Sameness of the Domestic and Foreign Policy Process

  • Uncategorized

Sameness of the Domestic andForeign Policy Process

Sameness of the Domestic andForeign Policy Process

The foreign policy-making process resembles the domesticpolicy-making process in ways of problem identification, creating theagenda, offering policy alternatives, adopting of government policy,implementing policy and evaluating policy (Dodds, 2013). In itsinitial stage, a foreign policy making process follows similarstructures of drawing attention to matters that require governmentactions. It follows a similar layout of the domestic policy-makingagenda-setting stage. Policy makers or participants of the foreignpolicy making processes give the status of on the seriousness of theissue into consideration in the same conduction as the domestic one(Cole, 2010). For example, the US may see the need to participate inan international crisis for various reasons especially attributed tosecurity. Therefore, the nation will have to assess its domesticpolitical surroundings before extending to the international level.

After understanding the local political context, the country thenproceeds to goal setting. At the domestic level, the US similarlyassesses her local need for favoring particular policies andconsiders its political boundaries and citizens before processingwith policy-making that comprises of goals setting. As the countryfactors in which goals hold high priority at a local level in thecontextual period, a similar way is employed to determine the goalsthat influence both domestic and international politics during thetime. Foreign policy making process resembles domestic procedures inthe determination of options because it plays an exclusive doublerole in how it will form and implement its policies at all levels(Dieck &amp Cohen, 2014).

For example, a state has to determine which policy options arepresent to meet her goals in light of the political surroundings, asit would have acted at domestic level. A basic process occurssimilarly to consider the capacities of carrying out the plan alongwith its consequences of each action. Both the foreign and domesticpolicy formal decision-making takes place at the state governingauthorities. The executive branch of the government makes both theforeign and domestic decisions that include the head of the state,the cabinet, ministers or the head of governments (Datta, Palshikar &ampVanaik, 2013).

The Foreign policy then proceeds in a similar way that the domesticpolicy makers take the time to develop proposals for solving theproblems as well as deliberating the pros and cons of the plans. Forinstance, a state considers the funds and other public expendituresthat go into the foreign policy-making in similar ways it does withdomestic policies. The determination of policy continuation remainssimilar as it monitors the intentions and the distribution of itsfunctionalities. Ways of obtaining support for the proposals to makeit a stated policy follows similar ways only that for foreign policyinvolved nations will take part in compromises and bargainingcharacteristics during the adoption the stage (Mintz &amp DeRouen,2010).

While implementing the policy, the guiding principles appear throughthe international programs just as they appear in federal bureaucracyat the domestic level. While the domestic process at this stagepredominantly involves state officials and local officials, theforeign process employs the extension of presidents of the nationsalong with state officials, citizens and private entities (Dodds,2013). The State Department or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs servein the capacity of specialists in international policy arms and takethe active role in the final implementation of the selected policy.In the last stage of foreign policy making, the consequences of theimplemented plans are evaluated for performance in similar manners asat the domestic level and follows the same procedure in cases ofleads to changes.


Coles, J. (2010). Making foreign policy. London: John Murray.

Datta, P., Palshikar, S., &amp Vanaik, A. (2013). Politicalscience. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Dieck, H., &amp Cohen, S. (2014). The influence of Americanpublic opinion on US military interventions after the Cold War.[S.l.]: [s.n.].

Dodds, A. (2013). Comparative public policy. Houndmills,Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mintz, A., &amp DeRouen, K. (2010). Understanding foreign policydecision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Close Menu