Governmental Bargaining Model

This model is also known governmental politics model or bureaucratic politics model. It is another model used to make foreign policy decisions when faced with a situation.

Wikipedia defines it as:

"In this model the state is not seen as a monolithic unitary actor. Instead it is a collection of different bureaucracies vying for an increase in their funding and size. Individual decision makers try to bargain and compete for influence with their own particular goal in mind. Things are often viewed as a zero sum game where one bureaucracy’s ‘win’ or increasing their level of funding is seen as a ‘loss’ for another bureaucracy. Here decisions are made by bureaucracies competing against each other and suggesting solutions to problems that would involve using their resources so as to increase their level of importance. Bureaucratic politics model, in keeping with its pluralistic connotation, can also refer to that inner state processes including no institutional actors, who with their informal channels would affect policy results."

Chapter 4  of the Pearson Higher Education book on foreign policy defines the model as:

"Another alternative to the rational model is the government bargaining (or bureaucratic politics) model, in which foreign policy decisions result from the bargaining process among various government agencies with somewhat divergent interests in the outcome..........In 1992, the Japanese government had to decide whether to allow sushi from California to be imported—a weakening of Japan’s traditional ban on importing rice (to maintain self-sufficiency in its staple food). The Japanese Agriculture Ministry, with an interest in the well-being of Japanese farmers, opposed the imports. The Foreign Ministry, with an interest in smooth relations with the United States, wanted to allow the imports. The final decision to allow imported sushi resulted from the tug-of-war between the ministries.......Thus, according to the government bargaining model, foreign policy decisions reflect (a mix of) the interests of state agencies."

Case study: Sandline Affair

The case study shows us how the Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Prime Minister and Cabinet charged with the day-to-day coordination of strategic policy within the public services are engaged in the bargaining process to determine the best decision.

Office of National Assessments, the Australian government’s principal analytical intelligence organization also played a dominant role by providing up to date and accurate intelligence about what was happening on the ground up in PNG.

Based on the reports from Australia intelligence agencies, the Strategic Policy Coordination Group made up of senior officials from the 3 departments mentioned above came up with a strategic policy approach which was followed by the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

It is safe to assume that the secretary of Defence might have argued for more funding for the Department and the Australian Defence Force because Gyngell and Wesley (2003) stated that both had been heavily involved in the policy process from the beginning. The Royal Australian Air Force played an important role by flying surveillance flights over Wewak where the mercenaries were.  

Also officials from the 3 departments were again part of the 3 men emissary sent by Howard to Port Moresby to negotiate a deal. This shows that all 3 departments were heavily involved in the decision making process by contributing information and solutions in order to use and seek for additional resources and demonstrate their importance in handling the crisis.

Why is the model important?

Obviously, the model is important in decision making because the government is made up of different entities, bureaucracies and agencies. For example, in PNG, Air Niugini, PNG Power, Department of Health, National Intelligence Organization and other agencies make up the government. All these agencies come together to influence the decision making process based on their functions.

For foreign policy, the National Intelligence Organization, Department of Defence, Police, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Commerce and Trade, Department of National Planning and Monitoring and Immigration Services all play a role in influencing the outcome of whatever decisions that needs to be made.

I want to use the unconscious ‘classroom politics’ analogy to further explain the model. All of us in class are different individuals varied in age, sex and level of understanding. But we all come together with the common aim of learning from each other. Each one of us try to influence the learning process by sharing our ideas and understanding of the different concepts, theories and cases related to the unit we are studying. There is conflict meaning when marking some disagrees with the way one is explaining a concept or we verbally ask questions and make comments in order to challenge what others have presented to show that we have a better understanding of what they are discussing.

I am not saying that this practice is bad; this is what students all over the world are doing. It shows that you have read the reading materials and have developed a sound understanding based on your prior knowledge. This understanding has compelled you to share in order to help others understand the concept, theory or case being discussed.

In PNG, we tend to be silent and accept what the lecturers or tutors are saying and rarely contribute to the learning process. Thus, we do not challenge our mind to think for ourselves and think outside the box. Practice commenting and questioning here in the classroom so when you graduate and go out into the workforce you will find it easy to express yourself in a similar environment. For example, in a meeting with your bosses you will be confident in presenting your ideas rather than watching others out muscle you. Do not forget that competition is a common human trait and is unavoidable.

Anyway back to the discussion on the model, the same logic is used when all these different bureaucracies come together like in our case study to find a solution to the Sandline affair. All the departments have different functions and interest which comes into conflict with each other. They try to argue that as a department they have a better understanding of the crisis and a possible solution in order to get more funding and increase their level of influence.

The model provides an alternative view when comparing with the other two models of foreign policy decision making. Using our understanding of the model we can better explain and analyze a foreign policy case. Also in the future if you work for the government with your understanding of the model you can successfully position your department or agency in a position where you can benefit more from the government’s wallet and influence any type of policy.

References

Gyngell, A., & Wesley, M. (2003). Making Australian foreign policy (pp. 58-95). New York: Cambridge University Press.