Premises, Promises, and Problems of Comparative Foreign Policy
| Author | IB Faurby |
| Published date | 01 June 1976 |
| Date | 01 June 1976 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/001083677601100201 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Premises, Promises, and Problems of
Comparative Foreign Policy
IB FAURBY
Institute of Political Science, University of Aarhus
Faurby, I. Premises, Promises, and Problems of Comparative Foreign Policy. Cooper-
ation and Conflict, XI, 1976, 139-162.
What is comparative foreign policy? This article outlines the background for the
advent of comparative foreign policy as a subfield within the field of international
relations. It describes the main approaches represented. In particular, the problems
relating to the development of frameworks for empirical research and the application
of comparative method to the study of foreign policy are discussed. It is claimed that
of the three levels: theory, method, and research technique, theory is weak and methods
not sufficiently considered. It is further argued that there is a need for closer inter-
action between theoretical and empirical work and for the development of an explicit
comparative methodology to serve as the link between theory and the application of
research techniques to empirical data.
Ib Faurby, Institute of Political Science, University of Aarhus.
1. INTRODUCTION
II. BACKGROUND
Duri.ng the last decade, and in particular
In his article, Rosenau gave two reasons
during the last few years, we have
for the emergence of comparative foreign
witnessed not only a vastly growing num-
policy as a new (sub-)discipline. One was
ber of books and articles in which the
the political development, in particular
term ’comparative foreign policy’, or var-
since 1960, which had given rise to an
iations thereof, appears in the title, but
important enlargement of the number of
also a research survey on The Compara-
states in the international system. Many
tive Study of Foreign Policy’ which re-
of these new states possessed common
views more than 200 published studies,
characteristics of direct importance in
and a yearbook devoted to the same
explaining their foreign policies. This
endeavour. Where James N. Rosenau in
made comparative analyses of their for-
1968 could ask whether comparative
eign policies an obvious possibility, and
foreign policy was a ’fad, fantasy, or
it is easy to find illustrations that re-
field?’3 the answer today must be, that
searchers were inspired to do so.~
S
one can certainly see the contours of an
The other source of inspiration came
emerging academic field, although it is
from the neighboring discipline of com-
still haunted by a number of ’fads’ and
parative politics. There the change of
’f antasies’.4
focus from country by country descrip-
In the following review some of the
tions of political institutions and pro-
arguments behind the comparative for-
cesses (when the discipline was com-
eign policy ’movement’ (as it is often
called by the faithful)
monly called ’government’) to cross-
are presented, and
national
an attempt is made to outline
comparisons guided by more
some of
the problems which confront the further
explicitly stated theoretical questions, had
development of a distinctly comparative
resulted in a growth in cumulative and
approach to the study of foreign policy.
generalized knowledge which (at least
140
when compared to the study of foreign
III. WHAT IS COMPARATIVE FOR-
policy) was quite remarkable.
EIGN POLICY?
To these two ’external’ sources of
What then is comparative foreign policy?
inspiration one can add elements from
No quick and easy answer can be given,
the internal development of international
and the whole of this essay can be seen
relations as a discipline. One was the
as an attempt to supply some elements of
growing dissatisfaction in parts of the
an answer.
theoretical literature with the lack of
Comparative foreign policy is deline-
progress made by the application of
ated and distinguished within the field of
general systems theory to the study of
international relations by its subject
international relations.
