COMPARATIVE FOREIGN POLICY

Description:

This course focuses on formation and change in foreign policy. It does so by comparing various theoretical treatments of foreign policy developed in International Relations. It is not meant to avoid policy debates. Rather, its theoretical orientation should serve as a guide to understanding the content of various policy options. We will explore policy issues, but in the light of existing theoretical approaches. We begin by surveying the current state of foreign policy analysis as a field of studies and differentiating between various theoretical approaches. The bulk of the course is a discussion of how realist and constructivist traditions answer questions, such as “How do state foreign policies change and persist over time?”; “What are the sources of change and coninuity in foreign policy?; and “What are the forces responsible for foreign policy formation?” The main emphasis of the course is on Europe, Russia, and the United States although other states will be discussed as well.

Requirements: 

Attendence and participation – 10 points

Midterm (closed notes) – 30 points

In-class presentation (15 minutes) – 20 points

Proposal (10 pages): over time or cross-national comparison – 40 points

Readings: 

Mearsheimer, J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Norton, 2001.

Legro, J. Rethinking the World. Cornell UP, 2005.

Bruening, M. Foreign Policy Analysis. Palgrave, 2008.

Articles on electronic reserve (e-r), by email, and through SFSU electronic library (the link: http://sfx.calstate.edu:9003/sfsu/a-z/sfsu)
 

Calendar (tentative):

The course schedule (all dates and readings are subject to change):

I. THEORY

Week 1 (Aug 25) Comparative Foreign Policy: Growth of the Field

Neack, 1-34, skim 35-185

Week 2 (Sep 1) Labor Day Observed / No Class

Week 3 (Sep 8) Realism

Mearsheimer, 1-54

Rose, G. Neoclassical Realism & Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics 51, 1, 1998

Wohlforth, W. Honor as Interest: Reputation and Prestige in Russian Decisions (email).

Brooks & Wohlforth, Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War. International Security 25, 3, Winter 2000/01

Week 4 (Sep 15) Constructivism

Legro, 1-48

Banerjee, S. Attribution, Identity, and Emotion in the Early Cold War. ISQ 35, 1, 1991.

Katzenstein, P. Same War, Different Views. Current History December 2002

Tsygankov, Vladimir Putin’s Vision of Russia, Post-Soviet Affairs 2005

Week 5 (Sep 22) Methodology/Research Workshop

Breuning, chap. 1

Miliken, The Study of Discourse in International Relations. EJIR 2, 1999

Odell, Cases Studies in IPE. International Studies Perspectives 2001

Tsygankov, Finding a Civilizational Idea. Geopolitics 3, 2007

Discussion of sample papers

Recommended for constructivist research: Klotz, A. and C. Lynch. Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. M. E. Sharpe, 2007.

II. APPLICATION

Week 6 (Sep 29) Realism

Mearsheimer, 168-266

Paper topic due

Week 7 (Oct 6) Realism

Mearsheimer, 267-360

Week 8 (Oct 13) Constructivism

Legro, 49-160

Bibliography due

Week 9 (Oct 20) Twenty-first Century: Realism vs. Constructivism

Mearsheimer, 360-402; Legro, 160-188

Week 10 (Oct 27) Small States

Neack, 123-182

Neumann’s paper (email)

Tsygankov, The Culture of Economic Security Internaitonal Politics June 2002

Hill, Whither Kazakhstan? (email)

Literature review due / Midterm review

Week 11 (Nov 3) MIDTERM

Week 12 (Nov 10) Summary / Sharpening Understanding of Constructivism

Oren, Is Culture Independent of National Security? EJIR 6, 4, 2000

Responses to Oren (Almond, Risse, Muller, Oren) EJIR 7, 3, 2001

Presentation guidelines / Hypotheses, design, data sources due

Week 13 RECESS

III. PRESENTATIONS

Dec 1 Review and feedback

Weeks 14-16 (Dec 1, 8, 15) Student Presentations

Dec 15 Proposal due