SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Business Innovation and Governance / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING

DIŞ POLİTİKA KARAR ALMA SÜREÇLERİNDE EGO-LED VE ALTER-LED SİMÜLASYONLAR

Cansu Paslıoğlu(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9093-4039
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By classifying simulations according to institutional production logic rather than technical features, this study fills a significant gap in the literature and offers an original conceptual framework that integrates simulation research with foreign policy decision-making processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study challenges the prevailing assumption in the International Relations (IR) literature that simulations constitute a single, uniform category, and argues instead that their function is determined by the institutional actor that designs and conducts them.
📊
Key Findings & Data:EGO-led simulations are employed by state institutions to test the operational feasibility of strategic decisions that have already been made, whereas ALTER-led simulations operate prior to decision-making, generating policy options, framing uncertainty, and shaping the cognitive boundaries within which decisions are taken.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By classifying simulations according to institutional production logic rather than technical features, this study fills a significant gap in the literature and offers an original conceptual framework that integrates simulation research with foreign policy decision-making processes.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karar Alma · Dış Politika Analizi · Ego Düzeyi

Abstract

This study challenges the prevailing assumption in the International Relations (IR) literature that simulations constitute a single, uniform category, and argues instead that their function is determined by the institutional actor that designs and conducts them. To this end, the article develops two conceptual categories: EGO-led and ALTER-led simulations. EGO-led simulations are employed by state institutions to test the operational feasibility of strategic decisions that have already been made, whereas ALTER-led simulations operate prior to decision-making, generating policy options, framing uncertainty, and shaping the cognitive boundaries within which decisions are taken. To demonstrate this distinction empirically, the study conducts a comparative analysis of two of the United States’ most established simulation traditions: the Naval War College (NWC) and the RAND Corporation. The findings show that NWC simulations focus on execution optimization and reflect the core characteristics of EGO-led design, while RAND simulations exemplify ALTER-led functions by producing new strategic pathways, reframing problems, and expanding decision-makers option sets. By classifying simulations according to institutional production logic rather than technical features, this study fills a significant gap in the literature and offers an original conceptual framework that integrates simulation research with foreign policy decision-making processes.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) literatüründe yaygın biçimde kullanılan simülasyonların tek bir kategoriymiş gibi ele alınması yaklaşımını sorgulamakta ve simülasyonların işlevinin onları tasarlayan üreticiler tarafından belirlendiğini ileri sürmektedir. Makale, bu amaçla iki temel kavramsal kategori geliştirmektedir: EGO-led ve ALTER-led simülasyonlar. EGO-led simülasyonlar, devlet kurumlarının halihazırda verdiği stratejik kararların operasyonel uygulanabilirliğini test etmeyi amaçlarken; ALTER-led simülasyonlar karar verilmeden önce seçenek üreten, belirsizliği kavramsallaştıran ve problem çerçevesini şekillendiren araçlar olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Çalışma, bu kavramsal ayrımı ampirik olarak görünür kılmak için ABD’nin iki önemli kurumsal simülasyon ekolü olan Naval War College (NWC) ve RAND Corporation üzerinde karşılaştırmalı bir analiz gerçekleştirmiştir. Bulgular, NWC’nin simülasyonlarının uygulama optimizasyonuna odaklanan EGO-led niteliğini; RAND’ın ise stratejik keşif, yeni politika seçenekleri üretimi ve problem tanımlama kapasitesiyle ALTER-led simülasyonların tipik örneğini oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, simülasyonların kurumsal üretici mantığına göre sınıflandırılması gerektiğini ortaya koyarak literatürdeki önemli bir boşluğu doldurmakta; simülasyon araştırmalarını dış politika karar alma süreçleriyle bütünleştiren özgün bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Paslıoğlu, C. (2026). EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2. https://doi.org/10.54472/jobig.1978384

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (101)

  1. Allen, P. D. (1986). The Pace of War in Gaming, Simulation, Doctrine, and War. RAND Corporation.
  2. Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3): 689–718.
  3. Allison, G. T. (1972). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  4. Allison, G. T. and Halperin, M. (1972). Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. World Politics, 24, 40-79.
  5. Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd Ed.). Longman.
  6. Antunes, L., Respicio, A. and Balsa, J. (2008). Policy Decision Support Through Social Simulation. Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies, 1(2): 716–723.
