Pakistan Journal of Humanities & Social Science Research

Volume No. 01, Issue No. 01(June, 2018)

FOREIGN POLICY MECHANISM IN USA:

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS

Ahmad Ali*

Abstract

Contrary to other liberal democracies in the world, the foreign policy in

US is made in a very clumsy way. The constitution of USA has put the
president and congress into constant tug of war over the issue of making
US’s foreign policy. Constitutionally, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the
bureaucracy, the President, the Congress, media and public opinion are
given special role to frame the US foreign policy. The Constitution has built
a bulwark against the despotic and tyrannical tendencies against any of
these stakeholders. Apart from the compulsory role of all the said
departments, much space is given to some external factors like UN,
International law, NATO and the special interests of other US business and
strategic partners to put pressure at numerous dimensions and aspects on
US foreign policy mechanism. Consequently, it is difficult to figure out the
more efficient stake holders involved in foreign policy formulation process
in USA.

Keywords: Congress, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Stake holders, Realism,

Bureaucracy

Introduction

Foreign policy formulation strategy in US is the essence of foreign

policy choices by means of which, goals are established and the policies to
achieve them are shaped. These choices are mainly the pursuance of liberal

*
Department of Political Science, Higher Education Department KPK.
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 14

international order, nuclear proliferation, durable peace and stability in

Afghanistan and Pakistan, free market economy and global war on terror.
The foreign policy politics is the process of these choices and the making of
foreign policy through the institutions and aimed the societal influences of
the US political system.
This research paper in its first part, will primarily discuss the basic
concept of foreign policy which is the rudimentary theme of this paper. In
this regard the second part of this paper focuses the role of different state
level institutions in foreign policy formulation process in US. In this portion
the role of different stakeholders like Congress, US President and foreign
ministry shall be thoroughly converse to understand their role in the
mechanism of foreign policy in US. Strategically, Foreign policy is used by
government as a guideline for their action in the international scenario. It
outlines the goals, which the statesmen have agreed to pursue in a given
relationship or situation. (Adler and Hass, 1990)
States establish manifold secretarial structures to communicate their
foreign policies. Different institutions and stakeholders amass information
about a state of affairs through numerous channels such as writing
memoranda to outline potential substitutes for action, holding meetings to
discuss the issue in various confidential meetings. Many political scientists
have endeavored to define some states regarding their foreign policies in the
context of their cultural and political history. For instance, the Soviet Union
(now Russian Federation) frequently experienced destructive land invasions
over the centuries (culminating into World War II) while the United States
due to their isolationistic policy relished two centuries of safety mechanism
and did not take active part in global politics. Thus, the military power of the
Soviet Union, and its control of buffer states in Eastern Europe, seemed self-
protective to Soviet leaders but appeared antagonistic to the US leaders.
Before the emergence of the representative democracy, diplomats and
soldiers jointly used to formulate foreign policy maintaining highest level of
secrecy. Thus, masses could not participate in or influence the formulation
of foreign policy of their respective states. For instance, the history of
Europe substantiates such secret diplomatic practices until the World War I
and several treaties were signed without considering the wishes of the people
concerned.
However the maturity and culmination of the democratic system have
reformed this notion entirely and now democratic institutions like
legislatures, the media, various interest groups and public opinion have
come on front position and are playing their significant roles in making of
15 Ahmad Ali

foreign policy. Similarly, the cultures and religious beliefs of the people
deeply affect the shaping and reshaping of foreign policies of several
governments. Moreover, the executive office of the Government is no longer
wholly sovereign in delineating and executing foreign policy. Thus the
presence of these institutions is a foremost constraint on the part of rulers
regarding their function of making foreign policy. In modern states all the
stakeholders are answerable to masses for all their actions in decision
making with regard to foreign policy.
Many forces function at different phases in the formulation of foreign
policies. These policies are, first, highly affected by the individuals who have
their say in decision making, secondly the type of government and society
wherein they are serving, and lastly by the external or global factors. Thus,
foreign policy formulation entirely opposes realists’ hypothesis who claims
that framing of foreign policy is exclusively state action at institutional level.
Foreign policy always zooms in various domestic and international issues that
are the actual limitations on designing foreign policy.
The differences between or among the processes to formulate foreign
policies adopted by different states are found due to different factors such as
the kind of government practiced in the state; whether it is a military
dictatorship or communist rule, or it is one party, bi-party or even multiparty
polity, comparatively, democratic states, sharing values and interests, are
likely to collaborate better with each other than with non-democratic states.
(Almond, 1950)
To summarize, it can be said that foreign policy is the multidimensional
product of a complex process. Foreign policy formulation is the result of the
competing ideas, challenging domestic interests and competing government
institutions. Thus no single character, body or institution or any principle of
foreign policy regulates the foreign policy mechanism in a state.
Generally, states verbalize foreign policies to reach unity as it has to
address a concern or to decide something about any region round the world.
Thus the states through their foreign policy attempt to attain the target of
incorporating the interests of its people and to pursue solid and reliable
policies.

