Alex Mintz

The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, Faculty Member

Followers

286

Following

Co-authors

Public Views

less

Uploads

Papers by Alex Mintz

Rethinking Group Dynamics

Cambridge University Press eBooks, Feb 28, 2022

Beyond Rationality

How and why do people make political decisions? This book is the first to present a unified frame... more How and why do people make political decisions? This book is the first to present a unified framework of the Behavioral Political Science paradigm. – BPS presents a range of psychological approaches to understanding political decision-making. The integration of these approaches with Rational Choice Theory provides students with a comprehensible paradigm for understanding current political events around the world. Presented in nontechnical language and enlivened with a wealth of real-world examples, this is an ideal core text for a one-semester courses in political science, American government, political psychology, or political behavior. It can also supplement a course in international relations or public policy.

Beyond Rationality: Behavioral Political Science in the 21st Century

Introduction: Political Economy and National Security

Group decision making in conflict: From groupthink to polythink in the war in Iraq

Conclusions and Implications

Routledge eBooks, Jul 9, 2019

The Rational Actor Model

Cambridge University Press eBooks, Feb 22, 2010

In this chapter, we look at models and approaches to FPDM that proceed from rational actor assump... more In this chapter, we look at models and approaches to FPDM that proceed from rational actor assumptions. We examine the expected utility model of war and some game-theoretic models such as the Prisoner's Dilemma, Chicken Game, and the Tit-for-Tat strategy. THE RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL The rational actor model is a linchpin of FPDM. Paul MacDonald (2003, 551) contends that many see it “as the most plausible candidate for a universal theory of political and social behavior, whose simple and intuitively plausible assumptions hold the promise of unifying the diverse subfields of political science.” Whereas many scholars criticize the model, others strongly defend it. Before a model can be proposed based on its tenets or its underlying assumptions criticized, we must first understand it. A rational approach extensively used in foreign policy analysis today, expected utility theory (EUT) sprang from the work of von Neumann and Morgenstern in the 1940s. The approach has its roots in microeconomics. The decision maker is assumed to be able to rank preferences “according to the degree of satisfaction of achieving these goals and objectives” (Sage 1990, 233). The rational actor is also expected to be able to identify alternatives and their consequences and to select from these alternatives in an effort to maximize satisfaction. In this setting, the rational economic decision maker is expected to be able to access a set of objectives and goals.

Defense Expenditures, Economic Growth, and The “Peace Dividend”

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Jun 1, 1995

Despite the proliferation of studies on the impact of military spending on economic growth, it is... more Despite the proliferation of studies on the impact of military spending on economic growth, it is still not known whether defense spending hinders or promotes growth. Most analysts attribute the lack of consistent/robust findings to three problems: the lack of a sound theory of defense-growth trade-offs, an inadequate research design, and a failure to account for the externality effects that defense spending might have on other parts of the economy. In this study, the authors try to remedy these problems by (1) relying on a model of the defense-growth trade-off that is grounded in the neoclassic theory of growth, (2) estimating this model using time-series data on 103 countries, and (3) explicitly accounting for the externality effects of defense spending by the use of a multisectorial model. The results show that, regardless of the specification of the models, and contrary to most cross-national studies, military expenditures have a significant positive effect on growth in only about 10% of the cases.

Why Study Foreign Policy from a Decision-Making Perspective?

Cambridge University Press eBooks, Feb 22, 2010

Foreign policy choices range from the dramatic to the mundane. Leaders make decisions to go to wa... more Foreign policy choices range from the dramatic to the mundane. Leaders make decisions to go to war, make peace, form an alliance, establish diplomatic relations, implement a position on nuclear nonproliferation, impose economic sanctions, or ratify global environmental agreements. The focus of this book is this broad range of decisions. We approach this topic from a number of directions. We consider, among others, the type of the decision (one-shot, sequential, interactive, group), the level of analysis in foreign policy decision making (the individual, group, coalition), the processes and dynamics that lead to the decision, biases and errors, and, of course, models of decision making (rational actor, cybernetic, bureaucratic politics, organizational politics, poliheuristic theory, and prospect theory). We examine the determinants of foreign policy decisions (the decision environment, psychological factors, international factors, and domestic influences). We look at a host of psychological factors that shape decisions, such as images and belief systems, emotions, analogies, the personality of leaders, leadership style, miscalculations and misperceptions, and environmental factors such as time constraints, ambiguity, stress, and risk. We then look at the effect of international and domestic factors such as deterrence, the arms race, the regime type of the adversary, strategic surprise, economic conditions, public opinion, and electoral cycles on foreign policy decision making. We conclude with a case study of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003, analyzed through five decision models.

Groupthink, Polythink, and Con-Div

Routledge eBooks, Dec 15, 2022

Framing, Marketing, and Media Effects on Foreign Policy Decision Making

Cambridge University Press eBooks, Feb 22, 2010

To garner public support for their foreign and security policies, state leaders need to market th... more To garner public support for their foreign and security policies, state leaders need to market their policies to the public, the opposition, and their constituencies, allies, and adversaries. This chapter introduces several marketing and framing “tactics” that leaders use to promote their foreign policies. The discipline of marketing primarily deals with the marketing of products and services to consumers and customer relationship management (CRM). Political marketing focuses on the marketing of political candidates, political platforms, and political parties. International relations marketing deals with the marketing of foreign policy and national security policies, including peace and war marketing (Mintz 2006). As we have shown in previous chapters, psychological factors contribute greatly to our understanding of foreign policy decision making. Psychological theories also draw our attention to the important role of framing and marketing foreign policy decisions. In this chapter, we show that marketing and framing exist and matter in foreign policy making. MARKETING EFFECTS Just as marketers promote their products to generate sales, it is crucial for state leaders to market their policies to different constituencies. Leaders can market war (including war initiation, escalation, and termination), peace, international agreements, and many other foreign policy decisions. One marketing tactic often used by leaders is framing . Framing, as previously explained, refers to the manner in which an issue is presented (see, e.g., Tversky and Kahneman 1981; Frisch 1993). Leaders try to impose or introduce and promote frames that affect how the public views a particular situation.

