IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/woraff/v182y2019i2p165-186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two‐Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Harry Noone

Abstract

International relations scholars have struggled to adequately link domestic and international levels in theoretical models and causal analyses of foreign policy, despite widespread acknowledgment of the need to do so. This study elaborates on this challenge by assessing the utility of several policy process frameworks that have so far been underutilized in foreign policy analysis. The assumptions of one particularly fruitful method, the Two‐Level Game, will be compared with those of three policy process frameworks: the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. When analyzing three specific concepts (the question of rationality, the dynamics of agenda setting, and the strategic action of relevant actors), it is apparent that the assumptions of the policy process frameworks largely clash with those of the Two‐Level Game, raising the potential for their augmentation of the field of foreign policy analysis despite their relative underuse. Los académicos de las relaciones internacionales han luchado por vincular adecuadamente los niveles doméstico e internacional en modelos teóricos de análisis causales de políticas exteriores a pesar del reconocimiento general de lo necesario que es. Este estudio profundizará en este desafío al evaluar la utilidad de varios marcos de procesos de políticas que hasta el momento han sido subutilizados en el análisis de la política exterior. Los supuestos de un método particularmente exitoso, el Juego de dos niveles, se compararán con los de tres marcos de procesos de políticas: el Marco de coalición de defensa, el Marco de flujos múltiples y la Teoría del equilibrio puntuado. Al analizar tres conceptos específicos (la cuestión de la racionalidad, la dinámica del establecimiento de la agenda y la acción estratégica de los actores relevantes), es evidente que los supuestos de los marcos de los procesos de las políticas coinciden en gran medida con los del Juego de dos niveles, lo que plantea potencial para su aumento del campo de análisis de política exterior a pesar de su infrautilización relativa. 国际关系学者已努力将理论模型中的国内和国际层面与外交政策因果分析进行充分连接,尽管这一需求受到广泛肯定。本文将通过评估几个在外交政策分析中尚未进行完全利用的政策过程框架的用处,进而阐述这一挑战。双层博弈是一项特别富有成效的方法,其提出的假设将和其他三个政策过程框架假设进行比较:倡议联盟框架、多源流框架和间断平衡理论。当分析三个特定概念时(理性之疑、议程设定动态、和相关行为者的战略行动),显而易见的是,这些政策过程框架提出的假设在很大程度上与双层博弈理论假设相悖,这提高了前者关于外交政策分析领域的论点潜力,尽管其具备相对的未完全利用性。

Suggested Citation

  • Harry Noone, 2019. "Two‐Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 182(2), pages 165-186, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:182:y:2019:i:2:p:165-186
    DOI: 10.1177/0043820019839074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0043820019839074
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0043820019839074?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:182:y:2019:i:2:p:165-186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.