Role of Stakeholders in Making Foreign Policy in US

Due to the presence of principle of separation of powers in US political

system, the framers of the constitution divided the powers of the foreign
policy formulation among the three branches of the government; executive,
legislature and judiciary. The executive is responsible for the formulation of
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 16

foreign policy, while the legislature is to supervise the policy. For example,
all the treaties of the executive are subject to ratification by Senate, and the
judiciary has to monitor the differences found between the executive and the
legislature and also to interpret the constitution.
The most significant players in the making of foreign policy are the
President, Secretary of State who is the principal advisor to the President on
issues related to foreign policy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
National Security Advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense and
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The Director of the CIA
provides the other important members of the foreign policy formulation
board with the latest information on world events. These players are the
backbone of the National Security Council (NSC). NSC is the apex body of
foreign policy making in US. The founding fathers of the constitution
deliberately introduced a system of checks and balances and limited them to
act autonomously.

President’s Role in the Mechanism of US Foreign Policy

President is the actual head of the executive branch of the government

and is the vital player in the formulation of foreign policy. He with the
assistance of Secretary of state, NSC and his cabinet formulate the policy.
Being the supreme commander of the US armed forces, he can send troops
anywhere around the world, and regarding legislation he is empowered with
veto by the constitution. Furthermore, Congress also enjoys the authority to
declare war as per its War Powers Act, but still the US President can deploy
troops for 30 days without congressional authorization.
The US President influences the foreign policy formulation in the
following ways:

Experience and Proficiency

Normally only those presidents can play an operative role in foreign

policy formulation that have extensive experience and knowledge about both
national and global politics. And likewise he has worked on some key
positions in the arena of international affairs. For example, George W. Bush
advantageously influenced foreign policy decision making because he had
worked as the Director of CIA, Ambassador to the UN and chief of the
liaison office in China.
17 Ahmad Ali

After the independence of US, four of her first six presidents had served
beforehand as Secretary of State. Those were:
a) Thomas Jefferson
b) James Munroe
c) John Quincy Adams.
d) James Madison

American presidents usually have such a commanding position in their

political structure that they decide the destinies of the US people. Whenever
in the history it was blessed with extensively experienced leaders as their
presidents such as Truman, Munroe, and Woodrow Wilson etc., America
enjoyed operative control over the global politics. This is the reason why
various foreign policy difficulties have originated due to inefficiency of
presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Character of President as an Individual

Secondly, President’s personal character also influences decision

making in foreign policy. Though personal character of stakeholders seldom
affects the foreign policy, still in some cases it does influence foreign policy.
For example, Woodrow Wilson’s reluctance to compromise on opponents in
the senate on the treaty of Versailles has been traced partially to his-
uprightness along with other deeply ingrained personality traits. Equally,
Richard Nixon’s personality considerably affected his decision making in
framing the foreign policy, as Nixon was humiliated by his opponents in
Watergate scandal. He had a rigorous tendency for secrecy and was zealous
for concentration of power. Thus Nixon did not want to end the Vietnam
War although it was failing.

