The Role of the Bureaucracy in Foreign Policy Formulation

By: Abdulkareem Abdulrazaq Kayode

Abstract
Decision making in foreign policy analysis tends to explain an aspect in the study of
international politics and explains why and how states behave the way they behave in the
international arena. However, in the quest for decision making, there are actors involved in
which one of the actors is the state bureaucracy. National bureaucracies have been at the heart of
foreign policy analysis. Bureaucracies are found in both small and large states whose interest is
to defend the national interest. Therefore, this paper seeks to question who are the foreign policy
decision makers, what interest do they have? Which foreign policy instrument do they hope to
use to achieve their objective? This paper concluded thus, the bureaucracy is an important
institution of the state whose functions have been primarily policy execution, however, the
influence of bureaucracy had gone beyond the execution of policies alone, and it has permeated
through the policy formulation process and the policy itself. Therefore, the role of bureaucracy is
far more than just the implementation of foreign policy but rather it remains one of the key actors
involved in the making of the policy through dialogue, debate, conflict and compromise.
Keywords: foreign policy, bureaucracy, policy analysis, policy implementation, international
politics, international relations.
INTRODUCTION
Foreign policy is the strategy chosen by the national government of a state to achieve its relations
with external entities; this may even include the decision to do nothing within the context of
international relations (Smith. S et al, 2008: 12). States relates with its external environment via
code of conducts, these codes can be regarded as the foreign policy of the state. These policies
needs to be in place to guide the relationship of a state and its international environment as noted
by William Wallace 1971:7 as foreign policy is that area of politics which bridges the allimportant boundary between the nation- state and its international environment (Wallace,
2008). Foreign policy is just like every other state policy directed to solve a specific issue within
the state but seeks to address issues outside the boundary of the state but formulated within the
state.

Bureaucracy is any large-scale organization of appointed officials whose primary function is to

implement the policies of the decision makers. It is a rational system or organized structure
designed to permit the efficient and effective execution of public policy (Tasie, 1997).
Decision making in foreign policy analysis tends to explain the approach to the study of
international politics and explains why and how states behave the way they behave in the
international arena. However, in the quest for decision making, there are actors involved in
which one of the actors is the state bureaucracy. As noted by Smith et al, 2008: 74) National
bureaucracies have been at the heart of foreign policy analysis (Steve Smith, 2008).
Bureaucracies are found in both small and large states whose interest is to defend the national
interest. Although there are several organizations under the bureaucracy at large which they may
include the Foreign Ministry, State department, Ministries of defense, and the finance ministry
each pushing up argument in respect of its organization as rightly put by Allison (1971) they
thus seek to mold that national interest in ways consistent with their own organizational interest
(T, 1971).
Therefore, it boils down to the question of who are the foreign policy decision makers, what
interest do they have? Which foreign policy instrument do they hope to use to achieve their
objective?
Also, it seeks to address the process involved by which the participants and organizations
struggle to bring about the decision they want. The degree of foreign policy actors influence in
the struggle for relevance through information and argument is also of greater importance. And
to identify the sources of bureaucratic power and the resultant effect of their decisions that later
emerge.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Different theories seek to explain the concept of foreign policy in accordance with the belief of
the school of thought. There are several approaches to the understanding of international politics
or better say world politics. Walt M.S (1998) no single approach can capture all the complexity
of the contemporary world politics. Therefore, we are better off with a diverse array of
competing ideas rather than a single theoretical orthodoxy (Walt, 1998). The bone of idea
usually lies within the Realists, Liberalists and the Radicals or the structuralisms. The study of
international politics is best understood as a protracted competition between the realist, liberal
and radical traditions. Realism emphasizes the enduring prosperity for conflict between states;
liberalism identifies several ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies; and the radical
tradition describes how the entire system of state relations might be transformed (Walt, 1998)

MODELS OF DECISION MAKING

Foreign policy just like every other state policies have goals and objectives towards which
policies are directed, this enables the government of the state concerned to measure courses of
action and as well the consequences of their action. Foreign policy decision making does not
refer only to the making of conscious choices, but also to a range of personal, organizational,
institutional and environmental factors which also help account for the flow of events (Micheal
Clarke, 1989). Therefore to understand the realm of decision making, we need to critically
analyse it from the system approach- having input, output, feedback and the environment.
Eastons work on systems approach gave a paradigm of approaching issues in political science
as if they were operating in a system.

