IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v66y1972i03p751-785_14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy

Author

Listed:
  • George, Alexander L.

Abstract

The system of multiple advocacy attempts to convert intraorganizational conflicts over policy into a balanced system of policy analysis and debate. This requires the executive to (1) structure and manage the policy-making system to ensure that there are advocates to cover the range of interesting policy options on a given issue; (2) equalize or compensate for disparities among the actors in the resources needed for effective advocacy; (3) identify and correct possible “malfunctions†in the policy-making process before they can have a harmful effect on the executive's choice of policy. Nine types of malfunctions are identified in this paper via critical diagnosis of U.S. foreign policy making in cases in which the executive had to decide questions of commitment, intervention, or escalation. Responsibility for identifying and correcting such malfunctions and for managing multiple advocacy effectively should be clearly fixed with the Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. However, the Special Assistant should not combine the role of “custodian-manager†of the policy-making system with the additional tasks of (a) policy adviser to the President; (b) public spokesman for existing policies; (c) “watch-dog†of the President's personal power stakes; or (d) implementer of policy decisions already taken. The attempt to do so invites serious role conflicts that can undermine the Special Assistant's performance of the all-important task of custodian.

Suggested Citation

  • George, Alexander L., 1972. "The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 751-785, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:66:y:1972:i:03:p:751-785_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400145253/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lazer, David & Friedman, Allan, 2005. "The Parable of the Hare and the Tortoise: Small Worlds, Diversity, and System Performance," Working Paper Series rwp05-058, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. S. K. Srivastava & Sweta Agrawal, 2003. "The Role of Power, Politics and Management in Organisational Effectiveness," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 28(2), pages 153-157, May.
    3. Bonvecchi, Alejandro & Scartascini, Carlos, 2011. "The Presidency and the Executive Branch in Latin America: What We Know and What We Need to Know," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 3959, Inter-American Development Bank.
    4. Peterson, Randall S. & Owens, Pamela D. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Fan, Elliott T. & Martorana, Paul, 1998. "Group Dynamics in Top Management Teams: Groupthink, Vigilance, and Alternative Models of Organizational Failure and Success," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 272-305, February.
    5. Stephen G. Walker, 1977. "The Interface Between Beliefs and Behavior," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(1), pages 129-168, March.
    6. Turner, Marlene E. & Pratkanis, Anthony R., 1998. "A Social Identity Maintenance Model of Groupthink," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 210-235, February.
    7. Stephen G. Walker & George L. Watson, 1994. "Integrative Complexity and British Decisions during the Munich and Polish Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-23, March.
    8. Hart, Paul t, 1998. "Preventing Groupthink Revisited: Evaluating and Reforming Groups in Government," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 306-326, February.
    9. Willy McCourt, 2018. "Towards “cognitively complex” problem‐solving: Six models of public service reform," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(S2), pages 748-768, September.
    10. Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2012. "How to Get What You Want When You Do Not Know What You Want: A Model of Incentives, Organizational Structure, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1298-1310, October.
    11. Shawn W. Rosenberg & Gary Wolfsfeld, 1977. "International Conflict and the Problem of Attribution," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(1), pages 75-103, March.
    12. Michael G. Jacobides, 2007. "The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 455-477, June.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:66:y:1972:i:03:p:751-785_14. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.