Even though
matter (foreign policy) as well as by its
systems theory had been a major source
method (the comparative method). This
of inspiration for the study of interna-
means that many comparative studies
tional relations since the late 1950s, it had
within the field of international relations
not been able to deliver the high hopes of
in general fall outside the subfield of
bringing the discipline a big leap forward
comparative foreign policy simply be-
towards a general theory of international
cause they are not about foreign policy.
relations. A plea for empirical testing of
More importantly it also means that a
middle range theories was sounded more
(large) number of foreign policy studies,
and more frequently in the theoretical
including some dealing with the foreign
debate. Several authors stressed the
policies of more than one country, are
point, that we need more firmly based
not covered by the definition, because
knowledge about the input from the
they are not comparative. This even
actors into the international system be-
holds for a number of works, and partic-
fore we can hope for a substantial
ularly textbooks, which call themselves
increase in our understanding of its
comparative.
workings.6
However, even when limiting the field
Another line of reasoning, starting at
in this rigorous manner, there are no
an earlier stage in the development of the
clear common characteristics of the lit-
discipline, reflected a growing scepticism
erature thus
defined as comparative
towards the decision making approach as
studies of foreign policy. At least two
a major contribution to our understand-
important lines of division characterize
ing of international politics. Its scope was
the field. One is based on the choice of
felt to be too narrow; it concentrated on
research object, another on the choice of
the mechanics of the process neglecting
research techniques.8
contents and outcomes; it concentrated
on the single decision and did not view
Research
foreign
Object
policy as a continuing process of
The first line of division distinguishes
(big and small) decisions, ’non-decisions’,
between studies, motivated by an interest
negotiation, accommodation and feed-
in the foreign policies of a (normally very
back.’ These problems of the decision
limited) number of countries and studies
making approach have been further
attempting to test a hypothesis on a large
emphasized by a remarkable lack of
number of states. The reason in the first
comparative studies which might possibly
group of studies for analyzing more than
have led to the formulation of more
one state at
a time is, through the
inspiring or provocative hypotheses than
application of a more or less explicit
those embodied in its early formulations.
comparative method, to arrive at a better
based understanding of the foreign poli-
141
cies of the countries in question.9 One
Methods and Techniques
could say, that in this case the compar-
The second major division concerns the
ative method is used primarily as a con-
research methods and techniques used.
trol instrument. Its function is heuristic
Representatives of both sides in the ’great
and it helps to select variables and con-
debate’ of the 1960s can be found within
trol for secondary factors.
the field of comparative foreign policy,
On the other side we find studies,
although it is the ’behaviorists’ who are
whose primary purpose is not to explain
dominating and most outspoken. Their
the foreign policies of specific states, but
demand for explicit and systematic com-
to test models, middle range theories, or
parative studies has partly been argued
hypotheses about foreign policy. Such
on the basis on the lack of cumulation of
studies are normally based on data from
knowledge in the traditional literature on
a relatively large number of states - all
foreign policy. 15
states or all states relevant to the question
The large American cooperative ven-
being investigated. The selection of states
tures (ICFP, CREON), from where the
to be included in the study is not deter-
major impetus in the debate has come,
mined by a special (extraneous) interest
clearly belong to the behavioral camp.
in the foreign policies of these particular
But, as should be clear from the refer-
states, but by the theoretical problem
ences
already given, the behavorists
itself. The comparative method is used
cannot claim sole ownership to the field.
not as a heuristic device but as a neces-
Some of them would like to, as can be
sary tool for arriving at generalized state-
seen in several statements which identify
ments.
the comparative approach with a research
The most important examples of this
technique based on statistical manipula-
approach are the Inter-University Com-
tion of quantitative data. 16 This concep-
parative Foreign Policy Project (ICFP)i°
tion of the comparative method (which,
and the Comparative Research on Events
by the way, does not enjoy general
of Nations Project (CREON),li two
acceptance in other fields of the social
increasingly convergent lines of re-
sciences) has been refuted by (among
search.12
others) Boardman as far as comparative
As most dichotomies, this division
foreign policy is concerned. 17
according to research object is a simpli-
Having now stated some of the argu-
fication. A number of studies do not fall
ments behind and some of the features
clearly in either category. Although
of the field of comparative foreign policy,
Boardman and Sharma’s comparison of
the following will be a discussion of
British and Nepalese foreign policy
problems connected with the definition
...
To continue reading
Request your trial