  7. Angelini, M. L., (2021). Learning through Simulations: Ideas for Educational Practitioners. Cham: Springer Nature.
  8. Arts, B., and Verschuren, P. (1999). Assessing political influence in complex decision-making: An instrument based on triangulation. International Political Science Review, 20(4), 411–424
  9. Bae, S. J., (2020). How Can Wargaming Improve Government Response to Catastrophic Events?. RAND Corporation.
  10. Bartels, E. M., vd., (2023). Insights from the Plan Blue 21 Game: Examining the Role of Sensing and Partner and Allied Contributions to Competition with Russia in the Arctic. RAND Corporation.
  11. Beckner, L. R., (2012). Decision Making During National Security Crisis: The Case of the JFK Administration. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech.
  12. Berbrick, W. and Marrin, D., (2014). Global Title X Series ’13: Game Report. U.S. Naval War College.
  13. Becker, H. (1983). Scenarios: A Tool of Growing Importance to Policy Analysts in Government and Industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(2): 95–120.
  14. Biglaiser, G., and DeRouen K. Jr. (2004). The expansion of neoliberal economic reforms in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 561-578.
  15. Bridge, D. and Radford, S., (2014). Teaching Diplomacy by Other Means: Using an Outside-of-Class Simulation to Teach International Relations Theory. International Studies Perspectives, 15: 423-437.
  16. Bueno de Mesquita, B. and Lalman D., (2008). War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  17. Butcher, C., (2012). Teaching foreign policy decision-making processes using role-playing simulations: The case of US-Iranian relations. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2): 176-194.
  18. Burke, S., Marrin, D., Wiggins, W., & Meagher, D. (2013). Naval Mine & Anti-Submarine Warfare Command Game ’13. Naval War College.
  19. Caffrey, M., (2019). On wargaming: How wargames have shaped history and how they may shape the future (Vol. 43). Naval War College Press.
  20. Chasek, P., (2005). Power Politics, Diplomacy and Role Playing: Simulating the UN Security Council’s Response to Terrorism. International Studies Perspectives, 6(1): 1-19.
  21. DellaVolpe, D., Brightman, H., Ducharme, D., & Bergey, L. (2010). Navy Irregular Challenges Game ’10. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  22. DiCicco, J., M. (2014). National Security Council: Simulating Decision-Making Dilemmas in Real Time. International Studies Perspectives, 15(4): 438-458.
  23. Ducharme, D. and Brightman, H., (2010). Global Shipping Game - 10. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  24. Ducharme, D. and Brightman, H., (2011). Maritime Stability Operations Game ’11. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  25. Dolin, E. J. and Susskind, L. (1992). A Role for Simulations in Public Policy Disputes: The Case of National Energy Policy. Simulation & Gaming, 23(1): 20-44.
  26. Even, S., (2018). The Intelligence Assessment and the Art of Preventing War. Institute for National Security Studies.
  27. Farnham, B., (1992). Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory. Political Psychology, 13(2): 205-235.
  28. Fearon, J. D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49(3): 379-414.
  29. Feldman, M. S. (1989), Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  30. Gray, C., Bergey, L., and Berbrick, W., (2011). Fleet Arctic Operations Game. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  31. Greasley, A., (2019). Simulating Business Processes for Descriptive, Predictive, and Prescriptive Analytics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  32. Guidara, A., (2021). Policy Decision Modeling with Fuzzy Logic: Theoretical and Computational Aspects. Cham: Springer Nature. Harrigan, P., and Kirschenbaum, M. G., (Eds.). (2016). Zones of control: Perspectives on wargaming. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10329.001.0001
  33. Hart, P., (1994). Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Johns Hopkins University Press
  34. Hermann, C. F. (1965). Crises in Foreign Policy Making: A Simulation of International Politics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
  35. Houghton, D. P., and Mendez, A., (2023). Visceral Politics and Its Impact on US Foreign Policy Decision-Making. Foreign Policy Analysis, 19(1): orac025.
  36. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  37. Janssen, M., and Wimmer, M. A., (2015). Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age. Policy Practice and Digital Science: Integrating Complex Systems, Social Simulation and Public Administration in Policy Research. 1-14. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  38. Jensen, B. Valeriano, B., (2019). What Do We Know about Cyber Escalation?: Observations from Simulations and Surveys. Atlantic Council.
  39. Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (2018). https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/clade-x-tabletop-exercise (12.11.2025).
  40. Johnson, D., Wilson, P., Darile, R., and Zeman, L. L. (2006). Joint Paths to the Future Force: A Report on Unified Quest 2004. RAND Corporation.
