Adaptation as a Framework for the Analysis of Foreign Policy Behavior
| Author | Nikolaj Petersen |
| Published date | 01 November 1977 |
| Date | 01 November 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/001083677701200402 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Adaptation
as
a
Framework
for
the
Analysis
of
Foreign
Policy
Behavior
NIKOLAJ
PETERSEN
Institute
of
Political
Science,
University
of
Aarhus
Petersen,
N.
Adaptation
as
a
Framework
for
the
Analysis
of
Foreign
Policy
Behavior.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
XII
,
1977,
221-250.
The
article
explores
the
usefulness
of
James N.
Rosenau’s
adaptation
model
for
the
analysis
of
foreign
policy
behavior.
In
the
first
part
the
structure
of
the
model
is
analyzed,
and
several
weaknesses
and
inconsistencies
are
pointed
out.
In
the
second
part
a
reconstructed
adaptation
model
is
presented,
and
its
component
variables
are
discussed
at
some
length.
The
revised
model
is
based
on
the
concepts
of
influence
capability
and
stress
sensitivity,
the
configuration
of
which
is
hypothesized
to
lead
to
four
modes
of
adaptive
behavior:
dominance,
balance,
acquiescence
and
quiescence.
Finally
transformation
from
one
adaptive
mode
to
another
is
discussed.
Nikolaj
Petersen,
Institute
of
Political
Science,
University
of
Aarhus.
Part
1:
Rosenau’s
Adaptation
Model
I.
INTRODUCTION
One
of
the
conspicuous
trends
in
interna-
tional
relations
during
the
last
decade
has
been
the
development
of
a
systematic
study
of
foreign
policy.
From
humble
beginnings
in
the
mid-sixties
the
com-
parative
study
of
foreign
policy
has
grown
strong,
especially
in
the
United
States,
but
increasingly
also
in
Europe.’
Articles
and
conference
papers
have
appeared
in
great
profusion,
a
yearbook
has
been
established,2
and
at
least
three
major
anthologies
of
studies
have
appeared.3
It
is
often
claimed
that
comparative
foreign
policy
(CFP)
has
thereby
established
itself
as
a
distinct
scientific
field4
or
as
’normal
science’
a
la
Kuhn.5
One
can
question,
however,
whether
CFP
has
as
yet
acquired
all
the
characteristics
of
a
scientific
field
as
once
defined
by
James
Rosenau,
i.e.
has
’its
own
subject
matter,
its
own
point
of
view,
and
its
own
the-
ory’.6
Comparative
foreign
policy
does
have
its
own
subject
matter:
the
external
behavior
of
nation
states;
it
also
has
its
own
point
of
view,
namely,
that
the
dis-
cipline
should
focus
on
the
interplay
of
systemic
and
domestic
variables;
on
the
other
hand
it
hardly
has
its
own
theory
as
yet .7
In
fact,
there
are
only
weak
indi-
cations
of
any
emerging
consensus
on
a
central
paradigm,
and
an
attempt
at
integrating
the
disparate
empirical
find-
ings
of
the
discipline
has
proved
rather
unrewarding.8
The
dearth
of
theory
is
not
primarily
due
to
any
lack
of
trying.
Rosenau,
the
undisputed
’leader’
of
the
foreign
policy
’movement’,
has
made
at
least
two
deter-
mined
efforts
at
remedying
the
situation.
In
1966
he
launched
the
so-called
’pre-
theory’
in
which
he
among
other
things
hypothesized
on
the
relative
potency
of
five
types
of
independent
variables
(indi-
vidual,
role,
governmental,
societal
and
systemic)
in
the
making
of
foreign
policy
in
eight
different
types
of
societies
which
were
defined
on
the
basis
of
three
’geno-
typic’
variables
(size,
wealth
and
political
system).9
In
the
following
years
Rosenau
went
on
to
sketch
what
was
to
become
his
most
ambitious
attempt
to
fill
the
theoretical
void,
the
adaptation
model,IO
which
was
given
its
authoritative
form
in
the
monograph
The
Adaptation
of
Na-
tional
Societies
(1970).11
Since
then
222
Rosenau
has
discussed
the
model
several
times
but
without
adding
significantly
to
the
1970
formulation. 12
In
a
narrow
sense,
the
adaptation
model
was
designed
to
provide
a
general
conceptual
framework
for
empirical
studies
within
the
so-called
Inter-Univer-
sity
Comparative
Foreign
Policy
Project
(ICFP),13
but
it
was
undoubtedly
also
meant
to
be
a
significant
contribution
to
the
formulation
of
a
general
foreign
policy
theory.
