Explaining foreign policy change: The case of United States international population policy

This research explores the sources of change in U.S. foreign policy. A refined version of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is used to examine the changes that occur in U.S. international population policy (IPP) between 1965–1995. The ACF is refined by developing the systemic factors as well as subsystemic factors that lead to policy change. Denoting the types of policy change that occur (i.e., strategic and structural) enhances the framework's ability to define the key factors that lead to policy transformation.; An historical analysis showed that political sovereigns like the President and Congress dominated the IPP process, but were influenced by important interest groups and intellectual beliefs. The IPP subsystem was small enough to be subject to the influence of external factors such as the low priority placed on foreign aid and economic downturns. The policy process vacillated between the strategic aspects that determined priorities and goals, and structural aspects that transformed goals into actions. Changes in strategic policies came from partisan changes in governmental institutions. Changes in strategic policies led to mostly minor changes in structural policies. Bureaucratic predispositions made it nearly impossible to make extreme structural changes. Policies changed over the long haul as technology and knowledge bases changed. The transformation of IPP was evolutionary as long as there was a consensus over the knowledge base. More significant changes occurred when the knowledge base and political institutions became fractious.; Two models were developed to fully portray the ideas contained in the ACF. Model One was a regression model that measured the role of systemic factors in accounting for the changes in the amount of money obligated for IPP. Overall, the systemic model accounted for nearly 69% of the variation in the IPP budget. The amount of the gross federal debt and the establishment of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act were statistically discernible. However, the role of the institutional variables was insignificant, perhaps due to the fact that they were based on party rather than ideological differences. Model Two was a qualitative model based on a content analysis of public documents. The cluster analyses show how the change in the belief systems of one actor can profoundly change the tone and level of activity within a policy subsystem. The clusters indicate that the level of discussion in the policy subsystem focuses on political factors rather than on the structural aspects of IPP.