¹ Waltz, , “Theory of International Relations,” in Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson, eds., Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), VIII, 1–2.Google Scholar

² Up to the early seventies, only very few systematic studies were in print. A representative sample includes Dominguez, Jorge I., “Mice That Do Not Roar: Some Aspects of International Politics in the World's Peripheries,” International Organization, XXV (Spring 1971), 175–208Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert, “Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics,” International Organization, XXIII (Spring 1969), 291–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinstein, Franklin B., “The Uses of Foreign Policy in Indonesia,” World Politics, XXIV (April 1972), 356–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A less frequently cited but useful essay is Migdal, Joel, “Internal Structure and External Behavior: Explaining Foreign Policies of Third World States,” International Relations, IV (May 1974), 510–27.Google Scholar For a quantitatively oriented approach, see McGowan, Patrick, “The Pattern of African Diplomacy: A Quantitative Comparison,” Journal of Asian and African Studies, IV (July 1969), 202–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; At the time of its publication, William Zartman, I., International Relations in New Africa (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1966)Google Scholar constituted a good introduction to the area.

³ The treatment of the Third World as an object of study raises two problems: (a) overdetermination: in dealing with “small powers or states,” researchers in the 1960's used size, out of context, to put both Switzerland and Zimbabwe in the same category; (b) overhomogenization: in glossing over differences between Latin America and Africa, for instance. Kaufman (in the Clapham volume) and especially Rothstein tackle the problem. Rothstein emphasizes “objective” and “subjective” common denominators (pp. 31, 50) that make the Third World a legitimate object of study.

⁴ Rosenau, James N., “Restlessness, Change, and Foreign Policy Analysis,” in Rosenau, , ed., In Search of Global Patterns (New York: Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar

⁵ Hermassi, Elbaki, The Third World Reassessed (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Said, Edward, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).Google Scholar

⁶ A good (though somewhat limited) initial set of data to measure international behavior for some Third World countries has materialized with the establishment of Azar's, Edward Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB), first at the University of North Carolina, and now at the University of Maryland.Google Scholar

⁷ Bozeman, Adda B., Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Modelski, George, “Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International Systems in the Ancient Hindu World,” American Political Science Review, LVIII (September 1964), 549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Rosenau, James N., in Barry Farrell, R., ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1966), 27–93.Google Scholar

⁹ Rosenau, James N., ed., Linkage Politics (New York: Free Press, 1969).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bernard C. Cohen and Scott A. Harris, “Foreign Policy,” in Greenstein, and Polsby, (fn. 1), VI, 381–437.Google Scholar

¹¹ See, for instance, Herman, Charles F., “Foreign Policy Behavior: That Which Is to Be Explained,” in East, Maurice A. and others, eds., Why Nations Act (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1978), 25–47.Google Scholar

¹³ Kent, Randolph C., “Foreign Policy Analysis: Search for Coherence in a Multifaceted Field” in Kent, Randolph C. and Nielson, Gynnar P., eds., The Study and Teaching of International Relations (London: Frances Pinter Ltd., 1980), 90–111.Google Scholar

¹³ Brecher, Michael, Steinberg, Blema, and Stein, Janice, “A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behavior,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, XIII (March 1969), 75–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brecher, , The Foreign Policy System of Israel (London: Oxford University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Brecher, , Decisions in Israel's Foreign Policy (London: Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; and Brecher, , Crisis Decision-Making: Israel 1967 and 1973 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).Google Scholar In a panel convened by Brecher, I discussed his decision-making model extensively, compared it with other models, and provided a detailed bibliography; see “Absence of Alternatives and Crisis Decision-Making,” 12th Convention of the International Political Science Association, Moscow, August 1979.

¹⁴ Rosenau, James N., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Rosenau, , The Study of Political Adaptation (London: Frances Pinter, 1981)Google Scholar; Rosenau, , The Study of Global Interdependence (London: Frances Pinter, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W., and Sapin, Burton M., eds., Foreign Policy Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics (New York: Free Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Allison, Graham T., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Misssile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972)Google Scholar; Goldmann, Kjell, “The Foreign Sources of Foreign Policy: Causes, Conditions, or Inputs?” European Journal of Political Research, IV (September 1976), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Reacting against the “domestic sources” school, Goldmann suggests three different ways in which the student of domestic sources of foreign policy may conceive of the interplay between foreign and domestic factors. His empirical illustrations are cases from Sweden's foreign and defense policy.

¹⁶ Though external and global-systemic variables are, by definition, located in the actor's world environment, there is still a critical distinction: “at any one moment the number of external data points is equal to the number of units in the system, … whereas there exists only one systemic data point at any given moment in time.” See Harf, J. E. and others, “Systemic and External Attributes in Foreign Policy Analysis,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., Comparing Foreign Policies: Theories, Findings, and Methods (New York: Wiley, Halsted Division, 1974)Google Scholar, as quoted in East, Maurice A., “The International System Perspective and Foreign Policy,” in East (fn. 11), 143–61Google Scholar, at 146.

¹⁷ For a discussion of trends in the literature concerning the influence of psychological variables in the type of societies that interest us here, see Korany, Bahgat, Social Change, Charisma and International Behavior (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1976), 86–90.Google Scholar

¹⁸ I am not, of course, disputing the relevance of psychological variables in Third World polities. My questioning is related to their degree of influence, at what level, in what type of situation, and the demonstration of their causal impact. The position I advocate is that individual psychological variables are most useful as intervening variables, as active synthesizers of the myriad factors working on foreign policy. They can be compared to a chemical agent that activates and transforms the different inputs and do not negate their influence.

¹⁹ Amin, , L'accumulation à l'échelle mondiale (Paris and Dakar: Anthropos, 1970)Google Scholar, and Le développement inégal (Paris: Minuit, 1973).

²⁰ Clapham, in his chapter on Africa in his edited volume, qualifies Shepherd, George Jr, Nonaligned Black Africa (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1970)Google Scholar as “the best study of non-alignment in the African context” (p. 105). Even those who would not go as far as Clapham in judging Shepherd's book will be puzzled to find that Willetts—whose study concentrates on Africa—does not cite the work either in the bibliography or in the footnotes.

²¹ David Singer, J., “Theorists and Empiricists: The Two-Culture Problem in International Politics,” in Rosenau, James N. and others, eds., The Analysis of International Politics (New York: Free Press, 1972), 80–94.Google Scholar

²² Willetts's expertise in measurement techniques has permitted him to overcome this problem of validity: how to establish the accuracy of the measuring instrument, so that the data will in fact measure the relevant phenomenon—that is, constitute a valid measure of attitudes, opinions, or behavior of the subject being examined. Willetts is correct in stating that it “cannot be assumed that the General Assembly completely reflects the international scene. Measures of behavior outside the United Nations must also be considered” (p. 110). His use of multiple indicators and varied analytical techniques diminishes the specter of the validity trap and makes his empirical results much more solid in answering the “what” question.

²³ Kaufman, Robert and others, “A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency,” Comparative Politics, VII (April 1975), 303–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Other points of discord in dependency analysis have been emphasized recently in the pages of International Organization: Caporaso, James A., “Dependency Theory: Continuities and Discontinuities in Development Studies,” XXXIV (Autumn 1980), 605–28Google Scholar, and Smith, Tony, “The Logic of Dependency Theory Revisited,” XXXV (Autumn 1981), 755–62.Google Scholar

²⁴ “The most general and formal of A. G. Frank's works are taken as though they are his best, the formal definition of dependency furnished by Theotonio dos Santos is appended, the problematic of ‘subimperialism’ and marginality is sometimes inserted, one or another of my works or Sunkel's is footnoted, and the result is a ‘theory of dependency’—a straw man easy to destroy.” Cardoso, Fernando H., “The Consumption of Dependency Theory in United States,” Latin American Research Review, XII (Autumn 1977), 7–25.Google Scholar

²⁵ Indeed, if a country is “bi-dependent,” its bargaining power and maneuverability may increase, but its own basic structural situation as a dependent country does not change. Moreover, its bargaining power may diminish if its mentors choose to collaborate against it.

²⁶ Jackson, Steven and others, “An Assessment of Empirical Research on Dependencia,” Latin America Research Review, XIV (March 1979), 7–29Google Scholar; Korany, Bahgat, “Dependance financière et comportement international,” Revue française de science politique, XXVIII (December 1978), 1067–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Incrementalism is a basic attribute of decision making in large bureaucracies of many different political systems. It indicates the tendency of decision makers, when supported by services of large organizations and faced with competing recommendations, “to take a limited action either as a precaution against major errors of commission or as a way in which to compromise the diverse recommendations of subordinates, or both. When a series of such decisions concerning a particular issue is examined over a period of time, it can be described as assuming an incremental form. … Said differently, the best predictor of the next decision is the one most recently reached” (Richardson, 90).

