POLITICAL SCIENCE 585: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY-MAKING

Spring 2004

Northern Illinois University

Christopher Jones

Office: ZU 315

Phone: 753-7039

E-mail: cmjones@niu.edu

Class Time: Tuesday 3:00-5:40 p.m. in DU 464

Office Hours: Thursday 1:00-4:00 p.m. or by appointment

INTRODUCTION

This graduate seminar has three objectives. The first goal is to familiarize students with the extensive literature related to the formulation, implementation, and oversight of contemporary American foreign policy. Specifically, we will examine a broad range of scholarly articles and book chapters related to different elements of the U.S. foreign policy making process. The hope is this review will provide enough theoretical and substantive knowledge to conduct future research in the field, teach related undergraduate courses, and successfully complete comprehensive examinations. To aid each of these efforts, there are extensive lists of recommended readings (grouped by subject) throughout the syllabus. Also the structure of the course’s final examination will resemble the comprehensive examinations given by the department’s international relations faculty.

The second purpose of this course is to consider who truly makes American foreign policy at the dawn of a new century. Scholars of U.S. foreign relations have long debated the relative influence of various government and nongovernmental actors. Some individuals contend the president primarily shapes foreign policy. Other observers argue the chief executive is just one of a number of significant actors. Which perspective is most accurate? Is there one correct explanation or is the answer dependent on other variables? We will consider these questions throughout the semester and try to reach some conclusions during the final class meeting. The course, moreover, is organized around this issue. Each week we will consider a specific actor’s capacity to shape foreign policy in light of its formal authority, interests, political advantages and disadvantages, and the broader contemporary policy-making arena. Institutions to be discussed include the presidency, Nati! ! onal Security Council, Department of State, foreign economic bureaucracy, the intelligence community, Congress, interest groups, and the media. We will also devote attention to public opinion and how foreign policy actors interact within specific "action-channels" or policy processes.

A third objective is to identify and briefly discuss a range of theories and models that scholars have traditionally employed to understand foreign policy-making. Attention will be given to analytical frameworks that attempt to capture the entire foreign policy process as well as ones that focus selectively on specific actors or relationships. We will discuss models involving rational choice, political processes, interest group politics, organizational behavior, intergovernmental relations, presidential management, small group decision-making, public opinion, media influence, procedural issue areas, and other relevant subjects. Besides being a central part of the foreign policy analysis literature, many of these theories provide insight into the relative influence of particular actors within the foreign policy process. Thus an examination of this material advances the course’s two leading objectives.

CLASS FORMAT

Since this is a graduate, 500-level course it will be conducted as an interactive seminar. I will interrupt our meetings from time to time to introduce material or to share my thoughts, but the majority of our time will be devoted to a group discussion and analysis of the established literature related to American foreign policy-making. Therefore, everyone’s full participation is essential and expected. All required readings for a particular week are to be completed by everyone before arriving in class; and each member of the class should be prepared to summarize, react to, and draw from the readings in depth (see "seminar participation" and "weekly seminar meetings" below).

GRADED REQUIREMENTS

There are three components of the final course grade. The first is a written final examination that will resemble the format of a comprehensive examination given by the department’s international relations faculty. That is, it will encompass multiple sections and essay questions. It will be administered during the university’s final examination period on Tuesday, December 7 and be worth 25 percent of the course grade. The class meeting on Tuesday, November 30 will be devoted to drawing conclusions about the material and preparing for this test. The examination must be completed to earn a passing grade and credit for the course. However, students enrolled under an audit or satisfactory/unsatisfactory option are exempt.

The second requirement is preparation of an original research paper related to the American foreign policy-making since 1945, which is due in my office Tuesday, November 23 at 3:00 p.m. To earn a passing grade and credit in the course, this assignment must be completed. However, students enrolled in the course under an audit or satisfactory/unsatisfactory option are exempt. Contemporary subjects are particularly encouraged. Acceptable approaches include the following:

  1. the use of key factors (independent variables) or an existing theory to explain a significant U.S. foreign decision, policy, or action (dependent variable);
  2. an analysis of actor’s relative influence within the contemporary foreign policy process;
  3. an analysis of an actor’s relative influence with regard to another actor, an issue area, a time period, a piece of legislation, an event, a presidential administration, a foreign state, or some other relevant factor since 1945;
  4. an analysis of a significant contemporary change or continuity within the U.S. foreign policy process;
  5. a descriptive case study based on an accepted case study model;
  6. an analysis that supplements, corrects, sharpens, or extends an existing theory, thesis, or model related to U.S. foreign policy-making;
  7. the development and application of a new theory of foreign policy-making; or
  8. some other approach approved by the instructor.

Regardless of the selected approach, the analysis should meet certain basic requirements. First, it should be carefully written and edited with regard to prose, grammar, spelling, diction, format and word-processing. Second, it should be properly documented and draw upon a diversity of well integrated materials including whenever appropriate both primary and secondary sources. Third, it should be 20 to 25 full pages in length with standard size type (12 pt.), double-spacing, one-inch margins, and page numbers. Title pages, abstracts, appendices, tables, figures, endnotes, and bibliographies do not account toward the minimum page requirement. Fourth, the final paper should contain the following components: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) introduction (e.g., problem identification, research question, and significance), (4) background section and/or literature review, (5) research design/overview of analytic approach, (6) analysis or test, (7) findin! ! gs and/or conclusion, (8) any necessary ancillary material (e.g., appendix, tables, and figures), and (9) a bibliography. The paper should also have identifiable subsections and subheadings. Fifth, the text, format, and citation of sources should conform to style guidelines commonly used by international relations and foreign policy scholars, such as those set forth in International Studies Quarterly, the American Political Science Review, or The Chicago Manual of Style. Sixth, write with authority, use an analytical, third person voice and avoid the use of me, my, I, we, our, you, and your within the final draft. Last, it is expected that all papers will be of a written and analytical quality such that with modest revisions, they could be accepted as a department starred paper or presented at a relevant professional meeting and then submitted to an appropriate journal for possible publication. Thus everyone should be prepared to defend their cho! ! ice of research questions and methods, and devote the necessary time a nd hard work to create a high quality paper.

The research paper assignment, which is worth 50 percent of the final course grade, includes a submission of a research design statement and a brief oral presentation. The one-page, word-processed research design statement is due in class on Tuesday, September 21, at minimum, should provide the proposed study’s research question, analytical approach, temporal boundaries, and a tentative bibliography of five quality sources. Paper presentations will be delivered in class on Tuesday, November 9 and Tuesday, November 16. The order of presentation will be determined by lottery. If, however, the class size is unusually large, we will invoke the seniority rule where Ph.D. and second-year MA students give in-class presentations and first-year MA students make an oral presentation during an appointment with the instructor. On the day of the presentation, copies of a word-processed outline or overview (e.g., talking points) should be distributed to al! ! l members of the seminar. Details about the length and content of the paper presentations will be discussed later in the semester, but the exercise has a twofold purpose. On one hand, it is designed to give students practical experience in presenting and defending their work in public. On the other hand, it should improve the quality of the papers by allowing the class to comment constructively on each study before the final submission. The expectation is that both the research design statement and in-class presentation will be well prepared. Failure to complete these requirements by the due dates will significantly reduce the paper grade.