International, Domestic, and Cultural Factors Influencing Foreign Policy Decision Making

Cambridge University Press eBooks, Feb 22, 2010

INTERNATIONAL FACTORS Foreign policy decisions are typically made in a strategic setting. Thus, b... more INTERNATIONAL FACTORS Foreign policy decisions are typically made in a strategic setting. Thus, behavior of adversaries and allies affects foreign policy decisions in an interactive sequential setting. For example, U.S. foreign policy during the Georgian crisis in the summer of 2008 was implemented in response to Russia's actions in Georgia. U.S. policy on missile defense in Europe affects Russia's decisions as well as Polish, Czech, and other European leaders' decisions. U.S. foreign policy goals and actions influence Israeli policies toward its enemies and friends. Factors such as the arms race, deterrence, the regime type of the adversary, strategic surprise, and of course alliances affect foreign policy decisions (see Table 7.1). For example, it was empirically demonstrated that leaders of democratic states are much more likely to attack a nondemocratic adversary than they are another democracy. It is also clear that the mutual assured destruction (MAD) strategy affected superpower behavior during the Cold War and that the arms race between the United States and the USSR and between NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) influenced many decisions not only of the actors directly involved in the race (the United States and the USSR) but also of third-party players such as China, India, South Korea, Israel, Japan, the Arab states, and, of course, European states. After considering the factors in Table 7.1, we turn to the analysis of domestic factors that shape foreign policy decisions, such as economic conditions (diversionary theory) and the role of public opinion.

3. The 9/11 Attacks: Polythink in National Security

Stanford University Press eBooks, Dec 31, 2020

Rethinking Group Dynamics: The Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited

Social Science Research Network, Jun 7, 2021

Theories of Budgetary Tradeoffs

Social Science Research Network, Mar 1, 1995

The literature on defense-welfare tradeoffs has not been characterized by an emphasis on theory d... more The literature on defense-welfare tradeoffs has not been characterized by an emphasis on theory development. Indeed, most work has concentrated on using increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques to isolate empirical relationships in spending data on various countries. Unfortunately, however, this empirical enterprise has proven inconclusive, with some studies finding trade-offs and others not. In this paper, we suggest that a greater focus on theory development may help to resolve some of the empirical conflicts in this literature. In particular, we argue that there are at least two substantial bodies of theoretical work available that, while relevant to guns-butter questions, have remained to a large extent unexploited. One conclusion that we draw from this exercise is that the discussion of tradeoffs should probably move away form its current focus on primarily direct exchanges between spending on guns and butter, and instead begin to explore more indirect links which are acting through the economy.

The Polythink Syndrome: U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ISIS

Marketing Foreign Policy

Defense Expenditures, Economic Growth, and The 'Peace Dividend': A Longitudinal Analysis of 103 Countries

Social Science Research Network, Jun 1, 1995

Despite the proliferation of studies on the impact of military spending on economic growth, it is... more

Introduction: How Do Leaders Make Decisions? An Applied Decision Analysis Account

Contributions To Conflict Management, Peace Economics and Development, Sep 23, 2019

Consequently, this chapter summarizes the Applied Decision Analysis method which is utilized thro... more Consequently, this chapter summarizes the Applied Decision Analysis method which is utilized throughout the chapters comprising this volume. We then discuss the findings presented in this volume, while demonstrating the merit of both ADA and the poliheuristic theory of decision (Mintz, 2004), in the robust analyses of decisions made by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Benjamin Netanyahu, Winston Churchill, Mao Zedong, Barack Obama, Saddam Hussein, Khaled Mashal, Muammar Gaddafi, Pieter Botha, and Frederik de Klerk. We conclude by providing a brief summary of the case studies which are included in this volume.

Blank Check or Marching Orders? Public Opinion and the Presidential Use of Force

Abasic assumption in democratic societies is that government policy is shaped by the preferences ... more Abasic assumption in democratic societies is that government policy is shaped by the preferences of the citizenry. This belief concerning the influence of public opinion applies to the realms of both domestic as well as foreign policy. Moreover, in the case of the United States, no other foreign policy issue is more provocative and salient to the public than those concerning the use of military force abroad (e.g., Mueller 1973; Hurwitz and Peffley 1987b; Barnet 1990). While some scholars argue that foreign policy is (or should be) beyond the reach of public pressure (e.g., Almond 1950; Lippmann 1955a; Cohen 1973; Morgenthau 1973), the assumption that the influence of public opinion on foreign policy is at the heart of prominent theories in international relations (e.g., Kant [1795] 1939; Maoz and Russett 1993; Russett 1993). Yet, there are hardly any quantitative, systematic studies evaluating the influence of public attitudes toward the use of force and presidential crisis decision making.

Alex Mintz

Uploads

Papers by Alex Mintz

Log In