A foreign policy analysis perspective on After Victory
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148118791717 |
| Author | Juliet Kaarbo |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Breakthrough Commentaries |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118791717
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2019, Vol. 21(1) 29 –39
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148118791717
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
A foreign policy analysis
perspective on After Victory
Juliet Kaarbo
Keywords
domestic politics, foreign policy analysis, institutions, international order, leadership, role theory
Introduction
This article presents a foreign policy perspective on Ikenberry’s (2001) After Victory and
his reflection essay in this special issue. After Victory was indeed a breakthrough piece of
research, reorienting our understanding of institution-building and creation in post-war
moments. The purpose of this article is not to critique After Victory but to use it as a plat-
form, taking Ikenberry’s arguments as a starting point to explore the micro-foundations of
the international relations (IR) he examines. In other words, here I take the opportunity to
ask (and answer): What would a foreign policy analysis (FPA) perspective add to After
Victory? What would FPA focus on in the book and in Ikenberry’s reflection essay? What
would an FPA-inspired future research agenda on institution-building and order creation
look like?
FPA is a subfield within IR, first established in the 1950s and 1960s with seminal
research by Snyder et al. (1954), Sprout and Sprout (1956), and Rosenau (1966). FPA
developed into a large research programme encompassing many topics including elite–
mass relations, institutional and regime designs, and individual and small group psycho-
logical processes in leader decision-making – all geared to explaining why and how states
make foreign policy decisions that constitute international relations. An essential feature
of FPA research is that it does not assume the state is a unitary actor and instead focuses
on domestic politics; it opens up the ‘black-box’ of the state (for overview, see Hudson,
2005; Kubálková, 2001). While not a single theory, FPA is a distinct perspective with its
‘actor-specific focus based upon the argument that all that occurs between nations and
across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in groups’ (Hudson,
2005: 1; see also Kaarbo, 2015).
After Victory, like much research in IR, largely treats states as unitary and rational
actors. As Ikenberry has adeptly demonstrated, this approach goes a long way to explain
the development and maintenance of international organisations and international order.
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Corresponding author:
Juliet Kaarbo, Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a
George Square, Edinburgh, UK.
Email: j.kaarbo@ed.ac.uk
791717BPI0010.1177/1369148118791717The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsKaarbo
research-article2018
Breakthrough Commentary
To continue reading
Request your trial