The Nexus of Power, Culture, and Elite Interactions: A Neoclassical Realist Framework for Foreign Policy Analysis

Year 2025, , 1 - 19

Haluk Doğan

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1761208

Abstract

Neoclassical Realism (NCR) combines international and domestic factors, offering a multidimensional framework for analyzing foreign policy. While this integration of external and internal dynamics has advanced foreign policy analysis, NCR remains constrained by its reliance on static unit-level variables. This limitation impedes NCR’s potential to fully bridge International Relations (IR) and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). In particular, NCR’s treatment of ideational variables as fixed overlooks the dynamic role of elite interactions, which significantly shape a state’s specific and fluid actions toward certain regions or actors—even under stable systemic pressures and enduring strategic-cultural ideas. This article addresses this gap by proposing the inclusion of inter-elite interactions as an intervening variable within the NCR framework. It argues that while the distribution of power sets the parameters for foreign policy, strategic culture and inter-elite interactions shape the specific foreign policy choices. By incorporating a socio-psychological focus on elite relations, the paper aims to enhance NCR’s explanatory power and fully unlock its potential for FPA. This theoretical development offers a more comprehensive framework for analyzing the complexities of foreign policy, advancing a systematic and integrative approach that bridges the divide between agents and structures, and strengthens the theoretical link between IR and FPA.

Keywords

structure and agency , foreign policy behavior , relative power , strategic culture , elite decision-making

