Leadership and Foreign Policy Decision-Making in the Next Innovation Wave

The evolution of digital technologies rooted in the transformation of the world into a holistic quantifiable system brings about foundational shifts in how an individuals interact with information. Current technological progress is cyclical in nature: emerging capabilities create different environment with new threats that prompt further search for technological solutions to address them, and occurs
\on two interwoven tracks: the increasing sophistication of the information system itself (better ways to collect, store and analyze data) and better means of human interaction with it (search engines, faster connection, more seamless interface with devices). Similar in scope to the spread of printed books, the digital transformation is still at its nascency: the “printing press” has been invented, but the humanity is yet to perfect it and experience the full array of social and political changes it is bound to incur.
This article is an attempt to peek into such “digital future”. Taking stock of the observable trends it charts the course of major shifts in approaches to foreign policy and maps out possible impediments for effective leadership in the new era.
The conceptualization of the transformations is picking up speed, yet main IR schools tackling dispersed aspects, such as the impact of digital technologies on the balance of power (realism), on the nature of government and international environment (liberalism) and on the interpretation of the emerging processes (constructivism), do not offer a comprehensive approach. At the same time despite the growing analyzability and, hence, rationality of the world the studies of the decision-making process still struggle to account for the “human nature” of state leadership.
The futility of the attempts to measure irrationality underlines the core argument of the article – with the overall trend for deeper convergence between an information system and a human the emerging digital future will be determined by individuals, who will remain the ultimate stewards of international relations. As a result, the efficiency of leadership, including smart utilization of technological advances, will depend on the quality of “human capital” of elites.
On the one hand, accessibility of information, faster data travel and the absence of physical boundaries in the digital space enhance analytical abilities of individuals and improve the quality of decision making. On the other hand, the increasing effortlessness of retrieving, storing and disseminating information results in the shift of perspective: laborious process of developing a solution is substituted by search for the most acceptable alternative, solving a crisis is replaced with manipulating the perception of it, and the quality of decisions is judged not by long-term consequences but by immediate movements in opinion polls.

1. Allison G. (1969). Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63: 689–718.

2. Allison G., Zelikow P. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Vol. 327. No. 729.1. Boston: Little, Brown.

3. Astorino-Courtois A., Trusty B. (2000). Degrees of Difficulty: The Effect of Israeli Policy Shifts on Syrian Peace Decisions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44: 359–377.

4. Bendor J., Hammond T.H. (1992). Rethinking Allison’s Models. American Political Science Review, 86: 301–322.

5. Berejikian J.D. (2002). A Cognitive Theory of Deterrence. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2): 165–183.

6. Brodie B. (ed.). (1946). The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. 214 p.

7. Brulé D., Mintz A. (2006). Blank Check or Marching Orders? Public Opinion and Presidential Use of Force in the United States. In H. Starr (ed.) Approaches, Levels and Methods of Analysis in International Politics: Crossing Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 157–172.

8. Bueno de Mesquita B. (1980). An Expected Utility Theory of International Conflict. The American Political Science Review, 74(4): 917–931.

9. Bueno de Mesquita B. (1981). The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press. 223 p. Carlsnaes W. et al. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE. 904 p.

10. Carmines E.G., Stimson J.A. (1980). The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review, 74: 78–91.

11. Christensen E., Redd S. (2004). Bureaucrats vs. the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis of the Bureaucratic Politics Model and the Poliheuristic Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 69–90.

12. Cobb M.D., Kuklinski J.H. (1997). Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41: 88–121.

13. Craig A., Valeriano B. (2016). Conceptualising Cyber Arms Races. IEEE Proceedings for CCDCOE CyberCon, 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Cyber Power: 141–158.

14. Cummings M.L., Roff H.M., Cukier K., Parakilas J., Bryce H. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and International Affairs: Disruption Anticipated. Chatham House Report. 50 p.

