Leslie E. Wehner, in his article for International Studies Perspectives (May 2025) Gradual Change in Foreign Policy: A Role Theoretic Approach”, proposes a new framework for understanding how foreign policy changes gradually over time. The article addresses a gap in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), which has traditionally focused on sudden, crisis-driven shifts while paying much less attention to slow and cumulative forms of change. Drawing from role theory (which explores how states understand their own identities and the roles they are expected to play in international relations) and historical institutionalism (which examines how established rules, norms, and institutions shape state behavior over time), Wehner outlines how states adjust their foreign policy roles in ways that are subtle but consequential.
The core argument Wehner makes is that foreign policy change is not always the result of shocks or dramatic events. Instead, states often alter their behavior gradually, especially when leaders must manage competing domestic pressures, external expectations, and institutional constraints. These more incremental adjustments may not always be immediately visible, but they significantly shape how a state engages with the international system over time.
Wehner identifies four distinct types of gradual role adjustment: role displacement, role layering, role drifting, and role conversion. Each represents a different way in which a state’s role in international politics may evolve without requiring a complete rupture from past practices.
Role displacement occurs when one role, previously central to a state’s foreign policy identity, is slowly pushed aside and replaced by another. This happens not through a single event but through a series of actions that gradually shift the focus of a state’s external behavior. Role layering involves the addition of new traits, strategies, or functions to an existing role. Rather than abandoning the old role, leaders expand it to accommodate changing demands or to reduce domestic or external tensions. Role drifting describes a situation in which a state continues to enact a role that no longer fits the current context. Over time, this role becomes less credible and begins to lose its value in the eyes of international and domestic audiences. Role conversion refers to the revival and repurposing of a dormant role that had been previously inactive. This old role is brought back and adapted to address new challenges or political goals.
These forms of role adjustment, Wehner argues, allow states to manage foreign policy change without incurring the costs associated with abrupt shifts. They are particularly useful for leaders, or “role entrepreneurs,” who must navigate domestic contestation and institutional inertia. Leaders may prefer deeper changes but often resort to gradual adjustments to avoid resistance from powerful domestic actors or international partners.
To illustrate his framework, Wehner offers two empirical case studies: Sweden’s neutrality and Mexico’s regional leadership in Latin America.
In Sweden’s case, Wehner highlights role displacement. Its long-held neutral identity, central during the Cold War, gradually eroded from the 1990s as Sweden deepened ties with the European Union and expanded cooperation with NATO. Despite continued support for neutrality, its foreign policy increasingly reflected collective security and alliance-based preferences. NATO membership in 2024 marked the culmination of this slow transformation. Wehner shows this was not a rupture but the outcome of accumulated, strategic adjustments.
Mexico, by contrast, illustrates role drift. Once a regional leader in Latin America, Mexico’s credibility waned after it embraced economic liberalization and joined NAFTA. Though elites maintained leadership rhetoric, policy shifted toward closer alignment with the United States. Latin American skepticism grew, particularly in South America. Despite efforts through CELAC and the Pacific Alliance, its leadership role no longer fit regional realities. Mexico instead explored roles like coalition builder and bridge manager to stay diplomatically active.
In both cases, Wehner highlights the importance of understanding how roles are contested, negotiated, and redefined over time. He stresses that role adjustment is not a passive process but involves active interpretation, compromise, and strategy. Domestic actors, bureaucracies, and external partners all play a part in shaping what roles a state can credibly adopt or maintain.
India’s foreign policy too has evolved through gradual adjustments rather than abrupt shifts. Its traditional role as a non-aligned leader has been displaced over time by a more flexible, multi-aligned approach—seen in its engagement with the Quad alongside continued ties with Russia. It has layered new roles onto its regional power identity, such as offering development assistance and digital infrastructure to Global South partners. In some areas, India continues to emphasize older roles, like strategic autonomy, even as global expectations change—an instance of role drifting. It has also revived civilizational themes in diplomacy, reflecting a form of role conversion
Ultimately, the article calls for a broader recognition of gradual change in FPA. By offering a clear typology and empirical grounding, Wehner’s role theoretic approach provides scholars with new tools to trace how foreign policy evolves over time. Rather than focusing only on rupture and crisis, this framework helps explain how states manage continuity and change in ways that are politically manageable and socially embedded.