  41. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making, 99-127
  42. Keller, J. W., Yang, Y., and James, P., (2022). Decision-making in US foreign policy crises: Presidential leadership and outcomes. Political Research Quarterly 75(3):562-575.
  43. Kellogg, H. R., vd., (2012). Naval Services Game ’12”, Naval War College. Game Reports.
  44. Kellogg, H. R., vd., (2013). Naval Services Game ’13: Game Report”, Naval War College, Game Reports.
  45. Kelton, M. and Kingsmill, V., (2016). Simulations for the Discipline Specific and Professional Education of Foreign Policy Graduates. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(5).
  46. Kim, W. and Bueno de Mesquita, B., (1995). How Perceptions Influence the Risk of War. International Studies Quarterly, 39(1): 51-65.
  47. Krain, M. and Lantis, J. S., (2006). Building Knowledge? Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Global Problems Summit Simulation. International Studies Perspectives, 7(4): 395-407.
  48. Kuo, R., Curriden, C., Cooper, C. A., Chang, J., Smith, J. and Ke, I. (2023). Simulating Chinese Gray Zone Coercion of Taiwan: Identifying Redlines and Escalation Pathways. RAND Corporation.
  49. Landwehr, P., Spraragen, M., Ranganathan, B., Carley, K. M., & Zyda, M. (2013). Games, Social Simulations, and Data-Integration for Policy Decisions: The SUDAN Game. Simulation & Gaming, 44(1): 151-177.
  50. Lin-Greenberg, E., Pauly, R. B. C. and, Schneider, J. G., (2022). Wargaming for International Relations Research. European Journal of International Relations, 28(1): 83-109.
  51. Mandel, R. (1977). Political Gaming and Foreign Policy Making during Crises. World Politics, 29(4): 610-625.
  52. Marsh, S. (2013). Foreign Policy Decision Making. Smith, S., Hadfield, A., and Dunne, T. (Der.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 107–126.
  53. McConnell, R. A., Gerges, M., Dalbey, J., Dial, T., Hodge, G., Leners, M.,. & Schoof, P. (2018). The Effect of Simple Role-Playing Games on the Wargaming Step of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP): A Mixed Methods Approach. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 45.
  54. McDermott, R., (1992). Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission. Political Psychology, 13(2): 237-263.
  55. McQueen, A., (2005). A groupthink perspective on the invasion of Iraq. International Affairs Review, 14(2), 53-79.
  56. Meade, C. and Molander, R. C., (2006). Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack. RAND Corporation.
  57. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books.
  58. Meyer-Nieberg, S., Pickl, S., and Zsifkovits, M., (2015). Designing a Risk Management Framework for Forecasting National Security Issues. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 151, 39-48
  59. Millot, D. M., Molander, R. C., and Wilson, P., (1993). The Day After. Study: Nuclear Proliferation in the Post-Cold War World. RAND Corporation.
  60. Mintz, A., (1993). The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4): 595–618.
  61. Mintz, A., (2004). How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(1): 3-13.
  62. Mintz, A., and DeRouen, K., (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Mintz, A., Geva, N., Redd, S. B., & Carnes, A. (1997). The effect of dynamic and static choice sets on political decision making: An analysis using the decision board platform. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 553-566.
  64. Mintz, A., and Wayne, C., (2016). The polythink syndrome: U.S. foreign policy decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. Stanford University Press.
  65. Oppermann, K. (2014). Delineating the Scope Conditions of the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Noncompensatory Principle and the Domestic Salience of Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(1): 23-41.
  66. O’Toole, T., Mair, M., and Inglesby, T. V., (2002). Shining Light on ‘Dark Winter. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 34(7): 972-983.
  67. Oppenheimer, M. F. (2012). From prediction to recognition: Using alternate scenarios to improve foreign policy decisions. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 32(1), 19-31.
  68. Ostrom, C. W., and Job, B. L., (1986). The President and the Political Use of Force. American Political Science Review, 80(2): 541-566.
  69. Özkececi-Taner, B. (2005). The impact of institutionalized ideas in coalition foreign policy making: Turkey as an example, 1991-2002. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(3), 249-278.
  70. Özdamar, Ö. and Erciyas, O., (2019). Turkey and Cyprus: A Poliheuristic Analysis of Decisions during the Crises of 1964, 1967, and 1974. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(3): 457-477.
  71. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  72. Pennock, M. J., Yu, Z., Hirschman, K. B., Pepe, K., Pauly, M. V., Naylor, M. D., & Rouse, W. B. (2018), “Developing a Policy Flight Simulator to Facilitate the Adoption of an Evidence-Based Intervention”, IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 6: 1-12.
