Abstract
This paper is concerned with examining the extent to which there is a geographical divide in the academic study of foreign policy analysis. Accepting that there are diverse approaches to that study in the academic communities of the United States and the United Kingdom, this paper argues that it is possible to distinguish between two ideal-types, each exemplified in one of the two communities. This paper outlines these—an American approach based on a desire to construct general theories of foreign policy behaviour, and a British approach which stresses the need for case-studies and eschews the possibility of general theory. The reasons for the development of these two approaches are then discussed, linking the study of foreign policy to the wider political arena, and the general academic orientation of the two countries. Finally, it assesses the possibility of arriving at a synthesis of the two approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