The models of foreign policy making tend to explain how different answers can be offered to a
single question. The realist pushed an argument forward claiming that the government of a state
is the monolithic actor in realm of foreign policy formation. And sees inter- state struggle for
power as the order of the day in the international arena which tagged the international
environment as chaotic, hostile and dangerous.
There are however, three basic concepts in the realm of traditional foreign policy decision
making; decision, decision- maker and the decision- making process. The trend goes thus;
foreign policy entails a series of decisions made by a group of people who can be labeled
decision makers. It goes further to explain the behavior of an individual or a group of individuals
who are saddled with the responsibility of choosing, making and enforcing decisions within a
structured environment (Synder et.al).
Therefore, foreign policy decision making can be analsed from four different models-

The rational actor model

Bureaucratic / organizational model

Pluralist model

Psychological/ Psychoanalytical model.

RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL

Human beings are seen as rational beings and as such the decision to pursue a right course of
action is quite fundamental to the making of foreign policy. But the question often raised is why
does a policy maker tend to pursue a course rather than the other? The foreign policy maker is
however seen an actor that considers possible course of actions and evaluates the likely outcomes
of each in terms of costs and benefits. In essence, the foreign policy decision maker is expected

as a rational being to take the right step after weighing the positive and negative consequences
the decision might bring. This view is rightly shaped by Sidney Verba (1961) if the decision
maker behaves rationally, the observer, knowing the rules of rationality, can rehearse the
decisional process in his own mind, and if he knows the decision- makers goals, can both
predict the decision and understand why the particular decision was made. (Verba, 1961).
Four basic concepts are quite central to the Rational Actor Model; goals and objectives,
alternatives, consequences and choice. Goals and objectives refer to the interest and values of
the agent are translated into a payoff or utility or preference function, which represents the
desirability or utility of alternative sets of consequences. Ranks all possible sets of consequences
in terms of her or his values and objectives - number of side effects (Graham T. Allison, 1999, p.
18). Second core concept alternatives is explained that the rational agent must choose among a
set of alternatives displayed before him or her in a particular situation. It further takes its
alternative choice to the output of decision. Thirdly is Consequences which further takes rational
actors to consider that to each alternative is attached a set of consequences or outcomes of choice
that will ensue if that particular alternative is chosen. And lastly is Choice which is the most
difficult of all. The decision maker is at liberty to use any criteria to choose among sets of
alternatives. Ideally, the rational actor chooses the options with less negative consequential effect
after a careful survey of the costs and benefits.
So much we have discussed that decision makers are seen as rational actors and take rational
decisions, there is often a case of interest in the field of decision making which are normally
sorted out via arguing and bargaining. As argument is seen as a major tool in the process of
decision making which more often than not replace bargaining. As decision makers seek to
protect their core policies and interests; Smith. S, et al (2008) has it as more formally, the

actors involved are instrumentally rational, carefully calculating, and seeking to maximize given
interests (Steve Smith, 2008).
BUREAUCRATIC/ ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL
Graham Allison disputed the traditional view of the decision making strategy of foreign policy
placing the government of a state as the monolithic unitary foreign policy actor that forms the
decision making unit of the states foreign policy. Allison in Essence of Decision argues that the
traditional type of analysis must be supplemented, if not supplanted, by frames of reference that
focus on the governmental machine- the organizations and the political actors involved in the
policy process (Graham T. Allison, 1999). He pushed two ideas forward about the actors to be
involved in the foreign policy making of a state. First is the organizational process model
claiming that governmental agencies with semi- autonomous power having a stake or interest in
the process of decision making. The other view of Allison sees foreign policy making to be
borne out of various bargaining games among the key players within the government. These
perspectives are commonly regarded as the bureaucratic politics perspective to the explanation of
foreign policy analysis. More on this model would be explained later as it is the crux of this
paper.
PLURALIST MODEL
The basic thrust of the pluralist model is based on the assumption that power is dispersed
throughout the society in an attempt to eliminate domination from a particular section of the
society. Pluralist maintain that media and publics are independent of political interference and, as
such, can (and should) act as powerful constraints upon governments. The pluralist model placed
more emphasis on the role of public opinion and the media in shaping the foreign policy of the
state. This can only flourish in a free democratic setting where public opinion and the media