²⁸ Allison, Graham T. and Halperin, Morton H., “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications,” in Tanter, Raymond and Ullman, Richard H., eds., Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 40–79.Google Scholar Allison would not change his view in the face of some of the points I raised (personal correspondence, January 1979). One of the rare attempts to apply this approach to a developing country is Weil, Herman M., “Can Bureaucracies Be Rational Actors? Foreign Policy Decision-Making in North Vietnam,” International Studies Quarterly, XIX (December 1975).Google Scholar However, Weil's decision data are not as systematic as the title would lead us to expect.

²⁹ Publications on foreign ministries are few and of uneven quality. The most notable are East, Maurice A., “Foreign Policy-Making in Small States: Some Theoretic Observations Based on a Study of the Uganda Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” Policy Sciences, IV (December 1973), 491–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirk-Greene, A.H.M., “Diplomacy and Diplomats: The Formation of Foreign Service Cadres in Black Africa,” in Ingham, K., ed., Foreign Relations of African States (London: Butterworth, 1974), 279–322Google Scholar (see esp. the discussion on pp. 312–22); Ott, Marvin H., “Foreign Policy Formulation in Malaysia,” Asian Survey, XII (March 1972), 225–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Among recent books, the most relevant are Boyce, P. J., Foreign Affairs for New States (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1977)Google Scholar, esp. chaps. 6, 7, 8, and 9; and Plischke, Elmer, Microstates in World Affairs, (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1977)Google Scholar, esp. chaps. 4 and 7.

³⁰ In this respect, a good recent survey of neglected issues is Jeffrey Leonard, H., “Multinational Corporations and Politics in Developing Countries,” World Politics, XXXII (April 1980), 454–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Asso, Bernard, Le Chef d'Etat Africain. L'Expérience des Etats Africains de Succession Française (Paris: Albatros, 1976)Google Scholar; DiBaco, Thomas V., ed., Presidential Power in Latin American Politics (New York: Praeger, 1977)Google Scholar; Moulin, Richard, Le Présidentialisme et la Classification des Régimes Politiques (Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et Jurisprudence, 1978)Google Scholar; Pyne, Peter, “Presidential Caesarism in Latin America: Myth or Reality?,” Comparative Politics, IX (April 1977), 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Sprout, and Sprout, , “The Dilemma of Rising Demands and Insufficient Resources,” World Politics, XX (July 1968), 660–94.Google Scholar

³³ Huntington, Samuel, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

³⁴ The presence or “importing” of external resources is one of the basic variables in the conceptualization of the bureaucratic-authoritarian state as elaborated, for instance, by O'Donnell, Guillermo A.. See especially his Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973)Google Scholar, and “Reflections on the Patterns of Change in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State,” Latin American Research Review, XII (Winter 1978), 3–38.

³⁵ Rothstein deals with two characteristics of policy making in the context of under-development: (a) incrementalism (cf. Richardson)—i.e., “muddling through,” and thus very little change (p. 214); (b) personalization (p. 106). He does not examine the possible contradictions between these two modes of decision making: the first emphasizes continuity and predictability in decisions, whereas the second is based on idiosyncracies and possible shifts. One way out is to follow the example of colleagues analyzing public policy, and exploit the potential of the “issue-area” concept in order to classify different degrees of potencies and modes in the making of various decisions.

³⁶ Rustow, Dankwart A., “The Military in Middle Eastern Society and Politics,” in Fisher, Sidney N., ed., The Military in the Middle East (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

³⁷ Vatikiotis, P. J., “Foreign Policy of Egypt,” in Macridis, Roy, ed., Foreign Policy in World Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962), 335–59.Google Scholar

³⁸ The foreign policy consequences of the presence of the military in developing polities have been largely overlooked. Two recent exceptions are Bienen, Henry, “African Militaries as Foreign Polity Actors,” International Security, V (Fall 1980), 168–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Luckham, Robin, “Militarism and International Dependence: A Framework for Analysis,” in Villamil, José, ed., Transnational Capitalism and National Development (London: Harvester Press, 1979).Google Scholar

³⁹ In the theoretical chapter of Clapham's volume, Christopher Hill expresses himself differently from the editor and also from Richardson. “While it may be futile to expect studies of bureaucracy in, say, Kenya or Thailand or Pakistan to provide the key to an understanding of these countries' foreign policies, it would be just as absurd to neglect the area. Bureaucracies are important negative influences on the foreign policies of presidents such as Amin or Neto, and thus deserve attention” (p. 3). Again, as on the issue of the influence of the military, the different views are allowed to stand side by side.

