Energy Security Under Conditions of Uncertainty: Simulating a Comparative Bureaucratic Politics Approach

Abstract

For those who must import oil to maintain their economies and quality of life, any disruption in the delivery of imported oil is a highly threatening prospect. How would U.S. policymakers react to such a threat in the contemporary era? We examine the potential policymaking roles and impacts of bureaucratic actors operating at the intersection of energy and security issues. To do so, we explore a comparative approach using an original simulation that envisions an energy supply “crisis” in the United States due to events in a hypothetical state somewhat inspired by Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The simulation is run at three very different universities in three different courses, yet the results are surprisingly similar. Despite the obvious security implications of an oil shortage during a time of war, we find more engaged roles for those representing nonmilitary bureaucracies, a greater reliance on diplomatic and economic tools to respond to the crisis, less reliance on military policy instruments than might have been the case in the past, and a concern for tempering responses until more is known.

Keywords:

• bureaucratic politics
• energy crisis
• foreign policy
• simulation
• uncertainty

Notes

In this paper we suggest the use of a theory-driven simulation as a new method of inquiry. This technique offers direct observation of group dynamics and provides one means to overcome the data challenges that exist within the field of foreign policy analysis. Its advantage is that we can view the dynamic interaction patterns in “real time” as they happen.

The design for these options was modified from the choices offered in The Algonian Exercise: Participants Manual (Western Behavioral Sciences Institute 1965). Like the Algonian exercise, we adopted a two-tiered process in which agencies met first to adopt an agency position that the principal then pushed in the cabinet meetings that followed. Only the principals were allowed to participate in the cabinet-level meeting directly. Secondary players faced the frustration of not being able to participate directly as the decision process evolved.

The exception to this rule was the additional roles designated in the State Department to accommodate a greater number of participants at University A and University B. There were various personnel, such as the director of the Office of Deganian Affairs, who were created to provide additional background information and to bring expertise to the simulation. The simulation was designed to accommodate a class of up to 36 participants. At University C, the class had only 16 students, so several secondary roles were left unfilled.

The debriefing and survey after the simulation revealed that students “expected” the NSA to begin the first meeting and hence no one else emerged. The placement of the NSA next to the president seemed to be a significant signal to people about who should run the meeting (except to the NSA himself). Of the two, the NSA had a more dominant style and quickly took the reins. However, the SECSTATE felt the need to interject when the options escalated beyond the position of the State Department.

Students in the larger classes seemed more frustrated. In some ways, a small class like at UC is ideal because a majority of the participants represent an entire agency and so participate freely. On the other hand, in the larger classes at UA and UB, the students represented multiple levels and many “learned” how difficult it was to participate if they were not the principal. This makes it possible to see the two-level games as the principals had to deal with the other principals in the cabinet meetings and with pleasing their agency officials back home at the same time. While some were aggressive in using their note-passing rights to try to get their input into the cabinet meetings, others lost interest once the agency meetings were over.

This response sheet was modeled after the response sheet used in The Algonian Exercise: Participants Manual (Western Behavioral Sciences Institute 1965).