The third graded requirement is class participation. Components of this grade include: (1) regular attendance (no more than one absence), (2) regular and thoughtful participation in seminar discussions; (3) completion of any additional assignments, and (4) one brief oral report to the class on a foreign policy theory. Failure to fulfill any one of these expectations will significantly reduce the participation grade that is worth 25 percent of the final course grade.

In general, relevant in-class participation will be evaluated according to the following scale with plus and minus grades being possible.

A = regular and thoughtful participation

B = occasional and thoughtful participation

C = regular attendance, but little or no participation

D = less than regular attendance

F = little or no attendance

Each student is also strongly encouraged (but not required) to draft a fairly succinct written summary of one week’s readings and discussion. The final item would be distributed to all members of the seminar so it could be used to prepare for the final examination. Students in past years have found these summaries to be extremely beneficial. One student from the seminar should volunteer to serve as the coordinator of this collegial group study initiative.

WEEKLY SEMINAR MEETINGS

Generally each class meeting will be divided into two portions separated by a brief break. In the first part of class, the instructor will introduce the week's topic. He will, then, call on one student to brief (with the instructor's help) the class on a theory of foreign policy-making related to the week's topic. Additional theories may be introduced or referenced by the instructor. Next the class as whole will proceed to discuss the assigned readings for the week. The main focus will involve identifying and discussing the publications' central theses or research questions and their key findings.

After the break, the second portion of the class will be devoted to identifying and evaluating a particular actor’s role and relative influence within the U.S. foreign policy process. In an effort to focus the assigned readings and make these discussions more fruitful, we will employ a specific set of questions throughout the semester. This framework will also help the class draw comparisons and conclusions at the end of the semester. Please make an effort to formulate tentative answers before arriving at class each week.

Please note that participation is voluntary. However, everyone's involvement is essential and expected. Regular and thoughtful participation will be rewarded. The instructor may call on students if he finds that it is the only way that they will participate. Seminar participants are expected to stay on topic, to refrain from dominating or hiding during discussions and to demonstrate respect and tolerance for others.

QUESTION SET FOR SEMINAR DISCUSSIONS

  1. What is the actor’s formal role in foreign policy? Does the actor have particular duties or responsibilities?
  2. Does the actor have particular or special interests?
  3. Does the actor have bargaining advantages or assets when interacting with others?
  4. Does the actor have bargaining disadvantages or weaknesses when interacting with others?
  5. To what degree, is the actor able to exert influence within the contemporary U.S. foreign policy process? Are any qualifications necessary?

COURSE POLICIES AND LOOSE ENDS

  1. Makeup Exams: A makeup final examination will only be given in extraordinary circumstances. If such circumstances arise, please contact the instructor as soon as possible and before the scheduled exam. To keep the process fair for everyone in the course, students may be asked to support requests for makeup examinations with documentation. A missed examination without prior notification and a documented excuse will result in a zero and a course grade of "F" as opposed to an incomplete.
  2. Students with Disabilities: Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, NIU is committed to making reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Those students with disabilities that may have some impact on their coursework for which they may require accommodations should notify the Center for Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) on the fourth floor of the Health Services Building. CAAR will assist students in making appropriate accommodations with course instructors. It is important that CAAR and instructors be informed of disability-related needs during the first two weeks of the semester.
  3. Late Assignments: A research paper or assignment submitted after the due date will be penalized by a deduction of ten points or one letter grade per day. Since students will have had several weeks to write their papers and prepare other assignments, this standard will be waived only in extreme circumstances.
  4. Submitting Completed Work: Assignments and papers should be handed-in to me personally or given to a department secretary to be time-stamped. If a student selects other modes of delivery, he or she does so at their own risk. Students are also requested to retain their completed work on paper and computer diskette should the instructor request additional copies.
  5. Academic Dishonesty: In preparing their work and meeting the requirements of this course, members of this seminar are expected to adhere to all the rules, regulations, and standards set forth by the Department of Political Science, Graduate School, Northern Illinois University, and the scholarly community. This statement encompasses intentional and unintentional plagiarism, cheating on examinations, using, purchasing or stealing others' work, misusing library materials, and so forth. Failure to honor these rules, regulations, and standards could result in a failing course grade and/or disciplinary action.
  6. Incomplete Requests: Such petitions will be granted rarely and only in extraordinary circumstances. The instructor reserves the right to ask for documentation to verify the problem preventing completion of the course by the normal deadlines. If the student does not present documentation from a university office or official, the matter will be left to the instructor’s discretion.
  7. Handouts: Handouts are a privilege for those students who attend class on a regular basis. No student is entitled to supplemental materials simply because he or she are registered for the course.
  8. Additional Assignments: The instructor reserves the right to assign additional reports, presentations, or short papers if the quality of the class discussion is less than satisfactory or he believes such assignments will enhance students' understanding of the material.

READING MATERIAL

To avoid the expense of purchasing several books, the assigned readings consist of journal articles and book chapters that have been placed on two-hour library reserve. (The reserve room is located on the first floor of the library.) If a particular printed item has been checked out, it may be possible to obtain another copy in the relevant periodical or book stacks of the library. Please note that most or all of the readings will also be on electronic reserve, which will allow you to obtain the readings without visiting the reserve room. When the librarian passes the links for some or all of the readings, I will pass them to the class in an e-mail message.

There are three books available for purchase at the university bookstore. I have made a conscious effort to keep the material affordable and up-to-date as possible. Therefore, the texts are recently published paperback editions.

  1. Rosati, Jerel A. 2004. The Politics of United States Foreign Policy (3rd edition). Forth Worth, TX: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
  2. Wittkopf, Eugene R. and James M. McCormick, eds. 1999. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  3. Wittkopf, Eugene R. and James M. McCormick, eds. 2004. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (4th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Rosati (2004) is strongly recommended reading each week. It provides solid theoretical and substantive background information as well as useful references to additional literature. I strongly encourage each member of the class to have a personal copy. It will be particularly useful to students with little background in the subject matter, or who have not studied American foreign policy for a number of years. Wittkopf and McCormick (1999) and Wittkopf and McCormick (2004) are edited volumes (with different readings) that together encompass a significant portion of the seminar readings. These books are on two-hour reserve, but having a personal copy of each volume will significantly reduce the burden of reading or photocopying material at the library or downloading and printing items on electronic reserve.

The strongly recommended reading from Rosati (2004) should be treated as background information and completed before the other articles and chapters. The remaining readings, which are listed alphabetically, can be completed in any order. In some cases, it would make sense to read certain selections before others. However, scholars rarely have clearly defined "road maps" when they conduct their research. Thus an important part of academic training is learning to relate and integrate pieces of scholarly literature.

COURSE SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS

Important Dates:

September 21: Research design statements are due at the beginning of class.

November 9 & 16: Research paper presentations

November 23: Research papers are due in the instructor's office (ZU 315) at 3:00 p.m.

November 30: Course conclusion and review for final examination

December 7: Final examination

Week 1

August 24: Course Introduction

· Introduction to instructor, seminar participants, and course syllabus.

· Domestic and International Context of Post-Cold War Foreign Policy-Making (Lecture)

· Is U.S. Foreign Policy-Making a Rational or Political Process?