hold a place. The liberalist is seen as to be having a stronghold in the explanation of the pluralist
model. The liberals have the assumption that the state enjoys sovereignty but not an autonomous
power; there are several forces behind the states decision making which may include the media
and publics.
Example of this model can be derived from the March 1966 anti- war protest in the New York,
the 1967 Washington D.C protest and the 1971 Washington D.C protest forcing the Johnsons
government to end the Vietnam War. This shows the level of awareness of the publics through
the media to influence the policy of the government.
PSYCHOLOGICAL/ PSYCHO-ANALYSTICAL MODEL
Another phase in the model of foreign policy making appeared to discredit the assumptions of
the rational actor model. The psychological/ psycho- analytical model criticizes the simple
behavioral model. The psychological model assumptions is that there is an influence shaping the
rationality of the decision makers. Tagging Saddam Hussein as another Hitler by Bush senior
in 1991 which gave credence to his involvement in the invasion of Kuwait in displays how
rationality is influenced. In another similar situation, the question of why Bush II had to invade
Iraq in 2003 is more than giving a simple excuse of searching for the Weapon of Mass
Destruction. These scenarios give a room for an account to explain the psychological model.
BUREAUCRACY AND FOREIGN POLICY FORMULATION
Due to large complexities in the state affairs both domestic and international, state needs to
arrange themselves into units regarded as bureaus. Each bureau is saddled with certain roles and
responsibilities as individual leaders cannot consider solution to every problem that arises.
Therefore there would be need for numerous alternatives that would be considered in the advent
of seeking solution to problems or devising policies to promote an agenda. Therefore, as

complex issues arises from international politics, state needs to align into bureaucracies meaning
that there would be arrangement in ministries, departments and agencies as the case may be.
The role of bureaucracy in a state setting cannot be over emphasized as bureaucracy performs a
lot of governmental functions and are seen to be influential in decision making and execution.
This argument is supported by Tasie G. O (1997) bureaucracies, we should note, are very
influential. Their influence makes bureaucrats not just policy executors but policy makers and
indirectly the policy itself. They draft memoranda, prepare policy agenda, negotiate funds and
technical assistance, work out governmental priorities, etc. this functional significance reinforces
its political importance (Tasie, 1997).
When an issue arises, players from different bureaus seek to address the issue base on their
organizational interest and perception towards the issue. Each and every unit of the state
bureaucracy feels important in decision making because they are safe guarding a particular unit
of the state relations. Although it should be noted that decisions arrived at to form the state
foreign policy at that time and on that particular issue is a resultant of huge debate, conflict and
compromise. Allison (1971: 162) puts it as .resultant (or content of policy) is not chosen as a
solution to problem but rather results from compromise, conflict and confusion of officials with
diverse interests and unequal influence (Graham T. Allison, 1999).
This idea is also shared by Jarel Rosatis article on the bureaucratic politics model. Rosati tried
to distinguish between the structure and the process of decision making trying to gauge the
degree of involvement of the participants involved in foreign policy formulation and what
initiate such involvement. Rosati postulated a maxim of where you stand depends on where you
sit (Rosati. J.1981).This maxim brings Allisons vague argument into reality. It explains that the
position of the participants on foreign policy decision making is highly influenced by the

