What is the key difference between the rational actor model and the bureaucratic politics model in foreign policy decision-making?

The key difference between the rational actor model and the bureaucratic politics model in foreign policy decision-making lies in how they conceptualize the decision-making process and the actors involved. The rational actor model assumes that foreign policy decisions are made by a unitary, rational actor – typically the state – that carefully calculates the costs and benefits of different options to maximize its interests. In this model, the state is seen as a single, coherent entity with a clear set of goals, and its decisions are the result of a logical and objective analysis of the available information. The decision-making process is viewed as a sequential process of identifying the problem, setting goals, considering alternatives, evaluating their consequences, and selecting the option that best achieves the state's objectives. For example, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the rational actor model would assume that the US government, as a unitary actor, carefully weighed the costs and benefits of different responses to the Soviet missile deployment in Cuba, such as diplomacy, blockade, or military strike, and ultimately chose the option that best protected its national security interests. The bureaucratic politics model, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of multiple actors within the government bureaucracy who have different interests and priorities. It views foreign policy decisions as the outcome of bargaining, negotiation, and compromise among these actors. In this model, the state is not seen as a unitary actor, but rather as a collection of different government agencies, departments, and individuals, each with their own agendas and perspectives. Decisions are shaped by the relative power and influence of these actors, as well as by standard operating procedures, organizational routines, and bureaucratic politics. For example, in the Vietnam War, the bureaucratic politics model would emphasize how different parts of the US government, like the State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA, had different perspectives on the conflict and different preferred courses of action, and how the ultimate decisions were the result of a complex interplay of these competing interests. The key distinction is that the rational actor model assumes a centralized, rational decision-making process aimed at maximizing national interests, while the bureaucratic politics model emphasizes the decentralized, political nature of decision-making, where different actors with competing interests bargain and compromise to shape policy outcomes.