· Who Makes American Foreign Policy? The Question of Presidential Governance

Theories to be discussed:

rational actor model

political process model

governmental (bureaucratic) politics model

Required:

  1. Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow.1999. "Model I: The Rational Actor." Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2d ed. New York: Longman. 1-26.
  2. Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow.1999. "Model III: Governmental Politics." Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2d ed. New York: Longman. 255-258 and 294-313.
  3. Hilsman, Roger. 1998. "Policy-Making Is Politics." In Readings in the Politics of United States Foreign Policy, ed. Jerel A. Rosati. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 1-10.
  4. Perlmutter, Amos. 1974. "The Presidential Political Center and Foreign Policy: A Critique of the Revisionist and Bureaucratic Political Orientations." World Politics 27:87-106.

Week 2

August 31: The President and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theories to be discussed:

presidential governance models

crisis decision-making

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 4

Required:

Review Hilsman and Perlmutter readings from the previous week.

  1. Fisher, Louis. "Presidential Wars," In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 155-169 (Chapter 10).
  2. Hastedt, Glenn P. and Anthony J. Eksterowicz, "Presidential Leadership and American Foreign Policy: Implications for a New Era." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 123-129 (Chapter 9).
  3. Nelson, Michael. "Person and Office: Presidents, the Presidency, and Foreign Policy," In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 145-153 (Chapter 9).
  4. Neustadt, Richard E. 2001. "Weakening White House." British Journal of Political Science 31:1-11.
  5. Peterson, Paul E. 1994. "The President’s Dominance in Foreign Policy Making." Political Science Quarterly 109:215-234.

Recommended:

  1. Ambrose, Stephen, E. 1991/92. "The Presidency and Foreign Policy." Foreign Affairs. 70:120-137.
  2. Ambrose, Stephen E. and Douglas G. Brinkley. 1997. Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy since 1938, 7th ed. New York: Penguin Books.
  3. Barber, James David. 1992. The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  4. Burke, John P. and Fred I. Greenstein. 1989. How Presidents Test Reality: Decisions on Vietnam, 1954 and 1965. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  5. Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
  6. Deese, David A. 1994. The New Politics of American Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  7. Elowitz, Larry and John W. Spanier. 1974. "Korea and Vietnam: Limited War and the American Political System." Orbis 28:510-534.
  8. Fisher, Louis. 1995. Presidential War Power. Lawrence, KS: Kansas University Press.
  9. George, Alexander L. 1989. Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  10. Greenstein, Fred I. 2000. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  11. Hendrickson, Ryan C. 2002. "The Clinton Administration’s Strikes on Usama Bin Laden: Limits to Power." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 196-216.
  12. Hendrickson, Ryan. C. 2002. The Clinton Wars. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
  13. Hermann, Charles F. 1969. "International Crisis as a Situational Variable." In International Politics and Foreign Policy, ed. James N. Rosenau. New York: Free Press. 409-421. *Give particular attention to the definition of crisis and the features of crisis decision-making.
  14. Hilsman, Roger. 1967. To Move a Nation: The Politics of Foreign Policy in the Administration of John F. Kennedy. New York: Doubleday and Company.
  15. Hybel, Alex Roberto. 1993. Power over Rationality: The Bush Administration and the Gulf Crisis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  16. Johnson, Loch and James M. McCormick. 1977. "Foreign Policy by Executive Fiat." Foreign Policy 28:117-138.
  17. Kellerman, Barbara and Ryan J. Barilleaux. 1991. The President as World Leader. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  18. Koh, Harold Hongju. 1988. "Why the President (Almost) Always Win in Foreign Affairs: Lessons of the Iran-Contra Affair." Yale Law Journal 97:1255-1342.
  19. Kohl, Wilfrid L. 1975. "The Nixon-Kissinger Foreign Policy System and U.S.-European Relations: Patterns of Policy Making." World Politics. 28:1-43.
  20. Mann, Thomas E. 1990. "Making Foreign Policy: President and Congress." In A Question of Balance: The President, the Congress and Foreign Policy, ed. Thomas E. Mann. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  21. Melanson, Richard. 1996. American Foreign Policy since the Vietnam War, 2d ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  22. Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  23. Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership: FDR to Reagan. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  24. Peterson, Paul E. 1994. The President, the Congress, and the Making of Foreign Policy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
  25. Pfiffner, James P. and Roger H. Davidson. 1999. Understanding the Presidency, 2d. ed. New York: Addision Wesley.
  26. Pious, Richard. 1979. The American Presidency. New York: Basic Books.
  27. Preston, Thomas. 2001. The President and His Inner Circle: Leadership Style and the Advisory Process in Foreign Affairs. New York: Columbia University Press.
  28. Rockman, Bert A. 1997. "The Presidency and Bureaucratic Change after the Cold War." In United States Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 21-41.
  29. Rosati, Jerel and Steven Twing. 1998. "The Presidency and U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Chapter 2.
  30. Schlesinger, Arthur. S. 1989. The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  31. Silverstein, Gordon. 1994. "Judicial Enhancement of Executive Power." In The President, the Congress, and the Making of Foreign Policy, ed. Paul E. Peterson. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Chapter 2 (23-45).
  32. Silverstein, Gordon. 1996. Imbalance of Powers: Constitutional Interpretation and the Making of American Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 3

September 7: Presidential Advisors, the National Security Council, and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theories to be discussed:

presidential management models

groupthink

multiple advocacy model

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 5.

Required:

  1. Daadler, Ivo H. and I.M. Destler. 2000. "A New NSC for a New Administration." Brookings Institution Policy Brief #68." Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  2. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb68.htm

  3. Daadler, Ivo H. and I.M. Destler. 2004. "How National Security Advisers See Their Role," In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 171-181 (Chapter 11).
  4. Kemp, Geoffrey. 1999. "Presidential Management of the Executive Bureaucracy." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 157-172 (Chapter 11).
  5. Mulcahy, Kevin V. 1986. "The Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor: Foreign Policymaking in the Carter and Reagan Administrations." Presidential Studies Quarterly 16:280-299.
  6. Mulcahy, Kevin V. and Harold F. Kendrick.1998. "The National Security Advisor: A Presidential Perspective." In Readings in the Politics of United States Foreign Policy, ed. Jerel A. Rosati. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 53-69.

