Juliet Kaarbo

A Practical Guide to the Comparative Case Study Method in Political Psychology

The case study, as a method of inquiry, is particularly suited to the field of political psychology. Yet there is little training in political science, and even less in psychology, on how to do case study research. Furthermore, misconceptions about case studies contribute to the methodological barrier that exists within and between the two parent disciplines. This paper reviews the various definitions and uses of case studies and integrates a number of recent insights and advances into a practical guide for conducting case study research. To this end, the paper discusses various stereotypes of the case study and offers specific steps aimed at addressing these criticisms.

Power and Influence in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Role of Junior Coalition Partners in German and Israeli Foreign Policy

The special characteristics of parliamentary systems and coalition politics play an important role in the foreign policy decision-making process of Germany and Israel. Germany and Israel have seen continuous coalition rule—cabinets in which senior and junior partners share the power to govern. Junior parties in Israeli and German coalition cabinets have been able to convert their junior status into significant influence on key foreign policy decisions. What explains this influence? This study investigates several alternative hypotheses for explaining variation in junior party influence in eight important cases of foreign policy decision making in Germany and Israel. Through structured case studies, this research finds that the most important variables for explaining junior party influence in these cases are the unity of the junior and senior parties on the specific issue, junior party strategies of influence, and the locus of decision-making authority. Finally, suggestions are offered regarding the investigation of other minority, or less powerful actors in the making of foreign policy.

Leadership styles of prime ministers: How individual differences affect the foreign policymaking process

Abstract Much of the literature linking leadership style to foreign policy decision making has focused on American presidents. This article explores with what success such literature can be generalized to the study of prime ministers in parliamentary systems. It posits a method for assessing the leadership style of prime ministers and for examining if their behavior in the foreign policymaking process reflects their style. Data from a pilot study of four prime ministers are reported.

Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision‐Making: A Framework for Research

Although the institutional contexts of prime ministers in parliamentary democracies and of U.S. presidents are very different, both types of executive leaders influence the decision-making processes through their leadership styles. Leadership style includes how the leaders relate to those around them, how they like to receive information, and how they make up their minds. While there are numerous empirical studies and theoretical frameworks on the leadership styles of U.S. presidents, few studies of prime ministers are concerned with personality and styles of leadership. This paper reviews the literature on U.S. presidential styles and on organizational leadership in order to construct a framework for the study of prime minister leadership styles. Components of the proposed framework are illustrated with examples of British prime ministers and German chancellors. In addition, categories of dependent variables to be explained by leadership style are discussed. I argue that leadership style has the greatest impact on the decision-making process and that although the direct effect of leadership style on foreign policy behavior is less, leadership style indirectly influences foreign policy through the decision-making process.

People and Processes in Foreign Policymaking: Insights from Comparative Case Studies

The previous articles in this special issue have elaborated a framework for classifying the people involved in foreign policymaking into decision units. Of particular interest has been examining the circumstances under which one type of decision unit takes responsibility for making the choice regarding how to deal with a foreign policy problem and the effect of the nature of that decision unit on the substance of the action selected. The present article is intended to report the results of the application of the framework to sixty-five case studies involving foreign policy issues facing thirty-one countries from all regions of the world. A list of the cases can be found in the appendix.

Coalition Theory in Praxis: A Comparative Politics Simulation of the Cabinet Formation Process.

American politics, few simulations exist for courses in comparative politics (Dodge 1983; Endersby and Webber 1995; Hensley 1993; Suransky 1983; Winham 1991). Yet many aspects of comparative politics seem particularly ripe for simulation. What simulations do best is provide a framework of rules that shape individual behavior (Walcott 1980). In this way, students can learn the effects of institutional design-a common theme in comparative politics-by experiencing these effects. This article describes a role-playing simulation of coalition cabinet formation processes in Europe originally designed for an upper-level undergraduate course on Western European politics. Our project was designed to address a significant gap in the simulations literature with re-

The Social Psychology of Inter- and Intragroup Conflict in Governmental Politics

Conflict within and between groups is a pervasive part of bureaucratic political life. Bureaucratic structures divide individuals into groups such as agencies, departments, bureaus, and committees. These structures are optimal for accomplishing complex tasks with broad implications. The interests, however, of such groups and their individual members are rarely perfectly aligned, so the same interdependence that facilitates productivity in bureaucratic settings also makes conflict inevitable.

The party politics of legislative‒executive relations in security and defence policy

Abstract The move from territorial defence to ‘wars of choice’ has influenced the domestic politics of military interventions. This paper examines the extent to which both the substance and the procedure of military interventions are contested among political parties. Regarding the substance, our analysis of Chapel Hill Expert Survey data demonstrates that across European states political parties on the right are more supportive of military missions than those on the left. On the decision-making procedures, our case studies of Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom show that political parties on the left tend to favour strong parliamentary control whereas those on the right tend to prefer an unconstrained executive, although with differences across countries. These findings challenge the view that ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’ and contribute to a better understanding of how political parties and parliaments influence military interventions.

Whither the Study of Governmental Politics in Foreign Policymaking

Editors Note: Unlike previous essay reviews in this journal, this review is a symposium with a number of different experts reflecting on governmental politics from a variety of perspectives. Eric Stern and Bertjan Verbeek both organized and have served as editors of the symposium. They wrote the introduction and conclusion to the piece. The various authors represent three different disciplines—political science, psychology, and public administration—and come from four countries. Several are involved in the application of this knowledge in collaboration with a government agency. All are concerned with where research on governmental politics has been and where it can and should go in the future.

No, prime minister: explaining the House of Commons’ vote on intervention in Syria

ABSTRACT On 29 August 2013, the UK House of Commons inflicted the first defeat on a Prime Minister over a matter of war and peace since 1782. Recalled to debate and vote on UK intervention in Syria, the Commons humbled the government and crucially impacted the development of UK foreign policy. This article places that vote, and the developments leading to it, in the context of the role of parliaments in security policy and explores the relationships between parliamentary influence, leadership, intra-party and intra-coalition politics, and public opinion. From an in-depth analysis of leaders’ statements and parliamentary debate, we find a combination of intra-party politics and party leadership were most significant. An additional factor – the role of historical precedent – was also important. Our analysis explores the fluidity and interconnectedness of the various factors for parliamentary influence in foreign policy and offers directions for future theoretical development and empirical research.