureaucratic structures;

3) international politics is dominated by states, so it is necessary to investigate the behavior
each of them as a whole;

4) states do not act alone, it is necessary to take into account regional groupings, alliances, blocs, etc.;

5) international politics as a whole forms a system that, more than other factors, determines
state behavior.

3. System approach in the work of D. Rosenau.

A more detailed model was developed by James Rosenau. It already consists of six levels:

1) individual features, decision maker. At this level, the focus is on
personal characteristics of a participant in the decision-making process;

2) role function of the individual making decisions. The actions of the individual depend not only on
individual characteristics, but also on the place that he occupies in the
organization or political system that defines the scope of its activities;

3) government structure. The structure of the government determines the powers of individual politicians, as well as the specific conditions for their activities (the need for public support
in a democratic system and the suppression of opposition in an authoritarian one);

4) characteristics of society. In this case, factors are taken into account that influence or
conditioning government decisions. One such factor is, for example, the presence
or lack of resources at the disposal of the government, which determines the development of goals and means
their achievements;

5) international relationships. The interaction of states depends on the relations between them. |
A strong state, for example, will behave towards a weak one in a completely different way than
relation to another strong;

6) world system. The structure of the world system determines the international, regional and global environment in which the state operates.

The above models demonstrate how complex and complex the phenomenon of international politics is. It is this complexity that forces researchers to divide the problem into its constituent parts and choose different angles in order for the analysis to be comprehensive. One of the angles is the analysis of international politics from the point of view of a state acting in the international arena. In each of the models, we can draw a line between the domestic and supranational levels, thus highlighting the levels related to the concept of "foreign policy".