Recommended:

  1. Auger, Vincent A. 1997. "The National Security System after the Cold War." In United States Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 42-73.
  2. Best, Richard A., Jr. 2001. The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
  3. Bock, Joseph G. 1987. The White House Staff and the National Security Assistant: Friendship and Friction at the Water’s Edge. New York: Greenwood Press.
  4. Brzezinski, Zbigniew K. 1983. Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Advisor, 1977-1981. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
  5. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 1987. "The NSC’s Midlife Crisis," Foreign Policy 69:80-99.
  6. Daadler, Ivo H. and I.M. Destler. 2000. "A New NSC for a New Administration." Policy Brief #68. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  7. Destler, I.M. 1972. "Comment: Multiple Advocacy: Some Limits and Costs." American Political Science Review. 66:786-790.
  8. Destler, I.M. 1977. "National Security Advice to U.S. Presidents: Some Lessons from Thirty Years." World Politics 29:143-176.
  9. Destler, I.M. 1980. "National Security Management: What Presidents Have Wrought." Political Science Quarterly 95:573-588.
  10. Destler I.M., Leslie H. Gelb, and Anthony Lake. 1984. Our Own Worst Enemy: The Unmaking of American Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chapter 4.
  11. Draper, Theodore. 1988. "Reagan’s Junta: The Institutional Sources of the Iran-Contra Affair." In The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, 1st ed. Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf. New York: St. Martin’s Press.131-141.
  12. George, Alexander L. 1972. "The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy." American Political Science Review 66:751-785.
  13. Hart, Paul ‘t. 1990. Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small and Policy Failure. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  14. Hersh, Seymour. 1973. The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House. New York: Summit Books.
  15. Inderfuth, Karl F. and Loch K. Johnson, eds. 2004. Fateful Decisions: Inside the National Security Council. New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Janis, Irving L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Failures, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  17. Johnson, Richard Tanner 1974. Managing the White House. New York: Harper & Row.
  18. Menges, Constantine Christopher. 1988. Inside the National Security Council: The True Story of the Making and Unmaking of Reagan’s Foreign Policy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  19. Moskowitz, Eric and Jeffrey S. Lantis. 2002. "The War in Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  20. National Security Council Project. Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and the Brookings Institution. (Multiple reports available).
  21. Patterson, Bradley H., Jr. 2000. The White House Staff: Inside the West Wing and Beyond. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press. See especially Chapter 3.
  22. Prados, John. 1991. Keepers of the Keys: A History of the National Security Council from Truman to Bush. New York: Morrow
  23. Shoemaker, Christopher. 1992. The NSC Staff: Counseling the Council. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  24. Zegart, Amy B. 1999. "Origins of the National Security Council System: A Brass-Knuckle Fight to the Finish." In Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 54-75.
  25. Zegart, Amy B. 1999. "Evolution of the National Security System: From King’s Ministers to Palace Guard." In Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 76-108.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 4

September 14: The State Department and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theory to be discussed:

classic organizational theory

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 6.

Required:

  1. Clarke, Duncan L. 1987. "Why State Can’t Lead." Foreign Policy 66:128-142.
  2. Gingrich, Newt. 2003. "Rogue State Department." Foreign Policy 137 (July/August):42-48.
  3. Hook, Steven W. 2003. "Domestic Obstacles to International Affairs: The State Department Under Fire at Home," PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (January):23-29.
  4. Silberman Laurence H. 1979. "Toward Presidential Control of the State Department." Foreign Affairs 57:872-893.
  5. Talbott, Strobe. 2004. "Globalization and Diplomacy: The View from Foggy Bottom." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 197-206 (Chapter 13).

Recommended:

  1. Abrams, Elliott. 1989. "Why Everyone Hates the State Department and What to Do About It." The National Interest 17:85-88.
  2. Bacchus, William I. 1974. Foreign Policy and the Bureaucratic Process: The State Department’s Country Director System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  3. Bacchus, William I. 1983. Staffing for Foreign Affairs: Personnel Systems for the 1980’s and 1990’s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Baker, James A. 1995. The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War & Peace, 1989-1992. New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons.
  5. Campbell, John Franklin. 1971. The Foreign Affairs Fudge Factory. New York: Basic Books.
  6. Christopher, Warren. 1999. In the Stream of History. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
  7. Christopher, Warren. 2001. Chances of a Lifetime. New York: Scribner.
  8. Daadler, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay. 2001. "How to Revitalize a Dysfunctional Department." Foreign Service Journal (March 2001).
  9. Dizard, Wilson, Jr. 2001. Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
  10. Estes, Thomas S. and E. Allan Lightner, Jr. 1976. The Department of State. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  11. "Focus on State Department Reform." Foreign Service Journal 78 (May 2001):16-54. Also see Daadler and Lindsay article in March 2001 issue.
  12. Haig, Alexander. 1984. Caveat: Realism, Reagan, and Foreign Policy. New York: Macmillan.
  13. Kennan, George F. 1955. "The Future of Our Professional Diplomacy." Foreign Affairs 33:566-587.
  14. Kennan, George F. 1997. "Diplomacy without Diplomats." Foreign Affairs 76:198-21.
  15. Lindsay, James M. 1997. "The State Department Complex after the Cold War." In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, ed. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press. 74-105.
  16. Melbourne, Roy M. 1992. Conflict and Crisis: A Foreign Service Story. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
  17. Miller, Robert Hopkins. 1992. Inside An Embassy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  18. Pacy, James S. and Daniel B. Henderson. 1992. "Career Versus Political: A Statistical Overview of Presidential Appointments of the United States Chiefs of Mission Since 1915." Diplomacy & Statecraft 3:382-403.
  19. Price, Don K. 1960. The Secretary of State. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: (The American Assembly) Prentice-Hall.
  20. Pringle, Robert. 1977. "Creeping Irrelevance at Foggy Bottom." Foreign Policy 29:128-139.
  21. Rockman, Bert A. 1981. "America’s Department of State: Irregular and Regular Syndromes of Policy Making." American Political Science Review 75:911-9.
  22. Rubin, Barry M. 1985. Secrets of State: The State Department and the Struggle over U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. "Salvaging State: Everybody Wants Reform -- But What's the Plan?" Foreign Service Journal (May 2001). Note this issue contains several articles on State Departmment reform.
  24. Schultz, George P. 1993. Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  25. Scott, Andrew M. 1969. "The Department of State: Formal Organization and Informal Culture." International Studies Quarterly.13:1-18.
  26. Sorenson, Theodore C. 1987. "The President and the Secretary of State." Foreign Affairs 66 (Winter): 231-248.
  27. Stearns, Monteagle. 1996. Talking to Strangers: Improving American Diplomacy At Home and Abroad. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  28. Sullivan, Joseph G. 1995. Embassies Under Siege: Personal Accounts by Diplomats on the Front Line. London: Brasseys, Inc.
  29. Vance, Cyrus. 1983. Hard Choices: Critical Years in America’s Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  30. Warwick, Donald P. 1975. A Theory of Public Bureaucracy: Politics, Personality and Organization in the State Department. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
  32. Weil, Martin. 1978. A Pretty Good Club. New York: W.W. Norton.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 5

September 21: The Foreign Economic Bureaucracy and U.S. Foreign Policy

Note: The research design statement is due in class today.

Theories to be discussed:

presidential fiat model

bureaucratic politics model

interbranch politics model

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 9 and pp.343-352.

Required:

  1. Cohen, Stephen D., Joel R. Paul, and Robert A. Blecker. 1999. "Trade Policy Decisionmaking: Competing Explanations." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 217-229 (Chapter 16).
  2. Destler, I.M. 1998. "Foreign Economic Policy under Bill Clinton." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 89-107 (Chapter 4).
  3. Guay, Terrence. 2000. "Local Government and Global Politics: The Implications of Massachusetts’ ‘Burma Law’" Political Science Quarterly. 115:353-376.
  4. Jones, Christopher M. 1999. "Trading with Saddam: Bureaucratic Roles and Competing Conceptions of National Security." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 267-285 (Chapter 19).
  5. Scherlen, Renee G. 1998. "NAFTA and Beyond: The Politics of Trade in the Post-Cold War Period." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 358-385 (Chapter 14).

Recommended:

  1. Brown, Douglas M. and Earl H. Fry. 1993. States and Provinces in the International Economy. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
  2. Cohen, Stephen D. 2000. The Making of United States International Economic Policy: Principles, Problems, and Proposals for Reforms, 5th ed. New York: Praeger.
  3. Cohen, Stephen D., Robert A. Blecker, and Peter D. Whitney. 2002. Fundamentals of U.S. Trade Policy: Economics, Politics, Laws and Issues, 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  4. Destler, I.M. 1992. American Trade Politics. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
  5. Destler, I.M. 1994. "A Government Divided: The Security Complex and the Economic Complex." In The New Politics of American Foreign Policy, ed. David A. Deese. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  6. Destler, I.M. 1996. The National Economic Council: A Work in Progress. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics
  7. Destler, I.M. 1996. "American Trade Politics in the Wake of the Uruguay Round." In The World Trading System: Challenges Abroad, ed. Jeffrey J. Schott. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
  8. Destler I.M. and Peter Balint. 1999. The New Politics of U.S. Trade Policy: Trade, Labor and the Environment. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
  9. Emery, James J. and Michael C. Openheimer. 1983. The U.S. Import-Export Bank. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  10. Fry, Earl H. 1997. The Expanding Roles of State and Local Governments in U.S. Foreign Affairs. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  11. Goldsborough, James O. 1993. "California's Foreign Policy." Foreign Affairs 72 (Spring):88-96.
  12. Goldstein, Judith. 1988. "Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy." International Organization 42:179-217.
  13. Ikenberry, G. John, David A. Lake, and Michael Mastanduno.1988. The State and American Foreign Economic Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  14. Kline, John M. 1983. State Government Influence in U.S. International Economic Policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  15. Long, William J. 1989. U.S. Export Control Policy: Executive Autonomy vs. Congressional Reform. New York: Columbia University Press.
  16. Malmgren, Harold B. 1972. "Managing Foreign Economic Policy." Foreign Policy 6:42-63.
  17. Nivola, Pietro S. 1997. "Commercializing Foreign Affairs? American Trade Policy after the Cold War." In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B, Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 235-256.
  18. O’Neill, Hugh. 1990. "The Roles of States in Trade Development." In International Trade: The Changing Role of the United States, ed. Frank J. Macchiarola. New York: The Academy of Political Science. 181-189.
  19. Rhodes, Carolyn. 2002. "The U.S.-EC Beef Hormone Dispute and U.S. Trade Policy." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 248-269.
  20. Schoppa, Leonard J. 1997. Bargaining with Japan: What American Pressure Can and Cannot Do. New York: Columbia University Press.
  21. Spero, Joan Edelman. 1997. The Politics of International Economic Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  22. Stokes, Bruce. 1992/93. "Organizing to Trade." Foreign Policy (Winter 1992-93):36-42.
  23. Vernon, Raymond D., Debora L. Spar, and Glenn Tobin. 1991. Iron Triangles and Revolving Doors: Cases in U.S. Foreign Economic Policymaking. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 6

September 28: The CIA, Intelligence Community, and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theory to be discussed:

organizational process model

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 8.

Required:

  1. Betts, Richard K. 2004. "The New Politics of Intelligence." Foreign Affairs 83 (May/June 2004):2-8.
  2. Deutch, John and Jeffrey H. Smith. 2004. "Smarter Intelligence." In Wittkopf and McCormick 2004, 219-226 (Chapter 15).
  3. Jones, Christopher M. 2001. "The CIA under Clinton: Continuity and Change." International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 14:503-528.
  4. Lowenthal, Mark M. 1999. "Tribal Tongues: Intelligence Consumers, Intelligence Producers." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 253-266 (Chapter 18).
  5. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. 2004. Authorized Edition. New York: W.W. Norton. Chapter 13. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Recommended:

Note: The literature below also includes sources related to the larger national security bureaucracy.

  1. Andrew, Christopher. 1995. For the President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
  2. Bamford, James. 1983. The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America’s Most Secret Agency. New York: Penguin Books.
  3. Bamford, James. 2001. Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency from the Cold War through the Dawn of a New Century. New York: Doubleday.
  4. Berkowitz, Bruce D. and Allan E. Goodman. 2000. Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  5. Betts, Richard K. 2002. "Fixing Intelligence." Foreign Affairs 81 (January/February):43-59.
  6. Blackwell, James A., Jr. and Barry M. Blechman. 1990. Making Defense Reform Work. Washington, DC: Brassey’s (U.S.).
  7. Blechman, Barry M. and Stephen S. Kaplan. 1978. Force without War: U.S. Armed Forces as a Political Instrument. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  8. Carr, Caleb. 1994. "Aldrich Ames and the Conduct of American Intelligence." World Policy Journal 11(1994):19-28.
  9. Clarke, Duncan. 1989. American Foreign Policy Institutions: Toward a Solid Foundation. New York: Harper & Row.
  10. Cohen, Eliot A. 1999. "Civil-Military Relations: Causes of Concern." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, Chapter 14.
  11. Feaver, Peter D. and Richard H. Kohn, eds. Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Godson Roy, Ernest May, and Gary Schmitt. 1995. U.S. Intelligence at the Crossroads: Agendas and Reforms. Washington, DC: Brassey’s (U.S.).
  13. Halberstam, David. 1972. The Best and the Brightest. New York: Random House.
  14. Halberstam, David. 2001. War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals. New York: Scribner.
  15. Holt, Pat M. 1995. Secret Intelligence and Public Policy: A Dilemma of Democracy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  16. Hulnick, Arthur S. 1999. Fixing the Spy Machine. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  17. Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. There is also a 1981 edition.
  18. Huntington, Samuel P. 1962. The Common Defense: Strategic Programs in National Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
  19. Johnson, Douglas and Steven Metz. 1995. "Civil-Military Relations in the United States: The State of the Debate." Washington Quarterly 18 (Winter):197-213.
  20. Johnson, Loch K. 1989. "Covert Action and Accountability: Decision-Making for America’s Secret Foreign Policy." International Studies Quarterly 33:81-109.
  21. Johnson, Loch K. 1989. America’s Secret Power: The CIA in a Democratic Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
  22. Johnson, Loch K. 1996. Secret Agencies: U.S. Intelligence in a Hostile World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  23. Johnson, Loch. 1997. "Reinventing the CIA: Strategic Intelligence and the End of the Cold War." In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.132-159.
  24. Johnson, Loch. 2000. Bombs, Bugs Drugs, and Thugs: Intelligence and America's Quest for Security. New York: New York University Press.
  25. Johnson, Loch and James J. Wirtz. 2004. Strategic Intelligence: Windows into a Secret World. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.
  26. Jordan, Amos. A., William J. Taylor, Jr., and Lawrence J. Korb 1998. American National Security: Policy and Process, 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  27. Kohn, Richard. 1994. "Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations." The National Interest 35:3-17.
  28. Kozak, David C. and James M. Keagle. 1988. Bureaucratic Politics and National Security: Theory and Practice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
  29. Lowenthal, Mark M. 2000. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  30. Luttwak, Edward N. 1985. The Pentagon and the Art of War. New York: Touchtone.
  31. Metz, Steven. 1999. "Racing toward the Future: The Revolution in Military Affairs." In The Future of American Foreign Policy, 3rd ed. Eugene R. Wittkopf and Christopher M. Jones. New York: St. Martin’s/Worth. 313-320.
  32. Olmsted, Kathyrn S. 1996. Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  33. Richelson, Jefferey T. 1995. The U.S. Intelligence Community, 3d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  34. Roman, Peter J. and David W. Tarr. 1998. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff: From Service Parochialism to Jointness." Political Science Quarterly. 113:91-111.
  35. Smist, Frank J., Jr. 1990. Congress Oversees the United States Intelligence Community, 1947-1989. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
  36. Snider, Don M. and Miranda A. Carlton-Carew. 1995. U.S. Civil-Military Relations: In Crisis or Transitions? Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic & International Studies.
  37. Steele, Robert David. 2000. On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in the Open World. Fairfax, VA: AFCEA International Press.
  38. Stockton, Paul N. 1997. "When the Bear Leaves the Woods: Department of Defense Reorganization in the Post-Cold War Era." In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  39. Treverton, Gregory P. 2001. Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Zegart, Amy B, 1999. Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  41. Zisk, Kimberly Marten. 1997. "The Threat of Soviet Decline: The CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the End of the Cold War." In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 7

