Transcript The Scientific Background of the Hungarian Foreign Policy

Practical Analysis in
International Environment III.
Tallinn
10-14 February, 2014.
András Rácz Ph.D.
[email protected]
Contents:
1.How Decisions Are Taken?
2. The Culture of Secrecy in Foreign Policy Decision-Making
3. Who Are the Decision-Makers, and How to Support Them?
Part I: How Decisions are
Taken?
Main Models of Decision-Making
How Decisions are Taken? How do WE decide?
Some requently used models:
1. Rational actor model? (= Expected utility model)
2. Social model
3. Management decision-making
4. Polyheuristic model
The Rational Model / Economic
Rationality Model
Decisions are based on pure rationality. The ideal case. (?)
Focuses on the results and means. Has long been present, since
Plato: The state
Assumes:
- Expected costs and benefits are properly calculated
- There is enough time and capacity for proper calculations
- Decisions are based on facts (all the necessary facts are
available)
- Decision is realistic concerning the means
- Emotions and other cultural standards do not play any role
- All possible alternatives are properly assessed
The Rational Model / Economic
Rationality Model
Weakness:
- Sometimes calculations are just not proper. People make
mistakes – so do politicians (particulary those ones,
who decide alone)
- Time may be short for proper calculations
- Many important facts may not be available
- The rationality of the chosen means may be improperly
calculated
- Emotions and cultural standards may indeed play a role
- Not all possible alternative are assessed properly
The Social Model / Cognitive
Approach
Decision-Making is Influenced by social, cognitive factors. Focuses on
the processing of information.
Assumes that decision-making is defined by:
- Framing
- Beliefs
- Schemata
- Cultural standards and preferences
WEAKNESS: the theory does not leave much space for rationality – they are
de facto mutually exclusive.
Management Decision-Making /
Bounded Rationality Model
Developed by Herbert Simon. Intended to model how managers decide.
Assumes that:
- By assessing the alternatives, the manages looks for a
satisfactory, ‘good enough’ version, not the
theoretically best possibility
- They are aware that their decision-making is based on
simplifications
ADVANTAGE:quick and flexible, because the aim is to satisfy, not maximize
(no need to assess all alternatives) + does not require excessive mental
capacities
Poly-Heuristic Model
Intended to offer a compromise between Rational and Cognitive
Models. Assumes that:
- Decision-making is a two-step process. In the first stage,
decision-makers look for the alternatives, and
reject those, which fail to meet a key dimension. Hence,
no need for extensive alternative-search.
- There IS a key dimension that is more important than the
others. (for example, re-election chances)
- This selection reduces the number of alternatives to a
manageable amount, so it is easier to choose one.
- In the second stage, decision-maker chooses from the remaining
options, based on both rational and cognitive preferences
Cross-cultural Differences
Cultural background often influences decision-making, and may do so
in politics as well.
Frequent explanations:
- Co-evolution of Genes + Culture
- Cultural Determination
- Social Orientation
Different cultures have different attitudes to:
- Collectivism vs. individualism
- Time pressure
- Extensive thinking vs. deciding quickly
- More follow authoritative persons vs. Deciding invididually
- Pride vs. rational calculations
An Example: Time Pressure
Cultural background often influences decision-making.
Source: Wikipedia
Part II: The Culture of Secrecy
in Foreign Policy DecisionMaking
Level of Classification
Different countries, different classifications.
US Classification:
1.Unclassified
2.Unclassified / for official use only/
Russian Federation
1. Для Служебного Пользования
2. Секретно
3. Совершенно секретно
4. Особой важности
3. Confidential
4. Confidential noforn
5. Secret
6. Secret noforn
NATO Classification:
1.NATO Restricted
2. NATO Confidential
3. NATO Secret
4. Cosmic Top Secret
External Threat Model
External Threat Model: (by David Gibbs, Journal of Peace
Research, vol. 32, no. 2, 1995, pp. 213-228 .)
