How Individual Leaders Shape Foreign Policy: Byman & Pollack

Introduction: The Three Levels of Political Analysis

The central argument of the article by Byman and Pollack is that political scientists should begin theorizing about the impact individual leaders have upon their countries' foreign relations. Scholars recognize that three levels of political analysis exist with regard to international relations. The first level deals with how individual leaders influence the behavior of their nations. The second level deals with how nations' international behavior is affected by domestic forces such as parliaments, bureaucracies, opposition parties, and public opinion. The third level deals with how nations' behavior is determined by their relative power position within the world. For a long time, political scientists have marginalized the importance of the first level of analysis, based on the notion that the more impersonal second and third levels more significantly shape a country's foreign policy.

Why Individual Leaders Matter in International Relations

Byman and Pollack argue that political scientists should not marginalize the impact of individuals on international relations for the following reasons. The first reason is that a diverse array of human personality traits exist within leaders, and these can help explain why certain leaders behave in certain ways. For example, leaders who are aggressive, prone to risk-taking, and greedy most often take their nations to war. The second reason is that first-level political analysis can contribute to the creation of complex political theories capable of predicting the behavior of nations. The third reason is that first-level analysis can help explain nations' intentions, which are often formed independently of security concerns. In other words, how states seek to maintain their security in the world depends upon whether they — or rather their leaders — intend to make war or peace with others.

Byman and Pollack go on to provide evidence supporting their argument by showing that first-level analysis can generate testable hypotheses that could later be developed into political theories about foreign relations. They themselves derive thirteen hypotheses for further testing, some of which are described here. The first hypothesis is that a nation's primary and secondary intentions are set by its political leaders. This means that a leader is capable of influencing his or her country's intentions toward making either war or peace.

Leaders and National Intentions: The Bismarck–Wilhelm II Case

A compelling example used to demonstrate the first hypothesis involves comparing Germany's foreign policy under Bismarck and then under Wilhelm II. Bismarck made sure to signal to Germany's adversaries that its intentions were peaceful; he demonstrated this by having Germany form alliances with its rivals France and Russia. Wilhelm II, on the other hand, changed Germany's intentions completely by breaking those alliances, supporting the creation of a German navy, and alarming rivals with expansionist ambitions. This change in intentions occurred despite the fact that the country faced no new imminent external threats and experienced no radical changes within its internal institutions.

A second hypothesis is that individual leaders can have a significant influence upon their countries' diplomatic or military strength. The French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte is offered as an example to demonstrate this hypothesis; he was considered one of France's greatest military generals, who personally led his army from one victory to another throughout Europe.

Military Power, Risk-Taking, and Alliance Durability

A third hypothesis states that nations possessing leaders prone to risk-taking are more likely to wage war. Hitler demonstrated this by first invading France and later attempting to invade Russia, despite the enormous risk of military defeat. A fourth hypothesis states that nations led by leaders with predictable behaviors can develop longer-lasting alliances. Democratic leaders are thought to best exhibit this behavior, as seen in the close alliance fostered between the United States and Britain through their respective leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Conclusion: The Case for First-Level Analysis

A seventh hypothesis is that individuals can influence a nation's internal institutions to reflect his or her foreign policy choices. It can be seen that a leader like Hitler was able to bring various internal forces — such as the German military and the public — together in support of his ambitions of conquest. An eighth hypothesis is that individuals can shape their countries' position of power in the world. A clear example is how France was able to attain an even greater status as a major world power thanks to Napoleon's military successes in Europe. Taken together, these hypotheses illustrate the substantial explanatory power that first-level analysis can offer to the study of international relations.

Works Cited

Byman, Daniel L. and Pollack, Kenneth M. "Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesmen Back In." International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Spring 2001), pp. 107–146.