Rationality, bureaucratic politics, and cognitive processes in foreign policy decision-making: An analysis of United States policy decisions towards Japan, 1948-1954.
Item
-
Title
-
Rationality, bureaucratic politics, and cognitive processes in foreign policy decision-making: An analysis of United States policy decisions towards Japan, 1948-1954.
-
Identifier
-
AAI9630473
-
identifier
-
9630473
-
Creator
-
Kim, Hyun.
-
Contributor
-
Adviser: Howard H. Lentner
-
Date
-
1996
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Political Science, International Law and Relations | History, United States
-
Abstract
-
This research analyzes a series of the American decisions pertaining to the formation of the US-Japanese alliance in the early 1950s, from the perspective of the foreign policy decision-making approach. By applying the three major decision- making models (the analytic, bureaucratic politics, and cognitive models) the research explains how and why the four main decisions were actually made: (1) to postpone the peace treaty in October 1948; (2) to conclude the peace and security treaties with Japan in September 1950; (3) to proceed with Japanese rearmament in September 1950; and (4) to return the northern part of the Ryukyus and retain exclusive control over Okinawa and the Bonin Islands in June 1953. The explanations of the decisions center on answering the two research questions. (1) Why and how did the decision makers choose certain initial preferences as to the particular decision problem? (2) How did their divergent preferences aggregate to produce the final decisions?;The main findings are as follows. (1) The decision makers' preferences were determined by their organizational interests, personal beliefs and cognitive processes, weighing the multiple interests, including broad national interests, or some combination of these factors. Any single model of decision-making has not adequately explained the whole process of individual preference choice for each decision case. Explanations provided by the three models have needed to be used in some combination to understand the whole process. (2) The collective process that led to the peace treaty decision has been best explained by the bureaucratic politics model, whereas the processes from which the other three decisions resulted have been best accounted for by the analytic model. In none of the decision cases was there evidence of concurrence-seeking to promote the solidarity of the decision-making group, as predicted by the cognitive model. (3) Why and how the decision makers selected their policy preferences did not directly affect how the divergent preferences aggregated to produce the final decisions. (4) Three factors have been identified as affecting the collective processes of the four decisions: presidential decision-making styles; the existence of effective coordinating agencies; and constraints imposed by the international environment.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
