Tugas Pln As

of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
   foreign Policy Structurcs in the text, the term structure refers to the organizational configuration withinwhich foreign policyrnaking takes place. This can include a broad set of formalinstitutions and how they are organized (e.g., the US. Department of State, the ational Security !ouncil , and#or may also include a focus on how muchsmaller decision.making groups are structured or configured in a crisis. Thesuggestion that policymaking structures need to be part of the focus of foreign policy analysis can be found in the early emphasis on the study of foreign policydecision making. Snyder, $ruck, and Sapin, while urging that research attention be focused on the explanation of discrete decisions, remind us of the importanceof the context of decision% &The definition of the situation which we consider to be central to the explanation of state beha'ior results from decisionmaking processes in an organizational context .... To ignore this context omits a range of factors which significantly influence the beha'ior of decisionmakers (andtherefore state beha'ior , including not only the critical problem of how choicesare made but also the conditions under which choices are made& ()*+a, - ./ollowing on this discussion, 0obinson and Snyder argue that there arethree ma1or clusters of factors that explain decision outcomes% the occasion for decision, the indi'idual, and the organizational context in which the indi'idualoperates ()*+2,34*35 , 6ith respect to organizational factors, they assert thatdecision makers do not act only in an indi'idual capacity when they makeforeign policy decisions, they also act within an organizational en'ironment. 7nintegral part of the study of policymaking then, must be the &organization&cluster of 'ariables (cf. de 0i'era )*+-,5338 /ranke))*+4 . Advisory Structures and Studying Crises !ase studies of crises and biographies and autobiographies. pro'ide a wealth of descripti'e information about decisionmaking groups. The recent memoirs of 9c:eorge $undy ()*-- , !lark !lifford ()**) , and ;aul itze ()*-* , for example, reflect on the acti'ities of presidents< ad'isers across a 'ariety of foreign policy issues. !ase studies such as =uandt<s ()*, )**4 studies of U.S. policyrnaking in the 9iddle >ast pro'ide grist for our theoretical mills.  Unfortunately, case studies are rarely written mith the expressed purpose of trying to extract lessons about the relationship between decision structures anddecisionmaking processes during crises. or ha'e many foreign policy analyststried to return to case studies and extract frorn them general lessons about therelationship between structure and process.7 substantial amount of attention in the social science literature also has been gi'en to the structure and organization of ad'isory groups in policymaking,such as !ronin and :reenberg<s ()*+* re'iew of die U.2. ad'isory system (cf.?erken )**8 Schilling )*+8 Sickels )*3 . @ernell aod ;opkin ()*-+ focuson the changing nature of presidents< chiefs of staff, noting the increasinglyimportant role of the chief of staff to the president as a manager of (one whostructures policymaking (cf $en'eniste )*% $urke )*-38 :eorge )*-5b8melstsner )3*58 ;lowden )*- . An his study of ad'isory structures to U.S. president, $arett ()*-- draws on data from appointment logs and other sourcesto discuss the important rolc of ;resident Bohnson<s ad'isers in the execution of the Cietnam, war. /rom this e'idence he contests the argument that lyndonBohnson was a 'ictim of gropythink or that he acted nearly alone in running theCietnam war showing, rather, the broad spectrum of ad'isers and ad'ice thatyndon 1honson received about Us.policy in 'ietnam (cf. $est )*--a, )*--b8 best and Des0uches )**) .$urke and :reenstein ()*-* examine the importance of ad'isorygroups well as presidential personality and the political en'ironment during twocases 7merican decision making about Cietnam>isenhower in )*23 andBohnson in )*+3+2. They seek to explain why two presidents who were facedwith 'ery similar problems responded in such 'ery different ways. Their analysisindicates that the way presidents organize ad'isory groups may ha'e animportant impact on the process decision making, but that the indi'idual president<s style and the political climate also affect the process of decisionmaking.Bohnson explores how a president &manage(s team of pro'idewith information,. staff out his alternati'es, and otherwise extead his reach&  ()*3 xxii so that the president can be successful at leadetship and policymaking. Bohnson focuses on how the 6hite.?ouse is organized for general   policymaking, identifying three generic models of organization that presidents ha'e used a formalistic, competiti'e, and a collegial model of decision making. The formalistic model is characterized by an orderly policyrnaking structure that seeks, to benefit< from di'erse perspecti'es but alsodiscourages open conflict. The, competiti'e model encourage conflicting pointsof 'iew but can become disorderly and fail to pro'ide clear, concis ad'ice to the presidet. <the collegial model attempts to pro'ide structure and dis courageconflict, though . % t   may lead to an o'erloaded foreign policy agenda and itsmaintenance may exact a price as well (cf. :eorge )*-EBb8 ?ermann and;resto)**38 Urbo'ich and 9olnar )**8 ;ika )*-- .The reader should note that many of the studies mentioned here saggestthat linl exists between structure, process, and policy performance8 that is, theyassume relationship to exist between sound urganisational strictures and sound policymak ing and policy. 6hat they ha'e largely failed to do, howe'er, is toexplicate the link between foreign policy structures, policymaking processes,and policy outputs i ways that would allow us to draw e'en contingentgeneralizations about the relationships between these 'ariabics. /or example,what lessons might we draw about the role and impact of ad'ising moregenerally from the research that examines ;resident Bohnson his ad'isorysystemF 6e seemto   know a lot, continuing the example, about Bohnson and hisad'isers. $ut we still ha'e not learned much in a more general way about howleaders might structure an ad'isory process for decision makng and with whateffect ?ermann and ?ermann )*-* . !harles ?erman structure should ha'e aneffect on the decision process, which in turn should ha'e an effect on foreign policy beha'ior ()*-, ) . The research strategy employed in this perspecti'eseeks to disco'er impact ot different &decision units& on foreign policy beha'ior ?ermann, ?ermann, and ?agan )*- . Specifically, research has focused onhow different decision units can lead to different types of foreign policy   beha'ior, such as how prone each unit is to use force. Theoretical research hasfocused on the impact of three different types of ultimate decision units%&predominant leaders,& &multiple autonomous actors,& and &small groups&(?ermann, ermann, and ?agan )*- . >mpirical support for the theoretical propositions about the different effects of these decision units has been fairlyhigh (see ?ermann and ?ermann )*-*8 @aarbo, $easley, and ?ermann )**5 . ote that the decision unit literature has focused on how different ultimatedecision units may be related to different types of policy8 not on how differentunits may perform the process of policymaking differently.Gne notable example of research that looks to the management of  policymaking structures during crises, and the implications of that managementfor decision making processes, is Banis<s !rucial Decisions (A*-* . Banis tries tode'elop an understanding of how the management of a policymaking group caneliminate &a'oidable errors& in decision making. his goal is to examinemanagement strategies that may lead to &'igilant problem sol'ing.& 6hile muchof Banis<s book examines procedures (and thas may fit better in the discussion of  process that follows , in his concluding chapter he presents a  number of  propositions about how leaders can manage or structure the process of decisionmaking so as to make it more effecti'e.  Foreign Policy Processes An this context, the term process refers to the steps or casks performed by agroup that lead to a decision or policy choice being made, such asconceptualizing goals and ob1ecti'es, searching for information, and de'elopingcontingency plans. 7nderson has argued that &at least a few indi'iduals shouldfocus on de'eloping theories which describe the process of policy making inforeign affairs& ()*-, -2 . ?is research on E<process theory& suggests that policymaking in organizational settings in'ol'es deciding among many policyalternati'es, relati'ely few of which are mutu8'lly inconsisient, &that are propose. and then simply ignored. They die for .what amounts to the lack of aseconding motion& ()*-,* . The picture uc process that 7nderson presents isone of a loosely coordinated acti'ity that in'ol'es a search for goals as much as
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks