Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the model’s strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis.
Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
In Essence of Decision, Allison proposes three different ‘lenses’ that offers a multi-level analysis rather than a regular solely system-level to analyse foreign policy decision making. His first model, Unitary Government Model or Rational Actor Model (RAM) explain government as a ‘black box’, thus the internal actors have the same goals and opinion on how to achieve the goal. On the other hand, model II and model III will open ‘the black box’ and discuss at two different things inside the box and later known as bureaucratic politics model. Model II or Organizational Process Model looks at the key organizational or agencies with their own function, mission and structure. Lastly, Model III or Governmental Politics Model will focus on key individual decision makers and the political bargaining process among them. Nonetheless, Allison’s conceptual framework has been not only highly praised by foreign policy analysts, but also has been much criticised since its first edition.
Number of criticism has risen regarding Allison’s conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Conford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allison’s model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allison’s model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis.
This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allison’s conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allison’s “Essence of Decision”, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Allison’s Conceptual Framework
Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM)
Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in state’s action. The model “reduces the organizational and governmental political complications” by looking at government as unified actor. [1] Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as ‘black box’- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate the potential pro and con and later rank all the options by their chance to succeed. [2]
Its feature of being easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Therefore, since it does not require information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suits in a crisis situation. It would safe more time since a state does not necessary do a complex evaluation about their enemy. Lastly, RAM that stresses interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process.
On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually give a big impact. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives. [3] Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are “very important…yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy”, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model. [4]
Model II: Organizational Process
Difficulties will arise when the case that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III.
Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme. [5] Each organization has an agreement for both its mission and function. Afterward, series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II argues that it is restricted based on SOP that will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors.
Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, makes number of advantage from this model. It emphasizes the important domestic political influences on process of foreign policy decision making that sometimes missed out from RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization. [6]
Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analyst’s understanding of organizations and their behaviour. [7] Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model.
Model III: Governmental Politics
Governmental politics model or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational actor. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (“where you stand depends on where you sit”). Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision.
Between Allison’s three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III not only explains the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective.
Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside.
Criticism toward Allison’s conceptual framework
Allison’s conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allison’s model “…is misleading, dangerous, and compelling”. [8] Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allison’s model will be critically discussed and assessed.
Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our academic writing services
Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art claimed that Allison did not present a pure brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Conford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March. [9] Furthermore, Conford has claimed that “…Model III…is pure Neustadt.” [10] Horelick et al. [11] supported Conford’s argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists. [12] Ball and Art [13] also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt. [14]
Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilizes and developed earlier scholars’ work as he mentioned in his book, “…this encourages much repackaging of existing theories…” [15] Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II. [16] Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm,”…model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960… the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.” [17] Hence, we could argue that Allison’s originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis. [18]
Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model – the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM. [19] As Conford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process. [20] Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application.
In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model. [21]
However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics model’s major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model. [22]
Allison’s alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers’ responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, “…where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.” [23] The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: “…Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.” [24] In contrast, Smith argues that “…this criticism is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carried out.” [25] Therefore, the criticism from Steel and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified.
Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allison’s model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries’ foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Union’s policy making) [26] , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is “a growing consensus…over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.” [27] Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process. [28] Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allison’s model is not a universal model and “…more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.” [29] Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis. As Weil notes that “…examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.” [30]
Nevertheless, analists argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party. [31] Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allison’s model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, “…the extension of Allison’s model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies”. [32]
Singapore’s defence posture change in the early 1980s
In the early 1980s, Singapore announces a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (“poisonous shrimp”) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the “porcupine”). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allison’s model to analyse Singapore’s domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapore’s ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III. [33] The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapore’s defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change. Model II first reveals the appropriate development of both Singapore’s military capability and military planning ability. Furthermore, model III then prove details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat. [34] Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allison’s model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Furthermore, the case study of Singapore’s policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM, namely, the bureaucratic politic model. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allison’s models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate.
The utility of Allison’s model also can be tested in the US foreign policy in Iran hostage crisis in 1979. The bureaucratic politics model is applicable in analysing the decision making process under President Carter administration. The key group in Carter’s government consisted of number individual who have important position in the executive branch, and also political outsiders that rarely well known, yet have close personal relations to the President. Within the key group that were known as the “Georgia mafia”, there are two closest advisors for the President; the chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan and Carter’s press secretary, Jody Powell. Even though these two advisors are not familiar in politic and foreign policy process, they were loyal and intelligent. When sixty American were taken hostage at the American embassy in Iran on 4 November 1979, the initial response from Carter is criticised to be quite slow. On 11 November, the US gave economy sanction by initiating embargo of Iranian oil. While the economy sanction was undertaken, there were ongoing debates about the next step dealing with the crisis. There were two major options; a commando raid to rescue hostages and outright air strikes and military blockades. [35] Here we can clearly see how each faction in the government has their own argument to propose to the President is clearly explained by Allison’s bureaucratic politics model.
A strong debate was occurred between Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance; National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzenzinsky and Carter’s inner circle, Powell and Jordan. Vance was explicitly being in opposition to any military action after considering that American allies would not tolerate such behaviour. Therefore, he believed that the national security of the US could be maintained without endangering the lives of sixty American citizens. [36] On the other side, Brzezinsky strongly opposed military measure as the best means to protect America’s vital interests. [37] Moreover, the argument was supported by the director of the CIA, Stanfield Turner, after considering the CIA’s best estimates that 60 percent of the hostages could be killed as a result of very complex rescue process. These two faction also argued that they are responsible for the national security, roughly 250 million Americans, and they couldn’t simply compromised for the sake of sixty hostages. The final faction came from Carter’s inner circle, including Powell and Jordan, who were concern about the impact of Iran hostage crisis on upcoming election in 1981.
The President concurred Vance’s opinion that a negotiated settlement would be the best for maintaining both national interest and national security. As the response of Carter’s decision, he received public support, which is important for the upcoming election. However, after considering the effectiveness of the plan, Powell and Jordan opposed the President for tough action against Iranians, again, in order to win the election.
In the end, with strong pressure from some faction and absence of Vance in decision making process at the time, Carter called for an immediate military rescues on April 11. The military rescue plan ended in failure with crash of number of helicopters and planes; and killing eight US servicemen. Finally, in 1981’s election, Reagan came into power and selesai lah sudah
This illustrates the absence of one faction who opposes one specific argument could impact the decision making process as a whole.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