President’s Outlook About World

Belief system claims that The President is competent enough to

understand a situation and then respond as per the demands of the national
and international community.
Belief system can be understood in terms of three primary components:
The analytical component of the understanding of the international
system: what principal threats are faced by the US?
The normative component of the national interest hierarchy: how the
essential objectives of power, peace, prosperity and principles are ranked?
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 18

The instrumental component of an elementary strategy: given both the

conception of the global system and the national interest pyramid? What
prime strategy could be pursued?
For comprehending belief system, we must compare Jimmy Carter and
Ronald Reagan. The dissimilarities in their point of views about the world
are crystal clear. In 1977, taking over the office, Carter was convinced about
the end of the cold war.
America’s Grand National interest can be expounded in the following
four Ps order,
Power
Peace
Prosperity
Principles (ideals, values and beliefs that the US had claimed) to stand
for in the world). (Jenteleson, 2007)
In this hierarchy, Jimmy Carter put principals and piece on top.
Carter’s rudimentary foreign policy stratagem was non-interventionism.
On the contrary, Reagan defined the world in bipolar terms and his
presidential election campaign in 1980s against Carter oozed Cold War
theme. He ranked power higher than peace in the national interest hierarchy
and accentuated the principles of anti-communism. Therefore, he was
entirely averse to Carter’s concept of human rights. In addition, Reagan’s
strategy was categorically interventionist and military.

President’s Influence in Framing Foreign Policy as an Executive

and as a Politician

Presidents in US, doubtlessly, are the notable politicians, so this is

another significant factor that political stature of President also affects
foreign policy. This can work in different ways. Seeing problems at
homeland, Presidents may turn to foreign policy in an attempt to draw on the
reputation of international leadership to strengthen their domestic standing.
And sometimes being pressurized for paying little attention to the domestic
affairs, presidents give less emphasis to foreign policy. Election years also
affect and politicize foreign policy.(Art, 1973)

Role of Senior Foreign Policy Advisors in US

There are four major portfolios with regard to senior foreign policy
Advisors in US:
19 Ahmad Ali

The National Security Advisor

The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
The CIA Director (Post 2004, the Director of National Intelligence).

The roles of these advisors in foreign policy making have been

identified due to several factors such as their personal worth, their
bureaucratic expertise and relationship with the President. For example,
Henry Kissinger, a Harvard University professor, served as National
Security Advisor in President Nixon’s first term of presidency.
Another factor is whether consensus or conflict prevails among the
senior advisors. Consensus does not imply impeccable harmony, but it does
connote a usual sense of team work and collegiality. President George W.
Bush’s team of advisors is the good example of team work and unanimity.
Secretary of state James Baker, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft,
Dick Cheney, Secretary of defense, and Colin Powel, Chairman of the Joint
Chief of Staff, were well familiar with each other and had also functioned as
team in earlier administrations.
Conflict also resulted several times among the Senior Advisors. Again,
Kissinger is a perfect specimen. While he was serving in the Nixon
administration as Nixon’s Security Advisor, Kissinger clashed with William
Rogers, Secretary of State, repeatedly. Similarly when he was President
Ford’s Secretary of State, he conflicted with James Schlesinger, Defense
Secretary. Due to his colossal capability, Kissinger won at fronts. But the
impression of these differences was rather undesirable and such high level
dissension proved ineffective for larger domestic consensus.

Role of Congress in Foreign Policy Formulation

In US, Congress is the bicameral legislature that consists of Senate

(Upper House) and House of Representatives (Lower House) .This is
exclusive feature of the political system of United States that it has the
strongest upper House of the world that is entrusted with massive powers
regarding legislation.
Congress is conferred with a vital role in the formulation of US foreign
policy. Like president, Congress is equally empowered to influence foreign
policy formulation process in US. Congressional support is always sought
for a successful foreign policy. Differences between Congress and the
President may lead to complete fiasco of the policy. Senate is not only
entitled for the confirmation of the treaties signed by the president, but it
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 20