position they hold or the organization they represents. Also, Rosati tried to link up the
relationship between position and preference.
This perspective of foreign policy analysis offers a distinct different explanation as against the
traditional rational actor model. Bureaucratic politics model undermined the traditional rational
actor model by given an assumption that foreign policy emanates from the interaction of
individual bureaucrats playing political games to advance their own and their organizations
interests (Micheal Clarke, 1989).
Foreign ministries, state departments, external affairs ministry, defense ministry, the finance
ministry, economic planning unit, trade and investments etc. depending on the state involved are
all at the heart of foreign policy analysis each playing different roles. Be it large or small, every
state has units of bureaucracies carrying out routine functions aiding the movement of the state.
Although, names might differ but function could be similar. Kegley W. C and Raymond G. A In
the United states, for instance, the state department, Defense Department, and Central
Intelligence Agency are all key participants in the foreign policy machinery. Other agencies also
bear responsibility for specialized aspects of U.S foreign relations, such as the Treasury,
Commerce and Agriculture departments. Similar agencies characterize the foreign affairs
machinery of most other major powers whose governments face many of the same foreign policy
management challenges in the United States (Charles W. Kegley, 2007).
This governmental politics is quite prevalent in the United States and other countries where
democracy is the order of the day and there is wider participation in the decision making
processes. Unlike the less democratic societies such as North Korea where there is high level of
dictatorship. Foreign policy of North Korea has always been centered on the Kim Yong II where

he reflects in every decision making be it directly from him or a recommendation from the
Ministry of foreign Affair.
CASE STUDY I: CUBA MISSILE CRISIS
Bureaucratic politics was first applied to the Cuba missile crisis which show cased the strengths
and weaknesses of the model. Allison explained the Cuba Missile Crises of October 1962
between United State of America and the Soviet Union in three models. Model I explains
governmental action as a result of a monolithic and unified decision of the state as the sole
foreign policy decision maker and taker for the state. Model II explains the decision of the state
as an organizational output. It explores the nature of organizations based on their Standard
Operational Procedures. Model III focuses attention on the politics inside a government (Graham
T. Allison, 1999). Policies are characterized neither by a unitary actor nor as an organizational
output but rather a result of serious bargaining games among the players in the national
government. However, in the course of evaluating the three models to see which suits to explain
the model more, it was seen that the three models complement one another. Although, Allisons
argument is that there cant be a governmental decision without some debates or consultations.
Allison G. the leaders who sit atop organizations are no monolith. Rather, each individual in
this group is, in his or her own right, a player in a central, competitive game. The game is
politics: bargaining along regular circuits among players positioned hierarchically within the
government. (T, 1971).
In dissecting the Model III stated above and applying it to the reality of the crisis, the American
Blockade of Cuba and the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba summarizes it all. It was a
long process of debate and arguments before President Kennedy could push up a decision
(foreign policy) as to how to deal with the missiles planted in Cuba by the Soviet forces which is

a danger in view for America. According to Robert Kennedy, the fourteen people involved were
very significant- bright, able, dedicated people, all of whom had the greatest affection for the
US (Steel, 1969). Although, there were sharp differs in given solution to what should be done
to the crisis on ground.
With the discovery of the problem, President Kennedy informed the inner circle of advisers who
met at the Oval Room of the White House from 16th to 19th of October. The caucus was often
referred to as the Executive Committee of the National Security (EX- COM). The Joint Chiefs of
staff was so keen to invasion of Cuba and the Soviet forces to eliminate the threat although the
new head Max- well Taylor wants a more intelligence report to be gathered before any action
would be taken, this could take up to few days. The Secretary of State- Dean Rusk was more of a
diplomatic voice who opined that Castro (Cuba President) should be contacted to let Soviet
forces out of his territory so as it wont fall his government. The Secretary of Defense- Mc
Namara wants a retaliatory attack and a blockade to avoid future planting of missiles in the
American neighborhood to avoid threat to the country. Mc George Bundy who serves as the
National Security Adviser was uncharacteristically reticent but two days after he supported the
attack against the missiles.
On the 19th of October, President Kennedy met the Chiefs of Staff and found that they insist on
the attack and Mc Namara on the blockage- negotiation option. The debate now slims down to
two sides, air attack and blockade. President Kennedy subscribed to the ideas and suggests that
the deal will be taking a- two route agenda. First a blockade with two days ultimatum and if no
compliance, an air strike will follow of which the air strike will only be limited to the missile
bound areas. Although, there was an amendment to this position by Dillon who suggested a
seventy- two hours interval between demand and action (Department of Defense, 1996: 126-36).

