Leaders' Conceptual Complexity and Foreign Policy Change
Comparing the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Foreign Policies toward China
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12907331 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Yi Edward Yang (0000-0001-8234-5915, James Madison University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 415-446 |
| Publication date | 2010-10-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Chinese Journal of International Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1750-8916 • E-ISSN: 1750-8924 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/cjip/poq015 |
| OpenAlex | W2164244416 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 19 |
Present research on foreign policy change (FPC) focuses on systemic-structural variables and domestic politics as key causal factors motivating states to change their foreign policy behaviour. Recent works also look towards decision context and bureaucratic politics to explain FPC.1 In this article, I concur with Walter Carlsnaes2 in arguing that attention should focus more on exploring the role of human agents, i.e. leaders that make actual foreign policy decisions, when explaining and predicting FPC. Specifically, I use the leadership traits analysis (LTA) framework to argue that a leader’s level of conceptual complexity interacts with external stimuli (system- and/or domestic-level factors) to affect: (i) the leader’s willingness to change course in response to policy failure and (ii) the type of changes that the leader is likely to carry out. Based on this argument, I propose hypotheses formalizing the effect of a leader’s conceptual complexity on various aspects of FPC. I then present two case studies—one case from Bill Clinton’s administration, the other from the George W. Bush administration—to illustrate how the differences in conceptual complexity between two recent American presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, can help explain their respective approaches to adjusting policies vis-à-vis China. In conclusion, I discuss the implications of this study and directions for future research
Administration (probate law · Argument (complex analysis · Bureaucracy · China · Conceptual framework · Context (archaeology · Foreign policy · George (robot · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Social science · Sociology · Defense, Military, and Policy Studies · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Public Administration
Foreign Policy and Identity
Crisis Leadership in the Time of Covid
Forum
Foreign Policy Change from an Advocacy Coalition Framework Perspective
Toward a (More) Critical FPA
From Pariah Image to Partner and Back Again
Trump’s Legacy and the Liberal International Order
Lithuania’s foreign policy under Grybauskaite
Profiling the personality of populist foreign policy makers
Profiling foreign policy leaders in their own language
Trump’s low conceptual complexity leadership and the vanishing ‘unpredictability doctrine’
Policy Windows for Foreign Policy Shifts in Latin American and Caribbean States
Triangular Dynamics
Low-conceptual complexity and Trump’s foreign policy
Uncharacteristic foreign policy behavior
The Trump administration and China
Foreign Policy Change
Leader-driven foreign-policy change
Fiasco prime ministers
| Unique citing works | 19 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,46 |
| Citation span | 2013 - 2024 (12) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 18 |