also extends approval to appointments of ambassadors and other senior

officials.
Congress controls the foreign policy through its two standing
committees: Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House
International committee. The responsibilities of the committees include
analysis of foreign policies of other states and sanction of budget to
international affairs. Regarding the failure of legislation for foreign aid by
the congress, sometimes Appropriation Committee’s role grows more
vibrant in the process of foreign policy formulation.
Besides these committees, some other committees such as Select
Intelligent Committee of both Houses monitor the activities of CIA and
other intelligence agencies, the House National security Committee and the
Senate Arms Services Committee which decide defense matters play active
role regarding foreign policy decision making. Equally, another committee
of the House of Representatives and the Senate Financial Committee have
the duty to decide about the trade and bills.
No doubt, President enjoys greater say in shaping foreign policy in the
US., but the Congress and predominantly the senate put substantial
limitations over the powers and functions of the president which is a matter
of great concern in mechanism of foreign policy. History testifies that at
times the US Congress obligated the executive to bend to the motives of
deputies and senators. For instance, President Woodrow Wilson desired to
become a member of League of Nations, but the US Senate repudiated to
endorse the president’s proposal, and subsequently the US refrained from
becoming a member of League of Nations in spite of the fact that President
Woodrow Wilson was one among those pioneers who dropped the idea of
that International Organization. (Bartles, 1991)
In the same way, Lyndon B. Johnson was obliged by the US Congress to
end Vietnam War on the plea that war was not in larger interests of the US
citizens. The US Congress approved the War Powers Act in 1973 making it
obligatory that the approval of the congress shall be a must in declaring war.
(Bennet, 1994)The President, in such a case, was entitled to send US troops
only for 30 days even without seeking the approval of the Senate. Congress
also held back President Ronald Reagan from secret intervention in EL-
Salvador in 1975 that also led to the resignation of two dominant figures of
his administration that were held responsible for the policy.
Such a multifaceted policy formulation has both positive and negative
sides. Its positive aspect refers to the momentous check of Congress over the
authority of the president and thus the President cannot misuse his powers.
21 Ahmad Ali

Thus every policy of the administration must be supported by the congress.

The formulation of the policy is prudently planned because of possible censure
from the Congress. Irrespective of the multifariousness of the formulation of
the foreign policy, there is grander stability, lucidness and likelihood of the
foreign policy decision-making processes since the disparate bodies of
government carry out their duties in their bounds. Moreover, the Congress
hardly differs from the policy framed by the President. It is merely in an
unusual situation that they react to the policies of administrative branch (Dahl,
1961). Next, the negative aspect includes the loss of confidentiality, flexibility
and the strain of achieving bipartite support. Both the Congress and the Senate
sometimes exhibit a fickle-mindedness through evading unilateralist bills
against particular countries, causing difficulty for the US administration to
adopt a supple policy. For example, recently, the Congress passed various
bills against China on nearly all subjects from trade to non-proliferation that
put the US government in a great predicament on how to continue a normal
foreign policy with China. (Hartley and Russet, 1992) And due to media,
secrecy cannot be guaranteed because senators and representatives disclose
congressional information to media. Thus, the differences among the two
political parties give birth to the narrow interests on the part of politicians that
subsequently create hurdles in framing a balanced foreign policy.

Role of Bureaucracy in Foreign Policy Formulation

(US Department of Foreign Affairs)

Bureaucracy is one of the most prominent stakeholders in foreign policy

formulation. The diplomats can be ranked highest on the list. Almost all
states preserve foreign service of diplomats who serve in different capacities
in embassies in the capital cities of foreign countries and in consulates
established in big cities other than their capitals. By the same token, some
diplomats are appointed at home to assist and orchestrate foreign policy. In
some countries, diplomats are appointed on political grounds and they
abandon their offices with the change in governments. While in some states
they are appointed on the basis of carrier policy. States also engage
ambassadors as their authorized representatives to other states and to global
organizations. All these diplomatic activities are organized through ministry
for foreign affairs. This ministry in the US is called US State Department.
The bureaucracy of foreign affairs is celestial and intricate. We can
describe it in the following five levels.
National Security Council, State, Defense and Homeland Security:
These departments are apportioned with the duty of primary foreign affairs.
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 22

Commerce, Agriculture, Treasury, State’s Bureau Economic Affairs,

International Trade Commission, US Trade Representative. These
departments are involved in foreign economic policy.
Agency for International Development, Human Rights and Labor. State’s
Bureau of Democracy, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security
Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and Counter Terrorism Center are the
agencies that are founded for the motive of intelligence and investigation.
The Environmental protection Agency on global environmental issues,
the Office of National Drug Control Policy on international narcotics policy,
the Centers for disease Control and prevention on the infectious diseases are
those offices that are not only founded for formulation of domestic policies
in their fields concerned but they have also been given noteworthy role in
making foreign policy.
These departments influence foreign policy in normal situations while in
the time of high level crisis or threat such as 9/11, the executive is bestowed
with extraordinary powers to tackle unusual circumstances. In such cases,
presidents are required to decide and act promptly. For this presidents
generally consult their reliable advisors. The best illustration of effective
decision making in this sort of situations is the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Influence of Public Opinion in Framing Foreign Policy in US