References

• Baldwin, D. A. 2013. Power and International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simmons. London, Sage Publications: 273-298.
• Biava, A., M. Drent, and G. P. Herd. 2011. Characterizing the European Union’s Strategic Culture: An Analytical Framework. Journal of Common Market Studies 49, 6: 1-22.
• Blagden, D. 2021. Roleplay, Realpolitik and ‘Great Powerness’: The Logical Distinction between Survival and Social Performance in Grand Strategy. European Journal of International Relations 27, 4: 1162-1192.
• Breuning, M. 2022. Investigating Leaders: Integrating the Study of Individuals in Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations. Teoria Polityki 6: 81-99.
• Dueck, C. 2004. New Perspectives on American Grand Strategy: A Review Essay. International Security 28, 4: 197-216.
• Dueck, C. 2006. Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
• Elkins, D. J., and R. E. B. Simeon. 1979. A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain? Comparative Politics 11, 2: 127-145.
• Foulon, M., and G. Meibauer. 2020. Realist Avenues to Global International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 26, 4: 1203-1229.
• Goffman, E. 1971. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Götz, E. 2021. Neoclassical Realist Theories, Intervening Variables, and Paradigmatic Boundaries. Foreign Policy Analysis 17, 2: 1-13. Gray, C. S. 1999. Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory Strikes Back. Review of International Studies 25, 1: 49-69.
• Hellmann, G., and K. E. Jørgensen. 2015. Introduction. In Theorizing Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, ed. G. Hellmann and K. E. Jørgensen. New York, Palgrave Macmillan: 1-12.
• Hermann, R. K. 2003. Image Theory and Strategic Interaction in International Relations. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York, Oxford University Press: 285-314.
• Holsti, K. J. 1964. The Concept of Power in the Study of International Relations. Background 7, 4: 179-194.
• Holsti, O. R. 1970. The Operational Code Approach to Study of Political Leaders: John Foster Dulles’ Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs. Canadian Journal of Political Science 3, 1: 123-157.
• Houghton, D. P. 2007. Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach. Foreign Policy Analysis 3, 1: 24-45
• Hudson, V. M. 2005. Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1, 1: 1-30.
• Hudson, V. M. 2016. The History and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis. In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, ed. S. Smith, A. Hadfield and T. Dunne. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 13-35.
• Hudson, V. M., and C. S. Vore. 1995. Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Mershon International Studies Review 39: 209-238.
• Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Juneau, T. 2015. Squandered Opportunity: Neoclassical Realism and Iranian Foreign Policy. California, Stanford University Press.
• Kaarbo, J. 2003. Foreign Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century: Back to Comparison, Forward to Identity and Ideas. International Studies Review 5, 2: 156-202.
• Kaarbo, J. 2015. A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR Theory. International Studies Review 17, 2: 189-216.
• Kilic, C. (2025). A Different Approach on Analyzing Countries’ Grand Strategies: China and the United States. Uluslararası İlişkiler Advanced Online Publication: 1-23.
• Kitchen, N. 2010. Systemic Pressures, and Domestic Ideas: A Neoclassical Realist Model of Grand Strategy Formation. Review of International Studies 36, 1: 117-143.
• Kitchen, N. 2012. Ideas of Power and Power of Ideas. In Neoclassical Realism in European Politics: Bringing Power Back In, ed. A. Toje and B. Kunz. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 78-95.
• Kozub-Karkut, M. 2019. Neoclassical Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis - A Possible Way of Integration? Teoria Polityki 3: 201-227.
• Kubálková, V. 2015. Foreign Policy, International Politics, and Constructivism. In Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, ed. V. Kubálková. London, Routledge: 15-38.
• Lane, R. 1990. Concrete Theory: An Emerging Political Method. American Political Science Review 84, 3: 927-940.
• Layne, C. 2006. The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
• Lobell, S. E. 2009. Threat Assessment, the State, and Foreign Policy: A Neoclassical Realist Model. In Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy, ed. S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman and J. W. Taliaferro. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 42-75.
• Lotz, H. 1997. Myth and NAFTA: The Use of Core Values in US Politics. In Culture and Foreign Policy, ed. V. M. Hudson. Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publishers: 73-98.
• Mallett, E., and N. Kitchen. 2023. Neoclassical Realism, Policy Paradigms and Strategic Change: Understanding the US Rapprochement to Cuba. International Relations 0, 0.
• Meibauer, G. 2020. Interests, Ideas, and the Study of State Behavior in Neoclassical Realism. Review of International Studies 46, 1: 20-36.
• Meibauer, G., L. Desmaele, T. Onea, N. Kitchen, M. Foulon, A. Reichwein, and J. Sterling-Folker. 2021. Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism at Theory’s End, International Studies Review 23, 1: 268–295.
• Morgenthau, H. J. 1948. Politics Among Nations. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.
• Morin, J., and J. Paquin. 2018. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mufti, M. 2009. Daring and Caution in Turkish Strategic Culture: Republic at Sea. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Narizny, K. 2017. On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism. International Security 42, 2: 155-190.
• Onea, T. 2012. Putting the ‘Classical’ in Neoclassical Realism: Neoclassical Realist Theories and US Expansion in the Post-Cold War. International Relations 26, 2: 139-164.
• Ozkececi-Taner, B. and L. E. Wehner. 2025. The State of the Art in Foreign Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Uluslararası İlişkiler Advanced Online Publication: 1-20. Porter, P. 2018. Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Been Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment. International Security 42, 4: 9-46.
• Rathbun, B. 2008. A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism. Security Studies 17, 1: 294-321.
• Reichwein, A. 2012. The Tradition of Neoclassical Realism. In Neoclassical Realism in European Politics: Bringing Power Back In, ed. A. Toje and B. Kunz. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 30-61.
• Ripley, B. 1993. Psychology, Foreign Policy, and International Relations Theory. Political Psychology 14, 3: 403-416.
• Ripsman, N. M. 2009. Neoclassical Realism and Domestic Interest Groups. In Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy, ed. S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman and J. W. Taliaferro. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 170-194.
• Ripsman, N. M. 2011. Neoclassical Realism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Ripsman, N. M., J. W. Taliaferro, and S. E. Lobell. 2016. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Rose, G. 1998. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. Word Politics 51, 1: 144- 172.
• Schmidt, B., and T. Juneau. 2012. Neoclassical Realism and Power. In Neoclassical Realism in European Politics: Bringing Power Back In, ed. A. Toje and B. Kunz. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 61-79.
• Schweller, R. L. 2003. The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism. In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, ed. C. Elman and M. F. Elman. Cambridge, MIT Press: 311-349.
• Schweller, R. L. 2004. Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing. International Security 29, 2: 159-201.
• Schweller, R. L. 2009. Neoclassical Realism and State Mobilization: Expansionist Ideology in the Age of Mass Politics. In Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy, ed. S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman and J. W. Taliaferro. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 227-251.
• Sears, N. A. 2017. The Neoclassical Realist Research Program: Between Progressive Promise and Degenerative Dangers. International Politics Reviews 5: 21-31.
• Shifrinson, J. R. I. 2020. NATO Enlargement and US Foreign Policy: The Origins, Durability, and Impact of an Idea. International Politics 57, 1: 342-370.
• Simon, H. A. 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. American Political Science Review 79, 2: 293-304.
• Snyder, J. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.
• Snyder, R. C., H. W. Bruck, and B. Sapin. 1954. Decision-making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Foreign Policy Analysis Project Series No. 3. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Sterling-Folker, J. 2009. Forward is as Forward Does: Assessing Neoclassical Realism from a Traditional Perspective. In Rethinking Realism in International Relations, ed. A. Freyberg-Inan, E. Harrison and P. James. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 191-218.
• Taliaferro, J. W., S. E. Lobell, and N. M. Ripsman. 2009. Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. In Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy, ed. S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman and J. W. Taliaferro. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-42.
• Tang, S. 2023. Neoclassical Realism: Methodological Critiques and Remedies. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 16, 3: 289-310.
• Walt, S. 2002. The Enduring Relevance of Realist Tradition. In Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner. New York, W. W. Norton: 197-231.
• Walt, S. 2018. US Grand Strategy after the Cold War: Can Realism Explain It? Should Realism Guide It? International Relations 32, 1: 3-22.
• Waltz, K. N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York, McGraw-Hill. Wendt, A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Wivel, A. 2005. Explaining Why State X Made a Certain Move Last Tuesday: The Promise and Limitations of Realist Foreign Policy Analysis. Journal of International Relations and Development 8, 4: 355-380.
• Wivel, A. 2024. Foreign Policy Analysis and Realism. In The Oxford Handbook of Foreign Policy Analysis, ed. J. Kaarbo and C. G. Thies. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 97- 114.
• Yeşiltaş, M., and F. Pirinççi. 2021. Turkey’s Strategic Conduct under the Changing International System. Insight Turkey 23, 4: 119-146.
• Yeşilyurt, N. 2020. Understanding the Sudden Rise and Fall in Turkish-Egyptian Relations after 2011. Siyasal: Journal of Political Science 29, 2: 337-365.
• Zakaria, F. 1992. Realism and Domestic Politics: A Review Essay. International Security 17, 1: 177-198.