Abstract
Most of the key notions of contemporary FPA actually emerged over half a century ago. The jargon has changed, the case studies are different and the methods are more sophisticated, but the fundamental conclusions remain much the same. That does not mean that FPA has stagnated for half a century. On the contrary, after its development in the 1960s and before its regeneration in the 2000s, FPA has become immersed in empirical demonstrations. Now that FPA has empirically proven several of its central ideas, this chapter argues that it should focus on theoretical regeneration, which can be achieved by addressing four major challenges. These include (1) establishing the links between different theoretical models; (2) highlighting the comparison between national contexts; (3) extending research to new categories of actors and (4) developing a genuine dialogue with practitioners without losing its identity in the process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Balabanova, E. 2010. Media Power During Humanitarian Interventions: Is Eastern Europe Different from the West? Journal of Peace Research 47 (1): 71–82.
Barnett, M., and M. Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Betsill, M.M., and H. Bulkeley. 2004. Transnational Networks and Global Environmental Governance: The Cities for Climate Protection. International Studies Quarterly 48 (2): 471–493.
Betsill, M.M., and E. Corell. 2007. NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Blatter, J., M. Kreutzer, M. Rentl, and J. Thiele. 2008. The Foreign Relations of European Regions. West European Politics 31 (3): 464–490.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., and R. McDermott. 2004. Crossing No Man’s Land: Cooperation from the Trenches. Political Psychology 25 (2): 271–287.
Cantir, C., and J. Kaarbo. 2012. Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (1): 5–24.
Carlsnaes, W. 2004. Where is the Analysis of European Foreign Policy Going? European Union Politics 5 (4): 495–508.
Carta, C. 2012. The European Union Diplomatic Service: Ideas, Preferences and Identities. Abingdon: Routledge.
Carvalho, B., H. Leira, and J.M. Hobson. 2011. The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919. Millennium 39 (3): 735–758.
Chwieroth, J. 2007. Testing and Measuring the Role of Ideas: The Case of Neoliberalism in the International Monetary Fund. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1): 5–30.
Coolsaet, R. 2002. Foreign Policy of the Belgium: at the heart of Europe, the Weight of a Small Power. Brussels: De Boeck.
Coolsaet, R., and T. Vandervelden. 2004. New World Order, New Diplomacy? In Foreign Policy: the Classic Model to the Test, ed. V. Roosens, V. Rosoux, and A. Wilde of Estmael, 107–123. Brussels: Peter Lang.
Cooper, A.F. 2007. Celebrity Diplomacy. Boulder: Paradigm.
Curtis, S., ed. 2014. The Power of Cities in International Relations. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
———. 2016, Global Cities and Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Devlen, B. 2010. Dealing or Dueling with the United States? Explaining and Predicting Iranian Behavior during the Nuclear Crisis. International Studies Review 12 (1): 53–68.
Finnemore, M. 1993. International Organizations as Teachers of Norms. International Organization 47 (4): 565–597.
George, A.L. 1994. The Two Cultures of Academia and Policy-Making: Bridging the Gap. Political Psychology 15 (1): 143–172.
Hall, R. 1997. Moral Authority as a Power Resource. International Organization 51 (4): 591–622.
Hermann, M.G. 2001. How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework. International Studies Review 3 (1): 47–82.
Hill, C., and P. Beshoff, eds. 1994. Two worlds of International Relations. London: Routledge.
Hoffmann, S. 1977. An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus 106 (3): 41–60.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., N.J. Mitchell, and K.G. Herron. 2004. Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the US and British audiences. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (3): 287–309.
Jentleson, B., and E. Ratner. 2011. Bridging the Beltway – Ivory Tower Gap. International Studies Review 13 (1): 6–11.
Kaarbo, J. 2008. Coalition Cabinet Decision Making: Institutional and Psychological Factors. International Studies Review 10 (1): 57–86.
Kaarbo, J., and M.G. Hermann. 1998. Leadership Styles of Prime Ministers. Leadership Quarterly 9 (3): 243–263.
Koehn, P.H. 2008. Underneath Kyoto: Emerging Subnational Government Initiatives and Incipient Issue-Bundling Opportunities in China and the United States. Global Environment Politics 8 (1): 53–77.
Krasner, S. 1993. Westphalia and All That. In Foreign Policy Ideas, ed. J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, 235–264. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Larsen, H. 2009. A Distinct FPA for Europe? European Journal of International Relations 15 (3): 537–566.
Lecours, A. 2002. Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the Foreign Policy and International Relations of Regions. International Negotiation 7 (1): 91–114.
Lepgold, J. 1998. Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance. Political Science Quarterly 113 (1): 43–62.
McMillan, S.L. 2008. Subnational Foreign Policy Actors: How and Why Governors Participate in US Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 4 (3): 227–253.
Paquin, S. 2004. The Identity Paradiplomacy: Quebec, Catalonia and Flanders in International Relations. Politics and Society 23 (2–3): 203–237.
Ringmar, E. 1996. Identity, Interest and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden’s Intervention in the Thirty Years’ War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Risse, T., D. Engelmann-Martin, H.-J. Knopf, and K. Roescher. 1999. To Euro or Not to Euro? European Journal of International Relations 5 (2): 147–187.
Rosenau, J.N. 1966. Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, ed. J.N. Rosenau, 95–149. New York/London: Free Press.
———. 1968. Comparative Foreign Policy: Fad, Fantasy gold Field? International Studies Quarterly 12 (3): 296–329.
Ruggie, J.G. 1993. Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schmidt, S. 2011. To Order the Minds of Scholars. International Studies Quarterly 55 (3): 601–623.
Sofer, S. 1988. Old and New Diplomacy. Review of International Studies 14 (3): 195–211.
Waever, O. 1998. The Sociology of a not so International Discipline. International Relations 52 (4): 687–727.
Walt, S.M. 2005. The Relationship Between Theory and Policy in International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 8 (1): 23–48.
Welch, D. 2005. Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
White, B. 1999. The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis. European Journal of International Relations 5 (1): 37–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morin, JF., Paquin, J. (2018). What Are the Current Challenges to FPA?. In: Foreign Policy Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61003-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61003-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61002-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61003-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)