As President Kennedy decides to address the American people, not knowing what President
Kennedy wants to say, Khrushchev also convened the full presidium and presumes the worst
(attack on Cuba).
After the announcing Americans position of the blockade, the Soviet Union perceived America
from the weak side which left the Soviet leadership with room to manipulate. Khrushchev issued
a defiant message to Kennedy on the 24th of October. The following morning, the Soviet
leadership received a tough response from Kennedy. By this Khrushchev began to switch room
for conciliation through the usual Presidium and gave his condition as well. Khrushchev wants
America to promise not to invade Cuba and remove its missiles in Turkey. The later demand was
quite difficult for American to accept. (Steve Smith, 2008).
CASE STUDY II: THE US INVASION OF IRAQ
As it was widely presumed that 9/11 placed Iraq on US government table but contrary to that, it
has been there for long. The 9/11 just created a conducive atmosphere and a dramatic way to
finish the unfinished business of the US in the Bush I era. Emphasis was placed more on
individuals during the Bush II era than organizational interest. These individuals who are highplaced seized the moment to make sure Saddam Hussein is put out of office. These individuals
are referred to as policy entrepreneurs by Allison. Allison refer to them as entrepreneurs because
they nature agenda and brace it up to make it look attractive, genuine and sellable (Graham T.
Allison, 1999).
The top leading policy entrepreneur was Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Defense Secretary. He
brought about the idea of Weapon of Mass Destruction in which he claimed is in possession of
Saddam Hussein. Although Wolfowitz was not alone in the struggle, he formed a Committee of
the Deputies (Smith, 2008). This Committee advanced some issues forward against Saddam but

Bush delegated the function to the Counter Terrorism Officer Clarke to search for evidence
against Saddam Hussein linking him to terrorism attack (Clarke, 2004).
However, two principal officers were instrumental in the eventual attack on Iraq- Vice president
Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
CONCLUSION
The bureaucracy is an important institution of the state whose functions have been primarily
policy execution, however, the influence of bureaucracy had gone beyond the execution of
policies alone, and it has permeated through the policy formulation process and the policy itself.
Therefore, the role of bureaucracy is far more than just the implementation of foreign policy but
rather it remains one of the key actors involved in the making of the policy through dialogue,
debate, conflict and compromise.
The bureaucracy encompasses ministries, departments and agencies who work for the state in
different capacities, these MDAs have different goals, objectives and interests. These differences
in ideology are displayed in the making of policies as each bureaucrat will want to pursue their
organizational interests. Nevertheless, these interests are centered on the advancement of the
National Interest of the state which is of great importance in the formation of a states foreign
policy.
Works Cited
Charles W. Kegley, J. G. (2007). The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. Concage
Learning.
Clarke, R. (2004). Against all enemies: inside Americas war on terror. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Graham T. Allison, P. Z. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Longman
Publishers.
Micheal Clarke, B. W. (1989). Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach.
Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

R., C. (2004). Against all enemies: inside Americas war on terror. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Smith, M. A. (March 2008). US bureaucratic politics and the decision to invade Iraq. Contemporary
Politics, 91- 105.
Steel, R. (1969). Interview with Robert Kennedy. New York: New York Review of Books.
Steve Smith, T. D. (2008). Foreign Policy: theories, actors and cases. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Synder, R. C. (1954). decision making as an approach to the study of international politics. Princeton N. J:
princeton University Press.
T, A. G. (1971). Essence of Decisioon: Explaining the Cuba Missile Crisis. Boston: Little Brown.
Tasie, G. O. (1997). Public sector Administration and Management. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications
(M) Sdn. Bhd.
Verba, S. (1961). Assumptions of Rationality and Non-Rationality in Models of the International System.
World Politics, 93- 117.
Wallace, W. (2008). Foreign policy and the political process: studies in the comparative politics.
Michigan: Macmillan.
Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, 29- 32: 34- 36.