Mainstream views of Dutch foreign policy seem to be based upon a persistent assumption that, as a small Western European country, foreign policy is characterized by fundamental stability and continuity. In some regards this stability has almost become a policy and organizational guideline; however, this emphasis on stability as an empirical reality and management standard may be the result of inadequate concepts and models of foreign policy and organizational change. The following research questions are addressed in this article. What are the main carriers and barriers in Dutch foreign policy and organizational change? How can insights from international relations studies, and policy and organization studies be combined to give a model of foreign policy and organizational change? We propose a model based on 11 carriers and barriers for change at four levels of analysis: the international system; the national system; the organizational system; and the individual system. These carriers and barriers are used to explain three types of foreign policy change: policy instruments; strategy and goals; and political and normative foundations. Organizational change concerns: (1) change of roles; (2) change of tasks; (3) change of size of tasks and roles; (4) change of division of tasks and roles; and (5) change of the portfolio of tasks and roles. We discuss Dutch foreign policy towards its former colony Surinam and end with some suggestions for further research.
Andeweg, R. B.
and Irwin, G. A. (1993) Dutch Government and Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
2.
Argyris, C.
and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Boogman, J. C.
(1975) `Die Holländische Tradition in der Niederländische Geschichte', in G.A.M. Beekelaaret al. (eds) Vaderlands Verleden in Veelvoud, pp. 89-104. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
4.
Brands, M. C.
(1979) `De Geloofwaardigheid van een Inconsistent Buitenlands Beleid [The Credibility of an Inconsistent Foreign Policy]. Is Frankrijk boven de Wet der Internationale Kritiek verheven?', Internationale Spectator23(12): 762-771.
5.
Brewer, G.
and De Leon, P. (1983) The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Chicago: Dorsey.
6.
Carlsnaes, W.
(1987) Ideology and Foreign Policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
7.
Carlsnaes, W.
(1993) `On Analysing the Dynamics of Foreign Policy Change. A Critique and Reconceptualisation', Cooperation and Conflict28(1): 5-30.
8.
Carlsnaes, W.
and Smith, S., eds (1994) European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe. London: Sage.
9.
East, M. A.
(1981) `The Organizational Impact of Interdependency on Foreign Policy-making: the Case of Norway', in Charles Kegley and Patrick McGowan (eds) Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, 6, pp. 137-161. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
East, M. A.
(1984) `Coordinating Foreign Policy: The Changing Role of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry', Cooperation and Conflict19(2): 121-135.
11.
East, M. A.
, Salmore, S. A. and Hermann, Ch. F., eds (1978) Why Nations Act: Theoretical Perspectives for Comparative Foreign Policy Studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
East, M. A.
and Salomonsen, L.-H. (1981) `Adapting Foreign Policy-making to Interdependency: A Proposal and Some Evidence from Norway', Cooperation and Conflict16(3): 165-182.
13.
Everts, Ph. P.
, ed. (1985) Controversies at Home: Domestic Factors in the Foreign Policy of the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
14.
Goldmann, K.
(1982) `Change and Stability in Foreign Policy. Détente as a Problem of Stabilization', World Politics34: 230-266.
15.
Goldmann, K.
(1988) Change and Stability in Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Gustavsson, J.
(1998) The Politics of Foreign Policy Change. Explaining the Swedish Reorientation on EC Membership. Lund: Lund University Press.
17.
Gustavsson, J.
(1999) `How Should we Study Foreign Policy Change?', Cooperation and Conflict34(1): 73-95.
18.
Hall, P.
(1993) `Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State', Comparative Politics25(3): 275-296.
19.
Heldring, J. L.
(1975) `Die Konstanten der Niederländischen Aussenpolitik', Europäische Rundschau4: 11-19.
20.
Hermann, Ch. F.
(1990) `Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy', International Studies Quarterly34: 3-21.
21.
Hocking, B.
, ed. (1999) Foreign Ministries: Change and Adaptation. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
22.
Hogwood, B.
and Gunn, L. (1990) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
Hogwood, B.
and Peters, B. (1985) The Pathology of Public Policy. Oxford: Clarendon.
24.
Holsti, K. J.
, ed. (1982) Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Postwar World. London: Allen & Unwin.
25.
Kahn, R. L.
and Zald, M. N. (1992) Organizations and Nation States: New Perspectives on Conflict and Cooperation. Oxford: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Karvonen, L.
(1984) `High Level Foreign Policy Coordination: A Finnish Example', Cooperation and Conflict19(2): 135-157.
27.
Karvonen, L.
and Sundelius, B. (1987) Internationalization and Foreign Policy Management. Aldershot: Gower.
28.
Karvonen, L.
and Sundelius, B. (1990) `Interdependence and Foreign Policy Management in Sweden and Finland', International Studies Quarterly34: 211-227.
29.
Kleistra, Y.
(forthcoming 2002) Hollen of Stilstaan. Beleidsverandering bij het ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken [Running to Extremes: Policy Changes at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs].
30.
Lindblom, C. E.
(1959) `The Science of Muddling Through', Public Administration Review19: 78-88.
31.
Lindblom, C. E.
(1979) `Still Muddling, not yet Through', Public Administration Review39: 517-526.
32.
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
(1995) De Herijking van het Buitenlands Beleid. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.
33.
Mintzberg, H.
(1983) Structures in Fives. Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
Ørvik, N.et al.
(1972) Departmental Decision-making. A Research Report from the Research Group for International Relations, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
35.
Rosati, J. A.
, Hagan, J. D. and Sampson, M. W., eds (1994) Foreign Policy Restructuring. How Governments Respond to Global Change. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
36.
Rosati, J. A.
(1994) `Cycles in Foreign Policy Restructuring: The Politics of Continuity and Change in US Foreign Policy', in J. A. Rosati, J. D. Hagan and M. W. Sampson (eds) Foreign Policy Restructuring. How Governments Respond to Global Change, pp. 221-261. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
37.
Sabatier, P. A.
(1987) `Knowledge, Policy Oriented Learning and Policy Change', Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization8(4): 649-692.
38.
Sabatier, P. A.
(1998) `The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe', Journal of European Public Policy5(1): 98-130.
39.
Staw, B. W.
and Ross, J. (1978) `Commitment to a Policy Decision: A Multi-theoretical Perspective', Administrative Science Quarterly23: 40-64.
40.
Sundelius, B.
(1980) `Interdependence and Foreign Policy', Cooperation and Conflict15(4): 187-208.
41.
Sundelius, B.
(1984a) `Foreign Policy-making in the Nordic Countries: An Introduction', Cooperation and Conflict19(2): 87-93.
42.
Sundelius, B.
(1984b) `Interdependence, Internationalization and Foreign Policy Decentralization in Sweden', Cooperation and Conflict19(2): 93-121.
43.
Sundelius, B.
(1989) `Das Primat der Neutralitätspolitik: Building Regimes at Home', Cooperation and Conflict24:163-178.
44.
Sundelius, B.
(1994) `Changing Course: When Neutral Sweden Chose to Join the European Community', in W. Carlsnaes and S. Smith, European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, pp. 177-201. London: Sage.
45.
Voorhoeve, J.
(1979) Peace, Profits and Principles: a Study of Dutch Foreign Policy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
46.
Wels, C. B.
(1982) Aloofness and Neutrality: Studies on Dutch Foreign Relations and Policy-making Institutions. Utrecht: HES.
