Kurzus nemzetközi vendég- és részidős hallgatóknak

Kar

Társadalomtudományi Kar

Szervezet

TÁTK Nemzetközi és Európai Tanulmányok Tanszék

Kód

IRB119

Cím

Foreign policy analysis

Tervezett félév

Őszi

Meghirdetve

2024/25/1

ECTS

4

Nyelv

en

Oktatás célja

The aim of the course is to introduce students to the most important frameworks of analysis in the field of foreign policy analysis. The course is meant to show and refine the tools observers can use to understand foreign affairs. Students will be acquainted with the different levels of analysis and the use of different analytical angles while studying the foreign policy decisions of states in the international system.

Tantárgy tartalma

1. Introduction Reading: syllabus 2. What is Foreign Policy and How Do We Analyze It? Carlsnaes, W. (2002). Foreign Policy. In Carlsnaes, W.; Risse, T. & Simmons, B. A. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage, 331-49. * Beach, D. (2012). Analyzing Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan. Chap. 1. Introduction 1-30. Holsti, O. R. (1989). Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy. Diplomatic History, 13: 1, 15-43 Hudson, V. M. & Day, B. S. (2020). Foreign Policy Analysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. 1-36. 3. Policy Analysis and Methods Beach, D. (2012). Analyzing Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan. Chap. 10 (Research Strategies and Methods), 213-42. * Carlnaes, W. (2012). Actors, Structures, and Foreign Policy Analysis. In Smith, S.; Hadfield, A. & Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford University Press, 113-129 Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analysis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield 1-14. * Eóin Young & Lisa Quinn: Writing Effective Public Policy Papers: A Guide for Policy Advisers in Central and Eastern Europe. Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative – Open Society Institute, 2002. http://www.icpolicyadvocacy.org/sites/icpa/files/downloads/writing_effective_public_policy_papers _young_quinn.pdf 4. Realist & Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy Wivel, A. (2005). Explaining why state x made a certain move last Tuesday: the promise and limitations of realist foreign policy analysis. In Journal of International Relations and Development 8. 355–80. Wohlforth W. (2012). Realism and Foreign Policy. In Smith, S.; Hadfield, A. & Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford University Press, 35-53. * Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51:1, 144-72. 5. Liberal & Neoliberal Theories of Foreign Policy Doyle, M. W. (2012). Liberalism and Foreign Policy. In Smith, S.; Hadfield, A. & Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford University Press, 54-77. * Ikenberry, G.J. (1986). The state and strategies of international adjustment. World Politics 39, 53–77. Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analysis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 149-154. 6. Foreign Policy within a Socially Constructed Realm: Constructivist and Post-structuralist Approaches Flockhart, T. (2012). Constructivism and foreign policy. In: Smith, S.; Hadfield, A. & Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford University Press, 79-94. * Beach, D. (2012). Analyzing Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan. 57-61; 87-96. Subotić, J. (2016). Narrative, Ontological Security, and Foreign Policy Change. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12: 4, 610-627. Nadelman, E. A. (1990). Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society, International Organization, 44:4, 479-526. Hansen, L. Discourse analysis, post-structuralism, and foreign policy. In Smith, S.; Hadfield, A. & Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford University Press, 95-111. * Ripley, C.G. (2017). Discourse in Foreign Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. 7. From comparative politics to FPA: Government Institutions and Domestic Political Actors Hudson, V. M. & Day, B. S. (2020). Foreign Policy Analysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 145-168. * Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analyis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 97-116. Powell, G.B.; Dalton, R.J; Strøm (2015) Comparative Politics Today. A World View. 11th ed.  Pearson, Essex. Pp. 25-27; 38-41; 46-57; 60-61; 80-94; 99-117; 167-169. * Fearon, J. D. (1998). Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science,1. 289-313. Raunio, T. & Wagner, W. (2020) The Party Politics of Foreign and Security Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis. 16: 515-531.  8. Organizational behavior and Bureaucratic Politics Hudson, V. M. & Day, B. S. (2020). Foreign Policy Analysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 75-121. * Allison, G. & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman. 143-163. Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analysis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 57-77. Lai, HY & Kang, S-J. (2014). Domestic Bureaucratic Politics and Chinese Foreign Policy. Journal of Contemporary China, 23:86, 294-313. Powell, G.B.; Dalton, R.J; Strøm (2015) Comparative Politics Today. A World View. 11th ed.  Pearson, Essex. Pp 140-143. * 9. Prospect Theory, Rational Choice and Rational Actor Model Allison, G. & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman. 13-23. De Mesquita, B. B. (2010). Foreign Policy Analysis and Rational Choice Models. Oxford Research Encylopedia of International Relations. * Levy, J. S. (1997). Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly, 41:1, 87-112. Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analyis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 15-32. Beach, D. (2012). Analyzing Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, 97-116. Mercer, J. (2005). Prospect Theory and Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 1-21. * 10. Political Culture and Societal Actors Holsti. K. J. (1970). National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly, 14: 3, 233-309. Hudson, V. M. & Day, B. S. (2020). Foreign Policy Analysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 122-144. * Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analyis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 77-96.; 117-136. Foyle, D. C. (1997). Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Elite Beliefs as a Mediating Variable. International Studies Quarterly, 41., 141-169. Johnston, A. J. (1995). Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security, 19., 32-64. * Pye, L. W. (1991). Political Culture Revisited. Political Psychology, 12:3, 487-508. Pye, L. W. & Leites, N. (1982) Nuances in Chinese Political Culture. Asian Survey. 22:12. 1147-1165. Powell, G.B.; Dalton, R.J; Strøm (2015) Comparative Politics Today. A World View. 11th ed.  Pearson, Essex. Pp. 63-72. * 11. Psychological Approaches: leadership-personality Hermann, M. G. (1980). Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24: 1, 7-46. Hudson, V. M. & Day, B. S. (2020). Foreign Policy Analysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 39-74. * Neack, L. (2019). Studying Foreign Policy Comparatively. Cases and Analysis. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 33-56. * Byman, D. L. & Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security, 25: 4, 107-146. Kaarbo, J. (1997). Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Framework for Research. Political Psychology, 18., 553-581. Shapiro, M. J. & Bonham, G. M. (1973). Cognitive Process and Foreign Policy Decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 17:2 .147-174. 12. A Non-Traditional Foreign Policy Actor: the case of the EU. Aggestam, L. & Johansson, M. (2017). The Leadership Paradox in EU Foreign Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies. Larsen, H. (2009). A Distinct FPA for Europe? Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Analysing the Foreign Policy of EU Member States. European Journal of International Relations, 15: 3, 537-66. * Orenstein, M. A. & Kelemen R.D. (2017). Trojan Horses in EU Foreign Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies.

Számonkérés és értékelés

Final Exam Students take an online exam on Coospace in the last week of the term. The exam will strictly be based on the content of the lectures which mirror the basic concepts of the enlisted literature. Being familiarized with those materials signed with * is already worth a passed in the exam, these items can be found on Coospace as well. Besides the last week of the course, 2 other occasions are going to be offered for examination, however, taking the first exam is recommended. The system of evaluation in percentages: 5 (Excellent)100-86 4 (Good)85-76 3 (Satisfactory)75-61 2 (Sufficient)60-50 1 (Fail) 49-0

Irodalomjegyzék

​See above.

Kurzus szakjai