Belief Systems, Doctrines, and Foreign Policy
| Author | Katarina Brodin |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677200700106 |
| Date | 01 March 1972 |
| Published date | 01 March 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Belief
Systems,
Doctrines,
and
Foreign
Policy
A
presentation
of
two
allernative
models
for
the
analysis
of
foreign
policy
decision-making.
KATARINA
BRODIN
Swedish
Institute
of
International
Affairs,
Stockholm.
Brodin,
K.
Belief
Systems,
Doctrines,
and
Foreign
Policy.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
VII,
1972,
97-112.
This
study
is
comprised
of
two
parts.
In
the
first,
the
relationship
between
the
belief
system
of
official
decision-makers
and
the
behaviour
of
states
in
the
realm
of
foreign
policy,
as
well
as
the
problems
and
limitations
inherent
in
this
type
of
explanatory
model,
are
discussed.
In
the
second
part,
an
alternative
model
is
presented
in
which
the
official
foreign
policy
doctrine
is
treated
as
a
central
independent
variable.
Parti-
cular
attention
is
given
to
the
possible
usefulness
of
this
model
for
predictive
purposes.
Katarina
Brodin,
Swedish
Institute
of
International
Affairs,
Stockholm.
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is:
(1)
to
review
briefly
some
psychological
theories
on
the
relationship
between
belief
systems
and
decision-making
that
have
been
incorpora-
ted
in
the
theoretical
literature
on
inter-
national
relations;
(2)
to
examine
a
few
empirical
studies
based
on
this
type
of
the-
ory ;
(3)
to
discuss
in
some
detail
various
problems
and
limitations
connected
with
this
kind
of
explanatory
model;
and
(4)
to
sketch
an
alternative
model
in
which
the
concept
’doctrine’
constitutes
a
central
vari-
able,
and
to
discuss
the
conditions
under
which
this
model
can
be
used
for
predic-
tive
purposes.
One
way
of
looking
at
international
po-
litics
is
to
focus
attention
on
certain
indi-
viduals,
primarily
official
decision-makers,
and
to
explain
what
occurs
in
the
realm
of
foreign
policy
in
terms
of
the
preferences,
attitudes
and
motives
of
these
individuals.
It
is
not
too
difficult
to
find
examples
of
studies
relying
heavily
on
this
mode
of
thought.
Concepts
such
as
’belief
systems’,
’images’,
’operational
codes’,
’perceptions’,
and
’frames
of
reference’
thus
constitute
important
elements
in
a
number
of
analy-
tical
schemes
presented
during
the
past
decade
in
an
effort
to
outline
the
sources
of
state
behaviour
in
the
field
of
foreign
policy
(e.g.
Boulding
1969,
Frankel
1963,
George
1969,
K.
J.
Holsti
1967,
Kelman
1965a,
de
Rivera
1968,
Singer
1964,
Sny-
der.
Bruck
&
Sapin
1962,
Sprout
Sprout
1965).
These
analytical
frameworks
vary
in
scope
and
complexity
but
all
rest
upon
a
shared
conviction
that
the
attitudes,
opin-
ions,
and
values
of
the
individual
decision-
makers
cannot
be
ignored
if
the
purpose
is
to
explain
or
predict
official
foreign
po-
licy
behaviour.
A
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
assumptions
underlying
this
convic-
tion
requires,
however,
a
prior
examination
of
certain
key
concepts.
1.
DEFINITIONS
Unfortunately,
there
is
not
much
unanimi-
ty
concerning
terminology.
Sometimes
the
terms
’belief
system’,
’image’,
’frame
of
re-
ference’,
and
’definition
of
the
situation’
are
used
practically
synonymously.
At
other
times
they
seem
to
refer
to
com-
pletely
separate
phenomena.
In
the
follow-
ing
discussion
the
concept
’belief
system’
will
be
used
to
imply
a
system
of
empirical
and
normative
ideas
about
reality.
The
term
’belief
system’
thus
denotes
the
com-
plete
world
view,
whereas
’image’
as
used
here
refers
to
a
part
of
this
totality
(cf.
0.
R.
Holsti
1962,
p.
244).
As
tentatively
defined,
the
term
’belief
system’
shows
great
similarities
with
the
more
traditional
concept
of
’ideology’.
The
main
reason
for
not
using
the
latter
term
is
that
it
is
often
associated
with
a
parti-
cular
kind
of belief
system,
namely,
politi-
cal
ideologies.
98
The
expression
’definition
of
the
situa-
tion’
is
also
at
times
used
in
a
manner
which
comes
close
to
what
I
have
called
the
world
view
(Pruitt
1965,
p.
394).
In
A
Dictionary
of
the
Social
Sciences,
the
term
’definition
of
the
situation’
is
defined
as
follows:
(a)
the
individual
agent’s
or
actor’s
percep-
tion
and
interpretation
of
any
situation
in
which
he
may
find
himself ...
or
(b)
culturally
formulated,
embodied,
and
shared
perceptions
and
interpretations
of
situations
considered
identical
or
similar
...
(Gould
&
Kolb
1964,
p.
182).
In
this
paper
the
expression
is
used
as
in
(a),
i.e.
to
denote
the
decision-maker’s
in-
terpretation
or
perception
of
his
surround-
ings.
By
action
is
meant
behaviour
that
is
consciously
directed
towards
achieving
cer-
tain
previously
defined
objectives.
In
other
words,
action
may
be
seen
as
the result
of
a
previous
decision,
i.e.
a
deliberate
choice
of
ends
and
means
in
a
given,
concrete
si-
tuation
(Sprout
&
Sprout
1965,
p.
24;
Boulding
1969,
p.
423).
The
process
of
de-
ciding
or
decision-making -
in
itself
a
kind
of
action
-
denotes
the
process
which
precedes
the
decision.
This
process
includes
efforts
to
define
the
situation,
the
formula-
tion
of
alternative
courses
of
action,
as
well
as
the
choice of
the
final
line
of
action
(Snyder,
Bruck
&
Sapin
1962,
p.
90).
It
should
be observed
that
this
definition
of
decision-making
does
not
include
the
ac-
tual
implementation
of
decision
(cf.
Robin-
son
&
Snyder
1965,
p.
437).
The
basic
assumption
here
then
is
that
the
behaviour
of
complex
organizations
(including
states)
can
best
be
understood
in
terms
of
the
authoritative
decisions
made
within
these
organizations.
It
has
even
been
claimed
that
’the
&dquo;why&dquo;
questions
(underlying
the
events,
conditions,
and
interaction
patterns
which
rest
upon
state
action)
cannot
be
answered
without
analysis
of
decision-
making’
(Snyder,
Bruck
&
Sapin
1962,
p.
33).
Therefore,
when
in
the
following
the
re-
lationship
between
belief
systems
and
offi-
cial
foreign
policy
behaviour
is
discussed,
what
actually
is
meant
is
the
relationship
between
the
belief
system
of
official
de-
cision-makers
and
the
authoritative
deci-
sions
they
make
on
behalf
of
their
respec-
tive
countries.
2.
THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
BELIEF
SYSTEM
AND
DECISION-MAKING
The
relationship
between
’belief
system’
and
decision
can
be
illustrated
in
the
fol-
lowing
way:
To continue reading
Request your trial