Over
a
period
of
seven
years
it is
clear
that
these
expectations
have
not
come
to
pass.
Even
in
the
Rosenau
edited
volume,
Comparing
Foreign
Pol-
icies
(1974),
which
can
be
considered
the
scientific
manifest
of
the
(now
dissolved)
ICFP
group,
the
concept
of
adaptation
is
only
referred
to
in
articles
by
McGowan
(whose
aim
is
primarily
an
exposition
and
elucidation
and
only
secondarily
a
critical
discussion
of
the
model)
and
by
Thorson
and
O’Leary,
both
of
whom
are
obliquely
critical
of
Rosenau’s
formulations,
though
not
of
the
concept
as
such.
In
the
empiri-
cal
studies
contained
in
the
book
there
is
hardly
any
trace
to
be
found
of
the
adaptation
concept;
it
is
rather the
pre-
theory
approach
which
dominates.
In
the
more
recent
International
Events
and
the
Comparative
Analysis
of
Foreign
Policy
edited
by
Charles
W.
Kegley et
al.
(1975)
and
in
the
latest
Rosenau
edited
antho-
logy,
In
Search
of
Global
Patterns
(1976),
the
impact
of
adaptation
theory
seems
even
less.
And
outside
the
ICFP
group
the
author
is
aware
of
only
one
attempt
at
using
the
adaptation
model
for
empiri-
cal
purposes 14
and
one
discussion
of
its
theoretical
and
epistemological
status. IS
The
limited
diffusion
and
acceptance
of
the
adaptation
model
is
due
to
several
causes.
As
Rosenau
has
repeatedly
point-
ed
out
himself,
foreign
policy
studies
have
always
been
plagued
by
a
lack
of
cumu-
lation. 16
Secondly,
much
of
the
CFP
’movement’
has
been
heavily
oriented
towards
the
technical
problems
connected
with
the
acquisition
and
manipulation
of
quantitative
data
to
the
neglect
of
theo-
retical
and
to
some
extent
also
method-
ological
problems.
Thirdly,
Rosenau’s
theory
suffers
from
grave
inherent
weak-
nesses
which -
if
possible -
have
to
be
corrected
before
it
can
even
begin
to
fulfill
its
promises
of
becoming
a
general
framework
for
the
understanding
of
foreign
policy.
Its
basic
concepts
have
not
as
yet
been
sufficiently
specified
and
defined,
its
main
hypotheses
are
neither
clearly
explicited
nor
integrated
into
any
comprehensive
theoretical
structure,
and
on
top
of
that
it
poses
a
lot
of
unsolved
-
and
possibly
unsolvable -
problems
of
operationalization.
As
McGowan
notes:
’If
Rosenau’s
work
is
the
closest
our
discipline
has
so
far
come
in
its
search
for
general
and
middle
range
theory,
we
have
a
long
way
to
got
It
is
the
’evangelical
plea’
of
this
article
that
we
should
nevertheless
explore
the
potentialities
of
Rosenau’s
adaptation
theory
more
deeply
than
has
been
done
till
now.
The
article
is
in
fact
predicated
on
the
contention
that
the
much
needed
corrections
of
the
model
indicated
above
are
possible,
and
that
a
theoretically
and
empirically
viable
reconstruction
of
the
model
is
therefore
feasible.
The
aim
of
the
article
is
therefore
to
sketch
the
outlines
of
a
reconstructed
adaptation
model.
But
before
doing
this
we
have
to
survey
the
existing
construction
in
order
to
judge
which
elements
are
sound,
and
which
structures
are
secure,
and
then,
as
it
were,
to
clear
the
site
of
scrap
and
rubble.
Only
on
this
basis
can
we
hope
to
erect
a
safer
and
more
durable
theo-
retical
construction.
But
the
study
also
has
a
more
empirical
inspiration,
namely
in
the
author’s
interest
in
a
comparative
diachronic
analysis
of
Denmark’s
security
policy
during
the
last
100
years.
Even
a
superficial
glance
will
reveal
patterns
of
change
as
well
as
con-
stancy
in
the
way
Danish
decision-makers
in
the
foreign
and
defense
policy
areas
have
reacted
to
and
sought
to
reconcile
To continue reading
Request your trial