Two different schools of thought exist regarding role of public opinion
in formulation of foreign policy namely realist school of thought and
liberalists. Realists opine that public opinion being unpredictable, emotive,
lacking rationality and structure slightly affects formulation of foreign
policy. (Holsti, 1996) Liberalist voice that it is because of public opinion
that on many occasions foreign policy gets stability, rationality and
coherence. Therefore, a bunch of leaders feel the necessity of considering
public opinion during the process of decision making, whereas some leaders
ignore public opinion in foreign policy formulation.
In the United States, public opinion influences foreign policy in five
basic ways. These are:
Setting Parameters
It implies that public opinion sets restrictions on the range of the
president’s policy choices via assessments done by presidential advisors of
what is acceptable to the public and what not. For example, US policy
towards Saddam Hussein in the 1980s the period of the Persian Gulf War,
prior to his was emerging as an enemy. During Saddam’s war with Iran
23 Ahmad Ali

(1980 to 1988), the Reagan administration extended extensive support to

Iraq on the plea that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” (Keohane,
1984). When the war concluded, US reclined from Iraq due to Saddam’s
assault on Kurds using chemical weapons against them.

Centripetal Pull
Public opinion leaves molding effect on foreign policy via centripetal
pull towards the center on presidents who are required to form supportive
coalitions. This centripetal pull is effective on the presidents who were
inclined either too far to the left or too far to the right to attain adequate
political support. (Keohane and Milner, 1996) For instance, President Jimmy
Carter’s foreign policy reputation largely generated doubts such as where he
was “tough” enough, the public attempted to balance this distress by
expressing low level of approval of Carter’s Soviet Policy in its mollifying
phases (1977-78), and higher level of backing when Carter demeanor
became harsh in mid-1978-80.

Impact on Congress
Congress is highly sensitive to feeling of masses on foreign policy
concerns. Normally, Congress pays attention to those sections of public
opinion which are the most voiced and politically compelling. Hubert H.
Humphrey, former senator, who was a prominent figure from 1940 to 1978,
censured many of his coworkers for being “POPPS” or what he called
“Public Opinion Polls Politicians”, on foreign policy. (Jentleson 2007)

Impact of Public Opinion on Diplomatic Negotiations

Public opinion leaves its impression on diplomatic negotiations in two
ways: firstly, when agreements, decisions or treaties are concluded, and
secondly in the course of diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, US diplomats
need to know how their negotiations are affected by domestic affairs in US.
This sort of influence bonds the negotiators’ hands in ways that are
politically famous but flawed in policy terms. (Krasner, 1972).

Presidential Elections and Public Opinion

Finally, public opinion influences foreign policy in the United States via
presidential elections. There are three types of electoral effects on foreign
policy:
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 24

The issue must be circulated via survey questions is to be greatly silent.

There must be substantial differences between the positions of the
Republican and Democratic contenders.
The public awareness in these dissimilarities must be obvious.
President Bush was considerably popular during Iraq War in 2006, but
with the elongated war his popularity decreased; the voters toppled his
power in Congress. (Krasner, 1978). By the 2008 elections, his party had
lost power in the Senate, the House of Representatives as well as the
presidency. Briefly, the Republican Party lost everything which it had
attained in the start of Iraq War.

Role of Military Industrial Complex in Foreign Policy Making in US

In 1962, the term ‘military industrial complex’ was coined by President

Dwight Eisenhower. This term means gigantic interconnected net of
governmental agencies, industrial corporations and research institutions
operating together to supply a nation’s martial forces. Military industrial
complex was a counter stratagem to the developing significance of technology
like nuclear weapons, electronics and of logistics in Cold War military
planning. Because of the political power of these elements at domestic level,
the ‘military industrial complex’ was a prevailing influence on foreign policy
in both Soviet Union and the United States during Cold War era.
Countries at war have bonded together their technological and economic
capability for the War effort. But all through the Cold War era, military
technology was acquired on a vast scale in “peacetime” as the superpowers
competition to enlarge their base of modern refined technology and the
disastrous weapons. This arms race created incomparable job for scientists
and engineers to produce deadly weapons of war. In response to the Soviet
satellite Sputnik in 1957, the United States increased its budget to be spend
on development and research and developed groundbreaking science
education programs.
In the United States, the universities and other scientific research
organizations that obtain military research contracts are a chief source of
financial support for scientists. Early fiscal assistance for the Strategic Defense
Initiative (or Star Wars) was offered to each military service branch, NASA,
the Department of Energy, and hundreds of private suppliers.
Supervisors in military industries, with excellent industrial expertise, are
regularly assigned with government portfolios and are held responsible for
military equipment purchase, assessments and then return to their
25 Ahmad Ali

corporations again. Mostly, it is known as ‘revolving door’. (Monroe, 1979).

In democratic states, these industries also mold public opinion via
advertisements that fasten their products to patriotism. American military
industries also fund generously countrywide campaigns of politicians who
vote on military budgets, and also bribe Pentagon officers as well.

Impact of Media on Foreign Policy Devising in US

Currently, mass media has explosively developed the interaction

between the television journalists and the US foreign policy formulators and
made it more vibrant and influential. In the last few years, the influence of
international media has enormously increased. Media molds the US foreign
policy in two ways, i.e. substance of US foreign policy and the formulation
Process.
On a historic day in 1980, the US political system unaffectedly
experienced a great change. For 24 hours, news media technology namely
Cable News Network (CNN) and communication satellites were installed
due which online news reports were presented electronically with the help of
artificial planets. This change influenced highly the public minds. This
enabled them to watch fresh and factual images of the ravenous miserable
individuals and dead and injured US soldiers. These live and recorded
transmissions easily triggered the US citizens to demand their leaders to take
action. Media experts and journalists are exercising overwhelming power
over the formulation and implementation of US foreign policy.

Conclusion

Foreign policy politics is the course by which the choices of foreign

policy stratagems are made. It is much more multifarious than the
conventional wisdom depicts. (Jentleson, 2007). The basic patterns in this
regard are of the consensus and conflicts, with positive and negative
variations of each in terms of their effects on policy making in US. The basic
framework of this research paper has laid out for foreign policy politics is a
structural one. It has mainly focused the role of principle political
institutions involved in foreign policy formulation i.e. the political
executive, the nonpolitical executive and the congress. Apart from these
nucleus branches of US political system the media, public opinion and some
external factors like international organizations and international law are
given much space in influencing foreign policy formulation process in US.
Foreign Policy Mechanism in USA: Role of Stakeholders 26

References

Almond, Gabriel. (1950). The American People and Foreign Policy. New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Art, Robert. (December: 1973). “Bureaucratic Politics and American
Foreign Policy: A Critique” Policy Sciences Vol. 4.p.24.
Bartles, Larry. (June, 1991). “Constituency Opinion and Congressional
Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup” American Political
Science Review, Vol. 85.
Bennet, W. Lance. (1994). The Media and the Foreign Policy Process. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 168-88.
Bruce, Russett Thomas and Hartley. (December 1992). “Public Opinion and
the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United
States?” American Political Science Review, Vol. 8, pp. 905-915.
Holsti, Oli. (1996). Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Keohane, Robert. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the
World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Krasner, Stephen. (July 1972). “Are Bureaucracies Important?” Foreign
Policy, Vol.4, pp.159-179.
Krasner, Stephen. (1978). In Defense of the National Interest: Raw
Materials, Investments, and US Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Monroe, Alan D. (January 1979). “Consistency between Public Preferences
and National Policy Decisions”, American Politics Quarterly.
Peter Haas and Emanuel Adler. (Winters 1992). “Conclusion: Epistemic
Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research
Program.” International Organizations 46, pp. 367-390.
Robert, A. Dahl. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an
American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Robert Keohane and Helen Milner. (1996).(eds.) Internationalization and
Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
W Jentleson, Bruce. (2007). American Policy: The Dynamics of Choice of
the 21st Century. New York: W.W Norton and Company. pp.44.