Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:45:23.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poliheuristic Theory and Crisis Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Turkey with China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2011

Nukhet A. Sandal ,
Enyu Zhang ,
Carolyn C. James  and
Patrick James
Nukhet A. Sandal*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Enyu Zhang*
Affiliation:
Seattle University
Carolyn C. James*
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University
Patrick James*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
*
Nukhet A. Sandal, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, 111 Thayer Street, Room 206, Providence RI 02912-1970, USA, nukhet_sandal@brown.edu
Enyu Zhang, International Studies Program, Seattle University, 901 12th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122, USA, zhange@seattleu.edu
Carolyn C. James, International Studies and Languages Division, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu CA 90263, USA, ccjames1@msn.com
Carolyn C. James, International Studies and Languages Division, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu CA 90263, USA, ccjames1@msn.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Poliheuristic theory (PH) is an innovative attempt to conceptualize decision making in a way that recognizes patterns deriving from both cognitive and rational schools of thought about how foreign policy is made. Crisis decision making, a setting in which the political aspects emphasized by PH can be expected to operate, is the subject of this article. The study focuses on Turkey and China, two important states that frequently are characterized as sui generis and possibly unsuited to comparative analysis in the context of any overarching theory. As will become apparent, PH is capable of explaining crisis decision making for China and Turkey and the common pattern we explore is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cross-national application of the theory within the crisis domain.

Résumé. La théorie poliheuristique (PH) est une tentative novatrice de concevoir la prise de décision en reconnaissant l'apport des modes de comportement issus des écoles de pensée cognitive et rationnelle. Cet article porte sur la politique étrangère en temps de crise et offre un cadre politique au sein duquel les modes de comportement identifiés par la théorie poliheuristique devraient normalement opérer. Plus particulièrement, l'étude se concentre sur le cas de la Chine et de la Turquie, deux États souvent considérés comme singuliers et possiblement inadaptés à l'analyse théorique de la politique étrangère comparée. Toutefois, comme cet article le démontre, la PH est en mesure d'expliquer de manière comparée la prise de décision de la Chine et de la Turquie en temps de crise. Les conclusions de recherche laissent penser que cette étude pourrait bien être le prélude de nombreuses recherches employant la PH dans le domaine de la politique étrangère comparée en temps de crise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 27 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelman, Jonathan and Shih, Chih-yu. 1993. Symbolic War: The Chinese Use of Force 1840–1908. Taipei: Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
Below, Amy. 2008. “U.S. Presidential Decisions on Ozone Depletion and Climate Change: A Foreign Policy Analysis.” Foreign Policy Analysis 4 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bila, Fikret. 2004. Hangi PKK? Satranç Tahtas̅ndaki Yeni Hamleler. Ankara: Ümit Yay̅nc̅l̅k.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Davis B., Chan, Steve and Kringen, John A.. 1977. “Understanding How Others Treat Crises: A Multimethod Approach.” International Studies Quarterly 21: 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, Davis B., Chan, Steve and Kringen, John A.. 1979. Understanding Foreign Policy Decisions: The Chinese Case. New York and London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Brecher, Michael. 1999. “International Studies in the Twentieth Century and Beyond: Flawed Dichotomies, Synthesis, Cumulation.” International Studies Quarterly 43: 213–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Michael and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 1997. A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Michael and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 2000. A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2005. Principles of International Politics: People's Power, Preferences, and Perceptions. 3rd ed.Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Smith, Alistair, Siverson, Randolph M. and Morrow, James D.. 2004. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cai, Yongshun. 2008. “Power Structure and Regime Resilience: Contentious Politics in China.” British Journal of Political Science 3 (3): 411–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Jian. 2000. Mao's China and the Cold War. Chapel Hill NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry and Seawright, Jason. 2004. “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Mahoney, James and Seawright, Jason. 2004. “Claiming Too Much: Warnings about Selection Bias.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Cuhadar-Gurkaynak, Esra and Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. 2004. “Decisionmaking Process Matters: Lessons Learned From Two Foreign Policy Cases.” Turkish Studies 5 (2): 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacey, Raymond and Carlson, Lisa J.. 2004. “Traditional Decision Analysis and the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (1): 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellios, Rosita and Yilmaz, Nadir Kemal. 2008. “Turkey and China: A Study in Symmetry.” Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies 2 (1): 13–30.Google Scholar
DeRouen, Karl Jr., and Sprecher, Christopher. 2004. “Initial Crisis Reaction and Poliheuristic Theory.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (1): 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W.. vol. 7. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. 1979. “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison.” In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, ed. Lauren, Paul Gordon. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Godwin, Paul H.D.B. 1999. “Change and Continuity in Chinese Military Doctrine, 1949–1999.” Paper presented at the conference on PLA Warfighting, 1949–1999, Center for Naval Analysis, Alexandria VA.Google Scholar
