Employing an analytic construct known as a comparative, foreign-policy analysis framework, the author compares substantive changes in U.S. foreign policy and international politics at two crucial junctures in American history: post-WWII period in which the Cold War began altering U.S. foreign policy for the subsequent fifty-years period versus post 9/11 attacks on the U.S. The volume's framework lends itself to a multi-causal view of foreign policy including multiple theories and permits readers to determine what theories best explain changes in U.S. foreign policy.The volume provides a conceptual definition of foreign policy and examines external inputs, societal, governmental and individual and role inputs to U.S. foreign policy.For those interested in a comprehensive analysis of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy.

M. Kent Bolton is an associate professor in the Political Science Department at California State University, San Marcos, where he teaches courses on international politics, US. foreign policy, and comparative foreign-policy analysis.

Introduction
External Inputs to U.S Foreign Policy
Societal Inputs to U.S Foreign Policy
Governmental Inputs to U.S Foreign Policy
Individual and Role Inputs to U.S Foreign Policy
Process
Conclusions
Bibliography
Table of Contents provided by Publisher. All Rights Reserved.

What is included with this book?

The New copy of this book will include any supplemental materials advertised. Please check the title of the book to determine if it should include any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.

The Used, Rental and eBook copies of this book are not guaranteed to include any supplemental materials. Typically, only the book itself is included. This is true even if the title states it includes any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.

In spring 2002 I was on sabbatical leave. A few months previously, the traumatic events of 9/11 occurred--an attack that one could intuitively feel would affect U.S. foreign policy--making this project a compelling one. Additionally, upon returning from sabbatical I was scheduled to teach U.S. foreign policy. Thus was the confluence of events resulting in this book.This project was conceived as an opportunity for students to participate in and experience research firsthand. It was also conceived as a continuation of my research interests, broadly known as comparative foreign-policy analysis. I was first introduced to comparative foreign-policy studies during my doctoral studies (at Ohio State University), and my research program has since centered on said subspecialty of international politics and foreign-policy studies. The 9/11 terrorist attacks presented a unique opportunity to study a timely topic in great detail, combine it with my existing research program, and involve students in examining whether, in fact, 9/11 demonstrably changed U.S. foreign policy, a thesis that seemed self-evident.Multiple reasons made this project so compelling. First, the 9/11 attacks struck me as a seminal event that might change the entire direction of U.S. foreign policy. Being scheduled to teach foreign policy upon completion of sabbatical served to increase the event's relevance. Second, one of the texts I have used for years in teaching foreign policy is Charles Kegley and Eugene Wittkopf'sAmerican Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process.One of their main theses is that from the late 100 Os to the early 1990s U.S. foreign policy is appropriately described as resistant to change. They argue that change in U.S. foreign policy occurs only slowly and incrementally, irrespective of which party occupies the White House, which party controls Congress, and even during certain dramatic changes in America's external environment. Given these facts, the obvious question became: Does the Kegley-Wittkopf thesis still hold following 9/11? Or, as I began to believe, was 9/11 a decisive event that would change U.S. foreign policy substantively, and that would persist over time? Third, 9/11 presented a rare opportunity to combine an existing research program with classroom pedagogy--a challenge many professors wish to accomplish but do so less frequently than desirable.A brief note concerning methodology and data collection, respectively, is in order. The method used to assess whether, and if so how, 9/11 affected U.S. foreign policy is the comparative foreign-policy analysis framework first described by James Rosenau ("pre-theories") and subsequently used by Kegley and Wittkopf in the Tatters'American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process.Data were collected and filed in terms of clusters of exogenous variables specified by said construct. Thus it made sense organizationally to collect data and present them separately, initially, then address interactions between them as process, as do Kegley and Wittkop£At the beginning of this research, a conscious decision to limit the sources from which to collect data was made. The very nature of assessing trends in U.S. foreign policy normally requires examining such trends over time. For this project, however, time defined data collection:viz.,data collected from 9/11 through the summer of 2002. Thus, a caveat is appropriate: The conclusions contained herein are necessarily tentative. Another reason for limiting data collection is sheer amount of data. Typically, scholarly research projects attempt to gather every source available. For present purposes, the task would be too daunting given the project's effective time frame. To cite one example, if one conducts a Lexis-Nexis search, limiting the potential domain to U.S. newspapers using the words "terror" and either "September 11" or "9/11" (even for a short time frame, say 2001), too many hits ar