15. Cyert R.M., March J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 332 p.

16. D’Ancone M. (2017). Post truth. The new war on truth and how to fight back. London: Ebury Press. 320 p.

17. Danilin I.V. (2020). Vliyanie tsifrovykh tehnologii na liderstvo v globalnykh protsessakh: ot platform k rynkam? [The Impact of Digital Technology on Leadership in Global Trends: From a Platform to Markets?] Vestnik MGIMO, 13(1): 100–116.

18. Degterev D.A. (2011). Kompyuternoye modelirovaniye mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Computer Modelling of International Relations]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 9. №. 3: 53–66.

19. DeRouen K., Sprecher C. (2004). Initial Crisis Reaction and Poliheuristic Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48: 56–68.

20. Drezner D. (2019) Technological change and international relations. International Relations, 33 (2). P. 286–303.

21. Edelman M. (1971). Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham Publishing. 188 p.

22. Eriksson J., Giacomello G. (2007). International Relations and Security in the Digital Age. Routledge. 230 p.

23. Eriksson J., Newlove-Eriksson L. (2021) Theorizing Technology in International Relations: Prevailing Perspectives and New Horizons. In: Giacomello G. (ed). Technology and International Relations: The New Horizon in Global Power. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. P. 1–21.

24. Farnham B. (1992). Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory. Political Psychology, 13: 205–235.

25. Fearon J.D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49: 379–414.

26. Feldman M.S. (1989). Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 216 p.

27. Fritsch S. (2014). Conceptualizing the ambivalent role of technology in international relations: Between systemic change and continuity. The Global Politics of Science and Technology. Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg: 115–138.

28. Fukuyama F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. 418 p.

29. Fukuyama F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Present Day. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girouz, 658 p.

30. Gilardi F. et al. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications. 904 p.

31. Halperin M. (1974). Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 400 p.

32. Hilsman R. (1967). To Move a Nation. New York: Doubleday. 425 p.

33. Hoijtink, M., Leese, M. (eds.) (2019). Technology and agency in international relations. Routledge. 222 p.

34. Hudson V.M. (2005). Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of international Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1): 1–30.

35. Huntington S.P. (1960). Strategic Planning and the Political Process. Foreign Affairs, 38: 285–299.

36. Hurwitz J., Manne G.A. (2018). Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change. ICLE Innovation & the New Economy Research Program, White Paper 1. 50 p.

37. Istomin I.A. (2019). Logika povedeniya gosudarstv v mezhdunarodnoi politike [The Logic of State Conduct in International Politics]. M.: Aspect Press. 296 p.

38. Jervis R. (1979). Deterrence Theory Revisited. World Politics, 31(2): 289–324.

39. Kahneman D. et al. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 193–206.

40. Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farra, Straus and Giroux, 499 p.

41. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47: 263–291.

42. Kaplan M. (1957). System and Process in International Relations. Huntington, NY: Krieger. 283 p.

43. Kim W., Bueno de Mesquita B. (1995). How Perceptions Influence the Risk of War. International Studies Quarterly, 39: 51–65.

44. Kissinger H. (2014). World Order. Penguin. 432 p.

45. Levy J.S. (1997). Prospect theory and the cognitive-rational debate. In: Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Lynne Rienner Publishers: 33–50.

46. Levy J.S. (1992). An Introduction to Prospect Theory. Political Psychology, 13: 171–186.

47. Lewandowsky S. et al. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4): 353–369.

48. Lindblom C.E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19: 79–88.

49. Losev A. (2016). Countercyclical Policies. Russia in Global Affairs, 14 (3): 70–78.

50. Maoz Z. (1990). National Choices and International Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51. March J.G., Simon H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley. 262 p.

52. McCarthy D. (2015). Power, information technology, and international relations theory. Palgrave Studies in International Relations, 220 p.

53. McDermott R. (1992). Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission. Political Psychology, 13: 237–263.

54. McIntire L. (2018). The post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 240 p.

55. Melnikova O.A. (2015). Osnovnyye zadachi informatsionnogo obespecheniya vneshnepoliticheskoi deyatelnosty [The Main Goals of Information Service in Foreign Policy-Making]. Vestnik MGIMO. 2(41): 93–100.