  73. Perla, P. P. (1990). The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
  74. Predd, J. B., Chessen, M., Smith, G., (2025). Infinite Potential-Insights from the Two Moonshots Scenario: After-Action Report from a Sequence of Day After Artificial General Intelligence Exercises. RAND Corporation.
  75. Predd, J. B., DeLuca, P., Savitz, S., Geist, E., & Lee, C. (2025). Thinking through protracted war with China: Nine scenarios (Research Report No. RR-A1475-1). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1475-1.html
  76. Pollack, M. A. (2007). Rational choice and EU politics. Handbook of European union politics, 31-55.
  77. RAND Europe. (2024). Clean energy R&I opportunities to ensure European energy security. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/2024/clean-energy-security-eu.html
  78. Sabin, P. (2012). Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  79. Qi, W. and Liu, X., (2022). Taiwan Changes Computerized War Games to Map-Based Simulation, Shows Lack of Confidence, Self-Deception. Global Times.
  80. Raymond, C. (2014). Can’t Get No (Dis) Satisfaction: The Statecraft Simulation’s Effect on Student Decision Making. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(3): 302-314.
  81. Raymond, C. and Sorensen, K., (2008). The Use of a Middle East Crisis Simulation in an International Relations Course. Political Science & Politics, 41(1): 179-182.
  82. Reddie, A. W., Goldblum, B. L., Lakkaraju, K., Reinhardt, J., Nacht, M., & Epifanovskaya, L. (2018). Next-Generation Wargames. Science, 362(6421): 1362-1364.
  83. Reuter, T. K. (2016). Simulating Peace Negotiations: A Case Study of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Simulation & Gaming, 47(6): 818–836.
  84. Saiya, N. (2015). The Statecraft Simulation and Foreign Policy Attitudes among Undergraduate Students. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(1): 58–71.
  85. Santos, C. H. D., De Queiroz, J. A., Leal, F., & Montevechi, J. A. B. (2022). Use of Simulation in the Industry 4.0 Context: Creation of a Digital Twin to Optimise Decision Making on Non-Automated Process. Journal of Simulation, 16(3): 284-297.
  86. Schloemann, C., vd., (2010). Maritime Domain Awareness Operational Game ’10. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  87. Shaw, C. M. (2004). Using Role-Play Scenarios in the IR Classroom: An Examination of Exercises on Peacekeeping Operations and Foreign Policy Decision Making. International Studies Perspectives, 5(1): 1–22.
  88. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.
  89. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of Human Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 1-20.
  90. Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an Explanation of Behavior?. Psychological Science, 3(3): 150-161.
  91. Szalai, M. (2008). Rational choice theory in early cold war US defense policy-The role of ‘defense rationalists. Monograph. Central European University.
  92. Tomlin, D., Bowers, P. and Graydon, K. (2023). E-learning Simulations for Teaching Clinical Decision-Making in an Audiology Training Program. American Journal of Audiology, 32(4): 878-888.
  93. Vlahos, M. (1980). War Games Conducted at NWC, 1919-1941. Naval War College Archives.
  94. Vlahos, M. (1986). Wargaming, an Enforcer of Strategic Realism: 1919-1942. Naval War College Review, 39(2), 7–22.
  95. Wargaming Department (2011). Kuznetsov Naval Academy Game ’11. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  96. Wargaming Department (2013). Kuznetsov Naval Academy Game ’13. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  97. Wasser, B., Oberholtzer, J., Pettyjohn, S. L., & Mackenzie, W. (2019). Gaming gray zone tactics: Design considerations for a structured strategic game (Research Report No. RR-2915-A). RAND Corporation.
  98. Wiggins, W. M., Ward, D. E., and Berbrick, W., (2010). Global Title X Series ’10: Global Maritime Partnerships Game. Naval War College, Game Reports.
  99. Zeff, E. E. (2003). Negotiating in the European Council: A Model European Union Format for Individual Classes. International Studies Perspectives, 4(3): 265–274.
  100. McConnell, R. A., Gerges, M., Dalbey, J., Dial, T., Hodge, G., Leners, M.,. & Schoof, P. (2018). The Effect of Simple Role-Playing Games on the Wargaming Step of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP): A Mixed Methods Approach. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 45.
  101. Millot, D. M., Molander, R. C., and Wilson, P., (1993). The Day After. Study: Nuclear Proliferation in the Post-Cold War World. RAND Corporation.