- to protect government information from external adversaries,
- secrecy is against foreign governments, not against the public
- deception of the public is just a side-effect
- secrecy is limited in time: de-classification will come after a certain
period.
Bureaucratic Politics Model
- Foreign policy actor are not unified, and not purely rational
- Policy is de facto done by bureaucratic procedures
-Secrecy is a routine procedure in many governmental agencies:
institutional routine, intention to protect the source, etc.
-Irrationality of operating bureacracies often result in random
classification. There is little systematic withholding.
- Agencies are often competing with each other, officials may try to
deceive each other, etc.
-Information that support more particular than national interests are to
be hidden.
Internal Threat Approach I.
Typical for the realist theory.
- Government officials refer to secrecy in order to protect national
security interests.
- Government officials use secrecy to mislead the public and keep up
the elite control over foreign policy
-Requirements of good foreign policy often contradict public
expectations (foreign aid – „Why to spend our money abroad?”)
-Certain information ARE TO BE withheld from the public: secrecy is
an obvious tool.
-Secrecy may be used also to actively mislead the public
Internal Threat Approach II.
Typical for the critiques of the realist theory.
- Government officials use not to protect national security, but their
own particular political interests.
-Well-researched trend is that governmental officials often consider
their own interests as well.
-Rational officials may release information selectively: release the
ones positive about them, and withhold the negative ones
Obvious conflict (in most cases…) with the interests of the
public (the taxpayers), but government officials have the control.
Level of Secrecy – Better Chance
of Being Heard?
Reporting diplomats are interested in being read and heard by
the decision-makers.
Experience shows that reports with a higher level of secrecy
tend to be read on the higher levels.
Result is that diplomats tend to over-classify their reports
Limited Access Limits Processing
Higher level of confidentiality limits, how many people can get
access to the information
This limits processing capability as well.
Besides, information of lower classification are often underestimated.
Part III: Who Are the DecisionMakers?
Foreign Policy Elite
Main groups:
- Administrative elite (including diplomats)
- Political elite
(- Public opinion shapers interested in foreign policy)
Administrative elite
-Closed group: expertise and language skills required
- Share many common interests (towards the outside world), despite
internal political differences
-Frequent rotation between administrative positions at home and
diplomatic postings abroad
-Often well connected with foreign administrations
- For advisors and analysts it is easy to work with them, as they’re
‘insiders’ – no need for much introduction, etc. A lot can be learned from
them.
- Possible problem: ‘ambassadoritis’: too much self-confidence +
experience is de facto NOT universal!
Political elite
- Partly recruited from the administrative elite: nothing new… easy
-Partly newcomers:
Newly appointed members of old institutions: Foreign Policy
Committee of the Parliament, etc.: often limited background
knowledge, but strong legitimacy and unlimited access. Must not be
underestimated. (People long holding such posts acquire
considerable experience and routine…)
Unexperienced people receiving foreign policy-related posts:
often lack of routine, lack of contacts, earlier only domestic focus,
etc.
Often prefer to decide along domestic political interests instead of
wider foreign policy interests: re-election chances!!!
Political elite
Sometimes very young people make it very high: automatic lack of
experience + unlimited self-confidence…. It is hard to work with them,
patience and diplomatic skills are needed.
Useful is trying to carefully ‘build up’ our boss: politely recommend him
readers, help to present his views, etc.
If you make it there…
- Position itself does not give IQ
- Always have such advisors, who know the business, whom you trust
and who dare to tell you if make a mistake
- Don’t mix up compulsory protocol with real respect
- Think about your post-political future as well: never make your
adversaries to be your enemies
-Corruption in foreign policy may easily be handled as treason,
particulary if your political opponents come to power…
-In the long run only intact, only coherent personalities are able to work
well: importance of family ties and physical health
Thank you very much for your
attention!
Tallinn,
10-14 February 2014.
András Rácz Ph.D.
[email protected]