56. Mintz A., Redd S. (2003). Framing Effects in International Relations. Synthese, 135: 193–213.

57. Mintz A. et al. (1997). The Effect of Dynamic and Static Choice Sets on Political Decision Making: An Analysis Using the Decision Board Platform. American Political Science Review, 91: 553–566.

58. Mintz A. (1993). The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4): 595–618.

59. Mintz A. (2005). Are Leaders Susceptible to Negative Political Advice? An Experimental Study of HighRanking Military Officers. In: Mintz A. and Russett B.M. (eds.) New Directions for International Relations: Confronting the Method of Analysis Problem. Lahman, MD: Lexington: 223–238.

60. Mintz A., DeRouen K. (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 208 p.

61. Mintz A., Geva N. (1997). The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. In: Geva N., Mintz A. (eds.). Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner: 81–101.

62. Monroe K.R. (1991). The Theory of Rational Action: What Is It? How Useful Is It for Political Science? In: Crotty W.J. (ed.) Political Science: Looking to the Future. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press: 75–89.

63. Morgenthau H. J. (1972). Science: servant or master? New York: Meridian Books. 155 p.

64. Morrow J. (2000). The Ongoing Game-Theoretic Revolution. In: Midlarsky M.I. (ed.) Handbook of War Studies II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 164–192.

65. National Research Council (2014). Complex Operational Decision Making in Networked Systems of Humans and Machines: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

66. Nye J.S, Jr. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80: 153–171.

67. Nye J.S, Jr. (2004). Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization. London: Routledge. 240 p.

68. Ostrom Ch.W., Job B.L. (1986). The President and the Political Use of Force. The American Political Science Review, 80(2): 541–566.

69. Payne J.W. et al. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 307 p.

70. Preliminary Study on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. (2019). UNESCO COMEST. 26 February. 33 p. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367823

71. Redd S. (2005). The Influence of Advisers and Decision Strategies on Foreign Policy Choices: President Clinton’s Decision to Use Force in Kosovo. International Studies Perspectives, 6: 129–150.

72. Redd S. (2002). The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46: 335–364.

73. Reus-Smit Ch., Snidal D. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press. 772 p.

74. Robinson J.A., Snyder R.C. (1965). Decision-making in international politics. In: Kelman H.C. (ed.) International Political Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 435–463.

75. Rosenau J.N. (1966). Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In: Farrell R.B. (ed.) Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press: 115–169.

76. Rosenau J.N. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton University Press. 480 p.

77. Savage L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. N.Y. 294 p.

78. Schelling T. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. London: Oxford University Press. 328 p.

79. Scheuerman W.E. (2009). Realism and the critique of technology. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4): 563–584.

80. Simon H. (ed.) (1957). Models of Man. New York: John Wiley. 287 p.

81. Snyder R.C. et al. (2002). Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 186 p.

82. Solomon T. (2015). The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Discourses. Political Science. 246 p.

83. Stein J.G., Welch D.A. (1997). Rational and Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Conflict: Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses. In: Geva N., Mintz A. (ed.). Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner: 51–77.

84. Steinbruner J.D. (1974/2002). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 332 p.

85. Surratt C.G. (2017). The Internet and Social Change. McFarland. 239 p.

86. Susskind J. (2018). Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford University Press. 516 p.

87. Tsygankov P.A. (2002). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: traditsii i sovremennost [Theory of International Relations: Traditions and Modern State]. Moscow: Gardariki. 400 p.

88. Verba S. (1961). Assumptions of Rationality and Non-Rationality in Models of the International System. World Politics, 14(1): 93–117.

89. Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 625 p.

90. Welch D.A. (1992). The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect. International Security, 17(2): 112–146.

91. Wendt A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 452 p.

92. Whyte G., Levi A.S. (1994). The Origins and Function of the Reference Point in Risky Group Decision Making: The Case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7: 243–260.

93. Wilson W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197–222.

94. Wittman D. (1979). How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23: 743–763.

95. Zagare C.F. (1990). Rational Choice Models and International Relations Research. International Interactions, 15(3-4): 197–201.

96. Zey M. (1992). Decision Making: Alternatives to Rational Choice Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 454 p.