October 5: The Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theory to be discussed:

principal-agent model (new institutionalism)

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 11.

Required:

  1. Fisher, Louis and David Gray Adler. 1998. "The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye." Political Science Quarterly 113:1-20.
  2. Lindsay, James M. 1992. "Congress and Foreign Policy: Why the Hill Matters." Political Science Quarterly." 107:607-628.
  3. Lindsay, James M. 1994. "Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism." International Studies Quarterly 38:281-304.
  4. Lindsay, James M. 2004. "From Deference to Activism and Back Again: Congress and the Politics of American Foreign Policy." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 183-195 (Chapter 12).
  5. Scott, James M. 1997. "In the Loop: Congressional Influence in American Foreign Policy." The Journal of Political and Military Sociology. 25:47-75.

Recommended:

  1. Bacchus, William I. 1997. The Price of American Foreign Policy: Congress, the Executive, and International Affairs Funding. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  2. Bax, Frans R. 1977. "The Legislative-Executive Relationship in Foreign Policy: New Partnership or New Competition." Orbis 20:881-904.
  3. Carter, Ralph G. 1998 "Congress and Post-Cold War Foreign Policy Era." After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Chapter 5.
  4. Carter, Ralph G. and James M. Scott. 2002. "Funding the IMF: Congress versus the White House." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 339-363.
  5. Crabb, Cecil V., Jr. and Pat M. Holt. 1992. Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy, 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  6. Dahl, Robert. 1950. Congress and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
  7. Deese, David A. 1994. The New Politics of American Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  8. Fisher, Louis. 1985. Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Fisher, Louis. 1994. "Congressional Checks on Military Initiatives." Political Science Quarterly 109:739-762.
  10. Fisher, Louis. 2000. Congressional Abdication on War and Spending. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
  11. Franck, Thomas M. and Edward Weisband. 1979. Foreign Policy by Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
  12. Henehan, Marie T. 2000. Foreign Policy and Congress: An International Relations Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  13. Hersman, Rebecca K.C. 2000. Friends and Foes: How Congress and the President Make Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  14. Hinckley, Barbara. 1994. Less than Meets the Eye: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Holmes, Jennifer S. 2002. "The Columbian Drug Trade: National Security and Congressional Politics." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 88-108.
  16. Jones, Christopher M. 2002. "Rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: the Politics of Ratification." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 160-195.
  17. Jones, Christopher M. 2002. "The V-22 Osprey: Pure Pork or Cutting Edge Technology?" In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 217-247.
  18. Koh, Harold Hongju. 1990. The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power after the Iran-Contra Affair. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  19. Krepon, Michael and Dan Caldwell, eds. 1991. "The Politics of Arms Control Treaty Ratification." New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  20. Lindsay, James M. 1990. "Parochialism, Policy and Constituency Constraints: Congressional Voting on Strategic Weapons Systems." American Journal of Political Science 34:936-960.
  21. Lindsay, James M. 1990. "Testing the Parochial Hypothesis: Congress and the Strategic Defense Initiative." Journal of Politics 53:860-876.
  22. Lindsay, James M. 1991. Congress and Nuclear Weapons. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  23. Lindsay, James M. 1992. "Foreign and Defense Policy in Congress: A Research Agenda for the 1990s." Legislative Studies Quarterly 17:417-449.
  24. Lindsay, James M. 1994. Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  25. Mann, Thomas. E. 1990. "Making Foreign Policy: President and the Congress." In A Question of Balance: The President, The Congress, and Foreign Policy, ed. Thomas E. Mann. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  26. Peterson, Paul E. ed. 1994. The President, the Congress and the Making of Foreign Policy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
  27. Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1991. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  28. Ripley, Randall B. and James M. Lindsay, eds. 1993. The Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  29. Robinson, James. 1967. Congress and Foreign Policy Making: A Study in Legislative Influence and Initiative, rev ed. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
  30. Rosati, Jerel A. 1984. "Congressional Influence in American Foreign Policy: Addressing the Controversy." Journal of Political and Military Sociology 12:311-331.
  31. Rosner, Jeremy D. 1995. The New Tug-of-War: Congress, the Executive Branch, and National Security. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Press.
  32. Warburg, Gerald Felix. 1989. Conflict and Consensus: The Struggle between Congress and the President over Foreign Policymaking. New York: Harper & Row.
  33. Weissman, Stephen R. 1996. A Culture of Deference: Congress’s Failure of Leadership in Foreign Policy. New York: Basic Books.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 8

October 12: Interest Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theories and Concepts to be discussed:

hyperpluralism

iron triangle (subgovernment) model

think tanks

political diasporas

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 16.

Required:

  1. Bard, Mitchell Geoffrey. 1988. "The Influence of Ethnic Interest Groups on American Middle East Policy." In The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, 1st ed. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf. New York: St. Martin’s Press.57-69.
  2. Bernstein, Richard and Ross H. Munro. 1999. "The New China Lobby." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 71-83 (Chapter 6).
  3. Brenner, Philip, Patrick J. Haney, and Walter Vanderbush. 2004. "Intermestic Issues and U.S. Foreign Policy toward Cuba." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 67-83 (Chapter 5).
  4. Huntington, Samuel. 2004. " The Erosion of American National Interests." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 55-65 (Chapter 4).
  5. Shain, Yossi. 1994. "Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy." Political Science Quarterly 109:811-841.

Recommended:

  1. Adams, Gordon. 1982. The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
  2. Ahrari, Mohammed E., ed. 1987. Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Greenwood Press.
  3. Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  4. Bard, Michael. 1991. The Water’s Edge and Beyond: Defining the Limits to Domestic Influence on United States Middle Policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  5. Browne, William P. 1998. Groups, Interests, and U.S. Public Policy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  6. Cigler, Allan J. and Burdett A. Loomis. ed. 1995. Interest Group Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  7. Conason, Joe. 1990. "The Iraq Lobby." The New Republic (October 1, 1990):14-17.
  8. Haney, Patrick J. and Walt Vanderbush. 1999. "The Role of Ethnic Interest Groups in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Cuban American National Foundation." International Studies Quarterly. 43:341-361.
  9. Haney, Patrick J. and Walt Vanderbush. 2002. "The Helms-Burton Act: Congress and Cuba Policy." Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 270-290.
  10. Hook, Steven W. and Jeremy Lesh. 2002. "Sino-American Trade Relations: Privatizing Foreign Policy." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 291-316.
  11. Howe, Russell Warren and Sarah Hays Trott. 1977. The Power Peddlers: How Lobbyists Mold America’s Foreign Policy. New York: Doubleday.
  12. Jones-Correa, Michael. 1995. "New Directions for Latinos as an Ethnic Lobby in U.S. Foreign Policy." Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy. 9:47-85.
  13. Longmyer, Kenneth. 1985. "Black American Demands." Foreign Policy 60:3-17.
  14. Martin, William. 1999. "The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy." Foreign Policy 114:66-81.
  15. McCool, Daniel. 1989. "Subgovernments and the Impact of Policy Fragmentation and Accommodation." Policy Studies Review 8:264-287.
  16. McCormick, James M. "Interest Groups & the Media in Post-Cold War Foreign Policy." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, Chapter 7.
  17. Moon, Chung-in. 1988. "Complex Interdependence and Transnational Lobbying: South Korea in the United States." International Studies Quarterly 32:67-89.
  18. Newsom, David D. 1996. The Public Dimension of Foreign Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (especially chapters 6, 9 and 10).
  19. Ogene, F. Chidozie. 1983. Interest Groups and the Shaping of Foreign Policy: Four Case Studies of United States Africa Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  20. O’Grady, Joseph. 1996. "An Irish Policy Born in the U.S.A." Foreign Affairs 75:2-8.
  21. Olson, Mancur. 1971. Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  22. Olson, Mancur. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  23. Richardson, Bill. 1985. "Hispanic American Concerns." Foreign Policy 60:30-39.
  24. Sadd, David J. and G. Neal Lendenmann. 1985. "Arab American Grievances." Foreign Policy 60:17-30.
  25. Shain, Yossi. 1995. "Multicultural Foreign Policy." Foreign Policy 100:69-87.
  26. Shain, Yossi. 1999. Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their Homelands. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Simmons, P.J. 1998. "Learning to Live with NGOs." Foreign Policy 112:82-96.
  28. Smith, Hedrick. 1988. The Power Game: How Washington Really Works. New York: Ballatine Books.
  29. Smith, James Allen. 1991. The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite. New York: Free Press.
  30. Smith, Tony. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Stopford, John. 1998-99. "Multinational Corporations." Foreign Policy 113:12-25.
  32. Trice, Robert H. 1976. Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process: U.S. Policy in the Middle East. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  33. Uslaner, Eric M. 1998. "All in the Family? Interest Groups in Foreign Policy." Interest Group Politics, 5th ed. Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  34. Wantanabe, Paul Y. 1984. Ethnic Groups, Congress and American Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  35. Zunes, Stephen and Ben Terrall, "East Timor: Reluctant Support for Self-Determination." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2002):11-30.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 9

October 19: Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theories to be discussed:

Almond-Lippman thesis

rational public thesis

maximalist and minimalist positions

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 13.

Required:

  1. Holsti, Ole R. 1998. "Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 138-169 (Chapter 6).
  2. Jentleson, Bruce W. 1992. "The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force." International Studies Quarterly. 36:29-73.
  3. Jentleson, Bruce W. and Rebecca L. Britton. 1998. "Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force." Journal of Conflict Resolution 42:395-417.
  4. Murray, Shoon Kathleen and Christopher Spinosa. 2004. "The Post 9-11 Shift in Public Opinion: How Long Will It Last?" In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 97-115 (Chapter 7).
  5. Mueller, John. 1999. "Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The People’s Common Sense." In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 51-60 (Chapter 4).

Recommended:

  1. Almond, Gabriel A. 1960. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Praeger.
  2. Barnet, Richard J. 1990. The Rockets’ Red Glare, When America Goes to War: The Presidents and the People. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  3. Casperi, William R. 1970. "The ‘Mood Theory’: A Study of Public Opinion and Foreign Policy." American Political Science Review 64:536-547.
  4. Cohen, Bernard. 1973. The Public’s Impact on Foreign Policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
  5. Foyle, Douglas C. 1999. Counting the Public In: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
  6. Foyle, Douglas C. 2002. "Public Opinion and Bosnia: Anticipating Disaster." In Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, ed. Ralph G. Carter. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 31-58.
  7. Hermann, Richard K. and Shannon Peterson. 1997. "American Public Opinion and the Use of Force." In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
  8. Hinkley, Ronald H. 1988. "Public Attitudes toward Key Foreign Policy Events." Journal of Conflict Resolution 32:295-318.
  9. Holsti, Ole R. and James N. Rosenau. 1984. American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdown of Consensus. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
  10. Holsti, Ole. R. 1992. "Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippman Consensus." International Studies Quarterly. 36:439-466.
  11. Holsti, Ole R. 1996. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  12. Holsti, Ole R. and James M. Rosenau. 1999. "Internationalism: In Tact or In Trouble?" In Eugene R. Wittkopf and Christopher M. Jones. The Future of American Foreign Policy, 3d ed. New York: St. Martin’s/Worth.
  13. Holsti, Ole R. and James N. Rosenau. 1999. "The Political Foundations of Elites’ Domestic and Foreign Views." In The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, 3d ed. Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 33-50.
  14. Kelleher, Catherine McArdle. 1994. "Security in the New World Order: Presidents, Polls, and the Use of Force." In Beyond the Beltway: Engaging the Public in U.S. Foreign Policy, eds. Daniel Yankelovich and I.M. Destler. New York: W.W. Norton.
  15. Lindsay, James M. 2000. "The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public is Shaping Foreign Policy." Foreign Affairs. 79 (September/October):2-8.
  16. Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
  17. Mueller, John E. 1994. Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  18. Oneal, John R., Brad Lian, and James H. Joyner, Jr. 1996. "Are the American People ‘Pretty Prudent’ Public Responses to U.S. Uses of Force, 1955-1988," International Studies Quarterly 40:261-280.
  19. Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  20. Powlick, Philip J. 1995. "The Sources of Public Opinion for American Foreign Policy Officials." International Studies Quarterly. 39:427-451.
  21. Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1991. "Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy." World Politics 43:479-512.
  22. Rosenau, James N. 1961. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy. New York: Random House.
  23. Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. 1995. "Back to the Womb: Isolationism's Renewed Threat." Foreign Affairs. 74:2-8.
  24. Sobel, Richard. 1993. Public Opinion in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Controversy over Contra Aid. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  25. Sobel, Richard. 2001. The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy since Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.
  26. Wittkopf, Eugene R. 1990. Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  27. Yankelovich, Daniel and John Immerwahr. 1994. "The Rules of Public Engagement." In Beyond the Beltway: Engaging the Public in U.S. Foreign Policy Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 43-77.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 10

October 26: The Media and U.S. Foreign Policy

Theory to be discussed:

mutual exploitation model

Recommended as background: Rosati 2004, Chapter 17.

Required:

  1. Cutler, Lloyd N. 1984. "Foreign Policy on Deadline." Foreign Policy 56:113-128.
  2. Entman, Robert M. 2000. "Declarations of Independence: The Growth of Media Power after the Cold War." In Brigitte Lebens Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro and Pierangelo Isernia, eds. Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 11-26.
  3. Jakobsen, Peter Viggo. 1996. "National Interest, Humanitarianism or CNN: What Triggers UN Peace Enforcement after the Cold War?" Journal of Peace Research 33:205-210.
  4. O’Heffernan, Patrick. 1994. "A Mutual Exploitation Model of Media Influence in U.S. Foreign Policy." In Lance W. Bennett and David L. Paletz, eds. Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 231-249.
  5. Strobel, Warren P. 1999. "CNN Effect: Myth or Reality?" In Wittkopf & McCormick 1999, 85-93 (Chapter 7).

Recommended:

  1. Adams, William C. 1982. Television Coverage of International Affairs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  2. Adams, William C. 1987. "Mass Media and Public Opinion about Foreign Affairs: A Typology of News Dynamics." Political Communication and Persuasion 4:263-278.
  3. Bennett, W. Lance and David L. Paletz. 1994. Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  4. Berry, Nicholas O. 1990. Foreign Policy and the Press: An Analysis of The New York Times’ Coverage of U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Greenwood Press.
  5. Brock, Peter. 1993. "Dateline Yugoslavia: The Partisan Press." Foreign Policy. 93:152-172.
  6. Cohen, Bernard C. 1975. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  7. Compaine, Benjamin. 2002. "Global Media" Foreign Policy (November/December):20-28.
  8. Cook, Timothy E. 1998. Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Destler, I.M., Leslie H. Gelb, and Anthony Lake. 1984. Our Own Worst Enemy: The Unmaking of U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chapter 1 (33-87).
  10. Dorman, William A. and Mansour Farhang. 1987. The U.S. Press and Iran: Foreign Policy and the Journalism of Deference. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  11. Edwards, Lee. 2001. Mediapolitik: How the Mass Media Have Transformed World Politics. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
  12. Hallin, Daniel C. 1986. The Uncensored War: the Media and Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  13. Hoge, James F., Jr. 1994. "Media Pervasiveness." Foreign Affairs 73:136-144.
  14. Iyengar, Shanto and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Jordan, Donald L. and Benjamin I. Page. 1992. "Shaping Foreign Policy News: The Role of TV News." Journal of Conflict Resolution. 36:227-241.
  16. Kovach, Bill. 1996. "Do the News Media Make Foreign Policy?" Foreign Policy 102 (Spring):169-179.
  17. Larson, James F. 1986. "Television and U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Iran Hostage Crisis." Journal of Communication. 36:108-130.
  18. Livingston, Steven. 1997. Clarifying the CNN Effect: An Examination of Media Effects According to the Type of Military Intervention. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy.
  19. Maltese, John Anthony. 1992. Spin Control: The White House Office of Communications and the Management of Presidential News. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  20. Mermin, Jonathan. 1997. "Television News and American Intervention in Somalia: The Myth of Media-Driven Foreign Policy." Political Science Quarterly. 112:385-403.
  21. Nacos, Brigitte Lebens, Robert Y. Shapiro and Pierangelo Isernia, eds. 2000. Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  22. Patterson, Thomas E. 1993. Out of Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  23. Pearce, David D. 1995. Wary Partners: Diplomats and the Media. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  24. Sadkovich, James J. 1998. The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  25. Seib, Philip M. 1996. Headline Diplomacy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  26. Serafty, Simon, ed. 1990. The Media and Foreign Policy. New York: Macmillan.
  27. Smith, Hedrick. 1988. The Power Game: How Washington Really Works. New York: Ballantine Books. Chapter 12.
  28. Smith, Perry M. 1991. How CNN Fought the War: A View from the Inside. New York: Carol.
  29. Strobel, Warren P. 1997. Late-Breaking Foreign Policy: The News Media’s Influence on Peace Operations. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.
  30. Utley, Garrick. 1997. "The Shrinking of Foreign News." Foreign Affairs. 76:2-10.

Also refer to publications listed under Week 11: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Week 11

November 2: Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

Theories to be discussed:

bureaucratic politics paradigm

Required:

  1. Allison, Graham T. and Morton H. Halperin. 1972. "Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications." World Politics 24:40-79.
  2. Goldgeier, James M. 2004. "NATO Expansion: The Anatomy of a Decision." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 319-334 (Chapter 22).
  3. Hicks, Bruce D. 1990. "Internal Competition over Foreign Policy-Making: The Case of U.S. Arms Sales to Iran." Policy Studies Review 9:471-484.
  4. Jones, Christopher M. 2004. "Roles, Politics, and the Battle over the V-22 Osprey." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 283-301(Chapter 20).
  5. Rourke, John M. and Richard Clark. 1998. "Making U.S. Foreign Policy toward China in the Clinton Administration." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold World, James M. Scott, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 201-224 (Chapter 8).
  6. Smith, Steve. 2004. "Policy Preferences and Bureaucratic Position: The Case of the American Hostage Rescue Mission." In Wittkopf & McCormick 2004, 303-318 (Chapter 21).

Recommended:

  1. Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
  2. Carter, Ralph G. 2002. Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  3. Carter, Ralph G. 2005. Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press
  4. Deese, David A. 1994. The New Politics of American Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  5. Drachman, Edward R. and Alan Shank. 1997. Presidents and Foreign Policy: Countdown to Ten Controversial Decisions. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  6. Franke, Volker C. 2002. Security in a Changing World: Case Studies in U.S. National Security Management. Westport, CT. Praeger.
  7. Georgetown University Institute for the Study of Diplomacy: Case Studies, http://www.guisd.org.
  8. Halperin, Morton H. 1974. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  9. Hermann, Charles F., Charles W. Kegley, Jr., and James N. Rosenau. 1987. New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
  10. Hilsman, Roger. 1990. The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs: Conceptual Models and Bureaucratic Politics, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  11. Hunt, Michael. 1996. Crises in U.S. Foreign Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  12. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: The Case Program, http://www.ksgcase.harvard.edu.
  13. Lindblom, Charles E. 1968. The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  14. National Security Studies, Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University and Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University: Case Studies, http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/nss/Case%20Study/Cases.htm.
  15. Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1991. The Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Chapter 7.
  16. Scott, James M., ed. 1998. After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Chapter 8-14.
  17. Snyder, Richard C., H.W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin. 1962. Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (The first edition was published in 1954).
  18. Strong, Robert A. 1992. Decisions and Dilemmas: Case Studies in Presidential Foreign Policy Making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Week 12

November 9: Presentation and Discussion of Research Papers

Week 13

November 16: Presentation and Discussion of Research Papers

Week 14

November 23: No Class, but papers are due at 3:00 p.m. in my office

Week 15

November 30: Course Conclusion and Review for Final Examination

Theory to be discussed:

procedural issue areas

Required:

  1. Rosati 2004, Chapter 10.
  2. Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1991. The Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Chapter 7.
  3. Rosati, Jerel. 1981. "Development of a Systematic Decision-Making Framework: Bureaucratic Politics in Perspective." World Politics 33 (January):234-252.
  4. Scott, James M. 1998. "Interbranch Policy Making after the End." In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 389-407 (Chapter 15).
  5. Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Longman. 379-407. Chapter 7.

Week 16

December 7: Final Examination