⁴⁰ Douglas A. Chalmers, “Developing on the Periphery: External Factors in Latin American Politics” in Rosenau (fn. 9).

⁴¹ Consequently, rather than furthering earlier conceptualizations, Clapham is forced to fall back on them: “It is here, perhaps … that the ‘uses of foreign policy’ discussed by Weinstein, or the ‘situation-role model’ suggested by Korany come into play. Weinstein and Korany offer an interesting sketch rather than a fully articulated approach. Nonetheless, starting as they do from the study of foreign policy in developing states, they offer rather greater insights than do the models devised for highly institutionalized societies …” (pp. 170–71).

⁴² Clapham also alludes to a highly important issue that should attract much attention in the analysis of Third World foreign policy in the 1980s: the classification of foreign policy types among the Third World countries. If all of them share a common foreign policy orientation (nonalignment), what are the properties of various types of international behavior—for instance, Cuba's nonaligned behavior as compared with Saudi Arabia's? See Bahgat Korany, “Typology-Building in the Foreign Policy of New States: A Comparative Empirical Analysis,” 17th Convention of the International Studies Association, Toronto, 1976.

⁴³ The book as a whole is aimed at a subsystem approach applied to the different regions, but the authors adopt different (implicit) criteria to delineate their regions and their member states. Dawisha, for instance, includes Israel in his chapter, even though he has to specify exceptions, since generalizations about foreign policy making in the other countries of the region do not always apply to Israel (even Brecher qualifies Israel as an atypical case). Clapham, on the other hand, excludes South Africa from his chapter altogether. If the definitional problems of subsystem analysis had been squarely faced in the introductory chapter, some of these discrepancies between the different authors could have been eliminated.

⁴⁴ In launching his Comparative Foreign Relations series, David O. Wilkinson stated that “the books in the series make comparison possible by presenting material of the same nature about each case; however, the actual comparisons must be made by the reader.” See Comparative Foreign Relations: Framework and Methods (Belmont, Calif.: Dickenson, 1969); also Faurby, Ib, “Premises, Promises and Problems of Comparative Foreign Policy,” Cooperation and Conflict, XI (Spring 1976), 139–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Even though the various authors did not go as far as Wilkinson, crossreferences by the different contributors are rare indeed (a unique case is on p. 158).

⁴⁵ Two examples closest to our concerns are: Allen, Christopher, “A Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Political Economy of Africa,” in Gutkind, Peter C. W. and Wallerstein, Immanuel, eds., The Political Economy of Contemporary Africa (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976), 291–313Google Scholar, and Allen, , “Radical Themes in African Social Studies: A Bibliographical Guide,” in Gutkind, Peter C. W. and Waterman, Peter, eds., African Social Studies: A Radical Reader (London: Heinemann, 1977), 424–63.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Notable examples are Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1961; 2d ed., 1969)Google Scholar, and Gutkind and Waterman (fn. 45).

⁴⁷ For instance, Cox, Robert W. and Jacobson, Harold K., eds., The Anatomy of Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Kelman, Herbert C., ed., International Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., eds., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Because of the bias in favor of input functions, not even one volume of the eight “Studies on Political Development” published by the prestigious Social Science Research Committee on Comparative Politics is devoted to the postcolonial state. In fact, a scanning of two major periodicals, World Politics and the American Political Science Review, for the fifteen-year period (1958–1972) that witnessed the “revolution” in political science uncovered only one article (Nettl, J. P., “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” World Politics, XX [July 1968])Google Scholar devoted to a theoretical analysis of the state. Yet, while the state was withering away in established political science, it was growing interventionist and entrepreneurial in the Third World. See Haas, Richard, “The Primacy of the State … or Revising the Revisionists,” Daedalus, Vol. 108 (Fall 1979), 125–39Google Scholar; Stepan, Alfred, The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar