Bu çalışma, temel amacı devletlerin dış politika yönelimlerini sistematik temellerüzerine oturtmak için genellenebilir orta ölçekte açıklamalar geliştirmek olan dışpolitika analizine teorik ve kavramsal bir perspektiften yaklaşmaktadır.Çalışmada, öncelikle birey-yapı ilişkisi bağlamında Dış Politika AnalizininUluslararası İlişkiler alanından nedenli ayrıştığı gösterilmekte ve dış politikaanalizinin ağırlıklı olarak karar alıcılara ve süreçlere odaklandığıvurgulanmaktadır. Rasyonel seçim kuramının ve psikolojik yaklaşımların öneçıktığı, karar alıcılar üzerinden dış politika yönelimlerini açıklama yoluna gidenyaklaşımların tartışmasını süreç bazlı yaklaşımların değerlendirilmesi takipetmektedir. Dış politika yapımına etkide bulunan kurumsal süreçler ve ağırlıklıolarak kamuoyu, medya ve çıkar gruplarından oluşan iç politik süreçler üzerindengeliştirilen yaklaşımlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma son olarak kültürel ve duygusalboyutunu on plana çıkaran yaklaşımlara değinmektedir.
This study approaches foreign policy analysis, which is primarily concerned with developing systematic foundations for foreign policy tendencies of states through generalizable mid-size explanations, from a theoretical and conceptual perspective. The study, in the first place, through a discussion of agent-structure debate, attempts at distinguishing foreign policy analysis from international relations and emphasizes the fact that foreign policy analysis is primarily an actor and process-oriented approach. An analysis of individual level explanations marked by rational choice and psychological approaches is followed by a discussion devoted to process oriented approaches. Studies that focus on the impact of institutional and domestic political processes with an emphasis on public opinion, media and interest groups are examined. The last part of the study deals with cultural and emotional dimensions of foreign policy analysis. ">
[PDF] BİLARDO TOPUNUN YAPISININ SÖKÜMÜ: DIŞ POLİTİKA ANALİZİ | [PDF] THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE BILLIARD BALL: FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS
Bu çalışma, temel amacı devletlerin dış politika yönelimlerini sistematik temellerüzerine oturtmak için genellenebilir orta ölçekte açıklamalar geliştirmek olan dışpolitika analizine teorik ve kavramsal bir perspektiften yaklaşmaktadır.Çalışmada, öncelikle birey-yapı ilişkisi bağlamında Dış Politika AnalizininUluslararası İlişkiler alanından nedenli ayrıştığı gösterilmekte ve dış politikaanalizinin ağırlıklı olarak karar alıcılara ve süreçlere odaklandığıvurgulanmaktadır. Rasyonel seçim kuramının ve psikolojik yaklaşımların öneçıktığı, karar alıcılar üzerinden dış politika yönelimlerini açıklama yoluna gidenyaklaşımların tartışmasını süreç bazlı yaklaşımların değerlendirilmesi takipetmektedir. Dış politika yapımına etkide bulunan kurumsal süreçler ve ağırlıklıolarak kamuoyu, medya ve çıkar gruplarından oluşan iç politik süreçler üzerindengeliştirilen yaklaşımlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma son olarak kültürel ve duygusalboyutunu on plana çıkaran yaklaşımlara değinmektedir. ">
Bu çalışma, temel amacı devletlerin dış politika yönelimlerini sistematik temellerüzerine oturtmak için genellenebilir orta ölçekte açıklamalar geliştirmek olan dışpolitika analizine teorik ve kavramsal bir perspektiften yaklaşmaktadır.Çalışmada, öncelikle birey-yapı ilişkisi bağlamında Dış Politika AnalizininUluslararası İlişkiler alanından nedenli ayrıştığı gösterilmekte ve dış politikaanalizinin ağırlıklı olarak karar alıcılara ve süreçlere odaklandığıvurgulanmaktadır. Rasyonel seçim kuramının ve psikolojik yaklaşımların öneçıktığı, karar alıcılar üzerinden dış politika yönelimlerini açıklama yoluna gidenyaklaşımların tartışmasını süreç bazlı yaklaşımların değerlendirilmesi takipetmektedir. Dış politika yapımına etkide bulunan kurumsal süreçler ve ağırlıklıolarak kamuoyu, medya ve çıkar gruplarından oluşan iç politik süreçler üzerindengeliştirilen yaklaşımlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma son olarak kültürel ve duygusalboyutunu on plana çıkaran yaklaşımlara değinmektedir.
This study approaches foreign policy analysis, which is primarily concerned with developing systematic foundations for foreign policy tendencies of states through generalizable mid-size explanations, from a theoretical and conceptual perspective. The study, in the first place, through a discussion of agent-structure debate, attempts at distinguishing foreign policy analysis from international relations and emphasizes the fact that foreign policy analysis is primarily an actor and process-oriented approach. An analysis of individual level explanations marked by rational choice and psychological approaches is followed by a discussion devoted to process oriented approaches. Studies that focus on the impact of institutional and domestic political processes with an emphasis on public opinion, media and interest groups are examined. The last part of the study deals with cultural and emotional dimensions of foreign policy analysis. ">
Bu çalışma, temel amacı devletlerin dış politika yönelimlerini sistematik temellerüzerine oturtmak için genellenebilir orta ölçekte açıklamalar geliştirmek olan dışpolitika analizine teorik ve kavramsal bir perspektiften yaklaşmaktadır.Çalışmada, öncelikle birey-yapı ilişkisi bağlamında Dış Politika AnalizininUluslararası İlişkiler alanından nedenli ayrıştığı gösterilmekte ve dış politikaanalizinin ağırlıklı olarak karar alıcılara ve süreçlere odaklandığıvurgulanmaktadır. Rasyonel seçim kuramının ve psikolojik yaklaşımların öneçıktığı, karar alıcılar üzerinden dış politika yönelimlerini açıklama yoluna gidenyaklaşımların tartışmasını süreç bazlı yaklaşımların değerlendirilmesi takipetmektedir. Dış politika yapımına etkide bulunan kurumsal süreçler ve ağırlıklıolarak kamuoyu, medya ve çıkar gruplarından oluşan iç politik süreçler üzerindengeliştirilen yaklaşımlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma son olarak kültürel ve duygusalboyutunu on plana çıkaran yaklaşımlara değinmektedir.
THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE BILLIARD BALL: FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS
This study approaches foreign policy analysis, which is primarily concerned with developing systematic foundations for foreign policy tendencies of states through generalizable mid-size explanations, from a theoretical and conceptual perspective. The study, in the first place, through a discussion of agent-structure debate, attempts at distinguishing foreign policy analysis from international relations and emphasizes the fact that foreign policy analysis is primarily an actor and process-oriented approach. An analysis of individual level explanations marked by rational choice and psychological approaches is followed by a discussion devoted to process oriented approaches. Studies that focus on the impact of institutional and domestic political processes with an emphasis on public opinion, media and interest groups are examined. The last part of the study deals with cultural and emotional dimensions of foreign policy analysis.
Allison, G. T. ve Zelikow, P. (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the
Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: Longman.Barber, J. D. (1985) The
Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White
House, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baum, M. A. ve Groeling, T. (2010), War Stories: How Strategic
Journalists, Citizens, and Politicians Shape the News about War,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bennett, W. L., Lawrence, R. ve Livingston, S. (2007), When the Press
Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berinsky, A. (2007), Assuming the Costs of war: Events, Elites, and
American Public Support for Military Conflict, Journal of Politics,
69 (4), s. 975–997.
Bueno de Mesquita, B, Smith, A. Siverson, R. M. ve Morrow, J. D. (2003),
The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (2018), Foreign Policy Analysis and Rational
Choice Models, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International
Relations, http://internationalstudies. oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/
acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore9780190846626-e-395
(Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2018).
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J. D. ve Zorick, Ethan R. (1997),
Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation, American Political Science
Review 91 (1), s. 15-27.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Siverson, R. M. ve Woller, G. (1992) War and the
Fate of Regimes: A Comparative Analysis, American Political
Science Review, 86 (3), s. 638-646.
Carlsnaes, W. (2013), Foreign Policy, (Eds.: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and
B. A. Simmons), Handbook of International Relations, s. 298-325,
London: Sage.
Chafetz, G., Abramson, H. ve Grillot, S. (1996), Role Theory and Foreign
Policy: Belarussian and Ukrainian Compliance with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Regime, Political Psychology 17(4), s. 727-757.
Chiozza, G. ve H.E. Goemans (2003), Peace Through Insecurity: Tenure
and International Conflict, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (4), s.
443-467.
Cohen, B. C. (1963), The Press and Foreign Policy, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Dahl, R. (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
DeRouen Jr., K. ve Sprecher, C. (2005), The Domestic Determinants of
Foreign Policy Behavior in the Middle Eastern Enduring Rivals,
1948-1998, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1 (1), s. 121-141.
Dixon, W.J. (1994), Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of
International Conflict, American Political Science Review, 88 (1), s.
14–32.
Doeser, F. (2017), Strategic Culture, Domestic Politics, and Foreign
Policy: Finland’s Decision to Refrain from Operation Unified
Protector, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13 (3), s.741-759.
Dolan, T. M. (2016), Emotion and Strategic Learning in War, Foreign
Policy Analysis, 12, s. 571-590.
Downs, G. W. ve Rocke, D. M. (1994), Conflict, Agency, and Gambling
for Resurrection: The Principal-Agent Problem Goes to War,
American Journal of Political Science, 38 (2), s. 362-380.
Doyle, M.W. (1986), Liberalism and World Politics, American Political
Science Review, 80 (4), s. 1151–69.
Drury, A C., Overby, M.L, Ang, A. ve Li, Y. (2010), ‘Pretty Prudent’ or
Rhetorically Responsive? The American Public’s Support for
Military Action, Political Research Quarterly, 63 (1), s. 83-96.
Fearon, J. D. 1(995), Rationalist Explanations for War, International
Organization 49(3), s. 379-414.
Gartner, S. S. ve Segura, G. M., (1998) War, Casualties and Public
Opinion, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (3), s. 278–30.
Gelpi, C., (1997), Democratic Diversions: Governmental Structure and the
Externalization of Domestic Conflict, The Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 41(2), s. 255-282.
Gelpi, C., Feaver, P. ve Reifler, J. (2005/6), Success Matters: Casualty
Sensitivity and the War in Iraq, International Security, 30 (3), s. 7-
46.
Gilbert, R. E., (2003), The Tormented President: Calvin Coolidge, Death,
and Clinical Depression, New York: Praeger.
Groeling, T. ve Baum, M. A. (2008), Crossing the Water’s Edge: Elite
Rhetoric, Media Coverage, and The Rally-Round-The-Flag
Phenomena, Journal of Politics, 70 (4), s. 1065-1085.
Hagan, J.D., (2018). Regime Type, Foreign Policy, and International
Relations, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies,
http://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-415?rskey=
c9vWrT&result=2, (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2011).
Hall, T. H. ve Ross, A. A. (2015), Affective Politics After 9/11,
International Organization, 69 (4), s. 847-879.
Haynes, K. (2017), Diversionary Conflict: Demonizing Enemies or
Demonstrating Competence? Conflict Management and Peace
Science, 34 (4), s. 337-358.
Hermann, K. R. (2017), How Attachments to the Nation Shape Beliefs
about the World: A Theory of Motivated Reasoning, International
Organization, 71 (Supplement), s. S61-S84.
Hermann, R. K., Voss, J. F., Schooler, T. Y.E. ve Ciarrochi, J. (1997),
Images and International Relations: An Experimental Test of
Cognitive Schemata, International Studies Quarterly, 41, s. 403-433.
Hess, G. D. ve Orphanides, A. (2001), War and Democracy, Journal of
Political Economy, 109 (4), s. 776-810.
Holsti, K. J. (1970), National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign
Policy, International Studies Quarterly, 14, s. 233-309.
Hudson, V. M. (2014), Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary
Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman ve Littlefield.
Janis, I. L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions
and Fiascoes, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jentleson, B. W. ve Britton, R. L. (1998), Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold
War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force, Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), s. 395-417.
Jervis, R. (1976), Perception and Misperception in International Politics,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, D. D. P. (2004), Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory
of Positive Illusions, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Juliusson, Á. (2006), Optimism as Modifier of Escalation of Commitment,
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, s. 345–348.
Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of
Decisions under Risk, Econometrica, 47, s. 263-291.
Khong, Y. F. (1992), Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu,
and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kisangani, E. F. ve Pickering, J. (2007), Diverting with Benevolent
Military Force: Reducing Risks and Rising above Strategic
Behavior, International Studies Quarterly, 51, s. 277-299.
Levy, J. (2013), Psychology and Foreign Policy Decision-Making, (Eds.:
L. Huddy, D. O. Sears ve J. Levy), The Oxford Handbook of
Political Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Libby, R. ve Rennekamp, K. (2012), Self-Serving Attribution Bias,
Overconfidence, and the Issuance of Management Forecasts,
Journal of Accounting Research 50 (1), s. 197-231.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. ve Lepper, M. R. (1979), Biased Assimilation and
Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently
Considered Evidence, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37 (11), s. 2098-2109
Malici, A. (2017), Foreign Policy Belief Systems and Operational Code
Analysis, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Relations,
http://politics.oxfordre. com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019022863
7.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190228637-e-459, (Erişim Tarihi:
17.11.2018).
McDermott, R. (1998), Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect
Theory in American Foreign Policy, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
McDermott, R. (2004), Political Psychology in International Relations.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
Mercer, J. (2005), Rationality and Psychology in International Relations,
International Organization, 59 (1), s. 77-106.
Mercer, J. (2013), Emotion and Strategy in the Korean War, International
Organization, 67(2), s. 221-252.
Mercer, J. (2014), Feeling Like a State: Social Emotion and Identity,
International Theory, 6(3), s. 515-535.
Mintz, A. (2004), How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic
Perspective, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48, s. 3-13.
Mintz, A. ve DeRouen, K., Jr. (2010), Understanding Foreign Policy
Decision Making, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Mintz, A. ve Wayne, C. (2016), The Polythink Syndrome and Elite Group
Decision-Making, Advances in Political Psychology, 37 (1), s. 3-23.
Mitchell, S. McLaughlin ve Prins, B. C. (2004), Rivalry and Diversionary
Uses of Force, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48 (6), s. 937-961.
Morgan, T.C., and Campbell, S.H. (1991), Domestic Structure, Decisional
Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight? Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 35 (2), s. 187–211.
Mueller, J. (1973), War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, New York: Wiley
Nisbett, R. E. ve Borgida, E. (1975), Attribution and the Psychology of
Prediction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (5), s.
932-943.
Pardesi, M. (2017), Image Theory and the initiation of Strategic Rivalries,
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, http://politics.oxfordre.
com/view/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190228637.001.0001/ acrefore9780190228637-e-318, (Erişim Tarihi: 17.11.2018).
Powell, R. (2004), Bargaining and Learning While Fighting, American
Journal of Political Science, 48(2), s. 344–61.
Putnam, D. R. (1988), Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of
Two-Level Games, International Organization, 42 (3), s. 427-460.
Robinson, P. (1999), The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign
Policy? Political Communication, 25, s. 301-309.
Russett, B. (1993), Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–
Cold War World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saunders, E. N. (2017), No Substitute for Experience: Presidents,
Advisers, and Information in Group Decision-Making, International
Organization, 71: (Supplement), s. S219–S247.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982), The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants,
Purposes, Evidence and Limitations, Journal of Economic
Literature 20 (June), s. 529-563.
Shirkey, Z. (2016), Uncertainty and War Duration, International Studies
Review, 18, s. 244-267.
Simmell, G. (1898), The Persistence of Social Groups, American Journal
of Sociology, 4, s. 829-36.
Slantchev, B. L. (2003), The Principle of Convergence in War Time
Negotiations, American Political Science Review, 97 (4), s. 621-634.
Smith, A. ve Stam, A. C. (2004), Bargaining and the Nature of War,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48 (6), s. 783-813.
Snyder, J. (1991), Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International
Ambition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Tetlock, P. E. (1999), Theory-Driven Reasoning about Plausible Pasts and
Probable Futures in World Politics: Are We Prisoners of Our
Preconceptions?” American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), s.
335-366
Thies, C. (2010), Role Theory and Foreign Policy, (Ed.: R. Denmark), The
International Studies Encyclopedia, s. 6335–6356, Chichester,
U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Thies, C. G. (2017), Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis in Latin
America, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13, s. 662-681.
Tversky, A. (1975), A Critique of Expected Utility Theory: Descriptive
and Normative Considerations, Springer, 9 (2), s. 163-173.
Vertzberger, Y. (1984), Bureaucratic-Organizational Politics and
Information Processing in a Developing State, International Studies
Quarterly, 28, s. 69-95.
Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (1986), Foreign Policy Decisionmakers as PracticalIntuitive Historians: Applied History and Its Shortcomings,
International Studies Quarterly, 30(2), s. 223–247.
Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (2008), Misperception in International Politics: A
Typological Framework for Analysis, International Relations, 9 (3),
s. 207-234.
Vertzberger, Y. Y.I. (1990), The World in Their Minds: Information
Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decision
Making, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
von Neumann, J. ve Morgenstern, O. (1944), Theory of Games and
Economic Behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Waltz, K. (1959), Man, the State, and War, New York: Columbia
University Press.
Wendt, A. E. (1987), The Agent-Structure Problem in International
Relations Theory, International Organization 41(3), s. 335-70.
ISSN:1303-0035
Yayın Aralığı:Yılda 4 Sayı
Yayıncı:Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü