International relations scholars have struggled to adequately link domestic and international levels in theoretical models and causal analyses of foreign policy, despite widespread acknowledgment of the need to do so. This study elaborates on this challenge by assessing the utility of several policy process frameworks that have so far been underutilized in foreign policy analysis. The assumptions of one particularly fruitful method, the Two-Level Game, will be compared with those of three policy process frameworks: the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. When analyzing three specific concepts (the question of rationality, the dynamics of agenda setting, and the strategic action of relevant actors), it is apparent that the assumptions of the policy process frameworks largely clash with those of the Two-Level Game, raising the potential for their augmentation of the field of foreign policy analysis despite their relative underuse.
AllisonGrahamZelikowPhillip. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman.
2.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.MortensenPeter B.2017. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability Change in Public Policymaking.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited byWeibleChristopher M.SabatierPaul A., 55–102. 4th ed.Boulder: Westview Press.
3.
Cioffi-RivellaClaudio. 1998. “The Political Uncertainty of Interstate Rivalries.” In The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries, edited by DiehlPaul F., 64–97. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
4.
da Conceição-HeldtEugéniaMelloPatrick A.2017. “Two-level Games in Foreign Policy Analysis.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, edited by Cameron G. Thies, 770-789. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
de Mesquita, BruceBueno. 2002. “Domestic Politics and International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly46:1–9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3096116 (accessed March 11, 2019).
6.
DiehlPaul F.HenselPaul R.1998. “Punctuated Equilibrium or Evolution? A Research Note on Models of Rivalry Development.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society, New Brunswick, October 16–18.
7.
ElsonSara BethNaderAlireza. 2011. “What Do Iranians Think? A Survey of Attitudes on the United States, the Nuclear Program, and the Economy.” Rand Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, Santa Monica. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR910.pdf (accessed January 22, 2019).
8.
EvansPeterJacobsonHarold K.PutnamRobert, eds. 1993. Double Edged Diplomacy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
GourevitchPeter. 2002. “Domestic Politics and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by CarlsnaesWalterRisseThomasSimmonsBeth A., 309–28. London: Sage.
11.
HerwegNicoleZahariadisNikolaosZohlnhöferReimut. 2017. “The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Approaches.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by WeibleChristopher M.SabatierPaul A., 17–54. 4th ed.Boulder: Westview Press.
12.
HirschiChristianWidmerThomas. 2010. “Policy Change and Policy Stasis: Comparing Swiss Foreign Policy toward South Africa (1968–94) and Iraq (1990–91).” Policy Studies Journal38 (3): 537–63. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00373.x.
13.
HirschmanAlbert O.1981. Essays in Trespassing: Economics to Politics and beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
HurstSteven. 2016. “The Iranian Nuclear Negotiations as a Two-level Game: The Importance of Domestic Politics.” Diplomacy & Statecraft27 (3): 545–67. doi:10.1080/09592296.2016.1196075.
15.
IshtiaqAhmadEbertHannes. 2015. “Breaking the Equilibrium? New Leaders and Old Structures in the India-Pakistan Rivalry.” Asian Affairs: An American Review42:46–75. doi:10.1080/00927678.2015.999518.
16.
Jenkins-SmithHankNohrstedtDanielWeibleChristopher M.IngoldKarin. 2017. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by WeibleChristopher M.SabatierPaul A., 135–172. 4th ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
17.
JorgensenPaul. 2017. “The Politics of Policy Formulation: Overcoming Subsystem Dynamics.” In Handbook of Policy Formulation, edited by HowlettMichaelMukherjeeIshani, 449–62. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18.
KatzensteinPeterSilRudra. 2008. “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Reus-SmitChristianSnidalDuncan, 109–30. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Larsen-PriceHeather A.2012. “The Right Tool for the Job: The Canalization of Presidential Policy Attention by Policy Instrument.” Policy Studies Journal40 (1): 147–68. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00438.x.
20.
LeeSu-Mi. 2015. “Understanding the Yalta Axioms and Riga Axioms through the Belief Systems of the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Foreign Policy Analysis11 (3): 295–315. doi:10.1111/fpa.12040.
21.
LentnerHoward H.2006. “Public Policy and Foreign Policy: Divergences, Intersections, Exchange.” Review of Policy Research23 (1): 169–81. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00191.x.
22.
MazarrMichael J.2007. “The Iraq War and Agenda Setting.” Foreign Policy Analysis3 (1): 1–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24907218 (accessed January 22, 2019).
23.
MorBen D.2004. “Strategic Beliefs and the Formation of Enduring International Rivalries: Israel’s National Security Conception, 1948–56.” International Relations18 (3): 309–29. doi:10.1177/0047117804045195.
24.
MoravcsikAndrew. 1993. “Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining.” In Double Edged Diplomacy, edited by EvansPeterJacobsonHarold K.PutnamRobert, 3–42. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.
MorgenthauHans J.1963. Politics Among Nations. 3rd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knop
26.
NohrstedtDaniel. 2008. “The Politics of Crisis Policymaking.” Policy Studies Journal36 (2): 257–78. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00265.x.
27.
PierceJonathan. 2011. “Coalition Stability and Belief Change: Advocacy Coalitions in U.S. Foreign Policy and the Creation of Israel, 1922–44.” Policy Studies Journal39 (3): 411–34. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00415.x.
28.
PutnamRobert D.1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games.” International Organization42 (3): 427–60. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027697.
29.
RipbergerJoseph T.2011. “Whither Civil Defense and Homeland Security in the Study of Public Policy? A Look at Research on the Policy, the Public, and the Process.” Policy Studies Journal39 (S1): 77–91. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00389_6.x.
30.
RosenauJames. 1969a. “The Need for Linkage Theory.” In Linkage Politics, edited by RosenauJames, 1–14. New York: The Free Press.
31.
RosenauJames. 1969b. “Toward the Study of National and International Linkages.” In Linkage Politics, edited by RosenauJames, 44–66. New York: The Free Press.
32.
SebeniusJames K.2013. “Level Two Negotiations: Helping the Other Side Meet Its ‘behind-the-table’ Challenges.” Negotiation Journal29 (1): 7–21. doi:10.1111/nejo.12002.
33.
SmithKevin B.LarimerChristopher W.2017. The Public Policy Theory Primer. 3rd ed.Boulder: Westview Press.
34.
TravisRickZahariadisNikolaos. 2002. “A Multiple Streams Model for U.S. Foreign Aid Policy.” Policy Studies Journal30 (4): 495–514. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2002.tb02160.x.
35.
WaltzKenneth. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
36.
WeibleChristopher M.IngoldKarin. 2018. “Why Advocacy Coalitions Matter and Practical Insights about Them.” Policy & Politics46 (2): 325–43. doi:10.1332/030557318X15230061739399.
37.
WeibleChristopher M.SabatierPaul A.2017. Theories of the Policy Process. 4th ed.Boulder: Westview Press.
ZahariadisNikolaos. 2015. “The Shield of Heracles: Multiple Streams and the Emotional Endowment Effect.” European Journal of Public Research54:466–81. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12072.