Harding, Harry. 1994. “The Contemporary Study of Chinese Politics: An Introduction.” The China Quarterly 139: 699–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Patrick and Zhang, Enyu. 2005. Chinese Choices: A Poliheuristic Analysis of Foreign Policy Crises, 1950–1996. Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1): 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 1995. Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 1998. “China's Militarized Interstate Dispute Behaviour 1949–1992: A First Cut at the Data.” The China Quarterly 153: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (1), February 2004.Google Scholar
Kinzer, Stephen. 2001. Crescent and Star: Turkey between Two Worlds. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Lampton, David M., ed. 2001. The Making of Chinese Foreign and Security Policy in the Era of Reform, 1978–2000. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langlois, Jean-Pierre and Langlois, Catherine. 2006. “When Fully Informed States Make Good on the Threat of War: Rational Escalation and the Failure of Bargaining.” British Journal of Political Science 36: 645–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1992. “Prospect Theory and International Relations: Theoretical Applications and Analytical Problems.” Political Psychology 13: 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1994. “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield.” International Organization 48 (2): 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1996. “Loss Aversion, Framing and Bargaining: The Implications of Prospect Theory for International Conflict.” International Political Science Review 17 (2): 179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 2003. “Political Psychology and Foreign Policy.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie and Jevis, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Ning. 1997. The Dynamics of Foreign-Policy Decisionmaking in China. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 1993. “The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Non-compensatory Theory of Decision Making.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 595–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex, ed. 2003a. Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 2003b. “Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Poliheuristic Perspective.” In Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making, ed. Mintz, Alex. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 2004a. “How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (1): 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 2004b. “Foreign Policy Decision Making in Familiar and Unfamiliar Settings: An Experimental Study of High-Ranking Military Officers.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 2004c. “Are Leaders Susceptible to Negative Political Advice? An Experimental Study of High-Ranking Military Officers.” In New Directions for International Relations, ed. Mintz, Alex and Russett, Bruce M.. Lahman MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 2005. “Applied Decision Analysis: Utilizing Poliheuristic Theory to Explain and Predict Foreign Policy and National Security Decisions.” International Studies Perspective 6 (1): 94–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex and DeRouen, Karl Jr. 2010. Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex and Geva, Nehemia. 1997. “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. Geva, Nehemia and Mintz, Alex. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L. 2004. “Tools for Qualitative Research.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Nincic, Miroslav. 1997. “Loss Aversion and the Domestic Context of Military Intervention.” Political Research Quarterly 50: 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Charles and Job, Brian. 1986. “The president and the political use of force.” American Political Science Review 80 (2): 542–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. 2005. “The Impact of Institutionalized Ideas in Coalition Foreign Policy Making: Turkey as an Example, 1991–2002.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1(3): 249–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. 2009. The Role of Ideas in Coalition Government Foreign Policymaking: The Case of Turkey between 1991 and 2002. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishing.Google Scholar
Pye, Lucien. 1990. “China: Erratic State, Frustrated Society.” Foreign Affairs 69: 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redd, Steven B. 2002. “The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46: 335–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redd, Steven B. 2005. “The Influence of Advisers and Decision Strategies on Foreign Policy Choices: President Clinton's Decision to Use Force in Kosovo.” International Studies Perspectives 6: 129–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, Philip. 2003. Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy since the Cold War. Seattle WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Thomas W. and Shambaugh, David, ed. 1994. Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Robert S. and Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2006. “Introduction.” In New Directions in the Study of China's Foreign Policy, ed. Johnston, Alastair Ian and Ross, Robert S.. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, Greg. 2009. “Implications of New Cultural Theory for Comparative Foreign Policy.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago IL.Google Scholar
Shih, Chih-yu. 1990. The Spirit of Chinese Foreign Policy: A Psychocultural View. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Chih-yu. 1998. “A Postcolonial Approach to the State Question in China.” Journal of Contemporary China 17: 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1997 Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Steinbruner, John D. 1974. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. 1991. “Learning in US and Soviet Foreign Policy: In Search of an Elusive Concept.” In Learning in US and Soviet Foreign Policy, ed. Breslauer, George B. and Tetlock, Philip E.. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Whiting, Allen S. 1975. The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence: India and Vietnam. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Whiting, Allen S. 2001. “China's Use of Force, 1950–96, and Taiwan.” International Security 26 (2): 103–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Bing. 1994. “The Study of Chinese Foreign Policy: Problems and Prospect.” World Politics 46: 235–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Quansheng. 1996. Interpreting Chinese Foreign Policy: the Micro-Macro Linkage Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Suisheng, ed. 2004. Chinese Foreign Policy: Pragmatism and Strategic Behavior. Armonk, NY & London, England: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar