Abstract

This study aims to theoretically analyze the structural relationship between generation building through experiential education and the foreign policy capacity of modern states. The research provides a systematic response to the “societal foundations” problematic, which has long been neglected in international relations literature, thereby expanding the epistemological boundaries of foreign policy analysis. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model, which constitutes the theoretical backbone of the study, divides society into two fundamental age groups and posits that each contributes to foreign policy capacity through different mechanisms. Within the model, individuals aged 4–44 are conceptualized as the “Productive Generation,” with the expectation that this group will be equipped with experiential education in areas such as values education, rights consciousness, healthy communication, production skills, and technological competency. The second component of the model, individuals aged 45–95, is defined as the “Supervisory Generation,” expected to reinforce the behavioral consistency of younger generations through experience transfer, normative oversight, and social guidance functions. The research integrates diverse theoretical traditions including social capital theory, cultural evolution theory, human security approach, normative institutionalism, and soft power theory within an interdisciplinary synthesis. Employing a qualitative and interpretive approach, the study was conducted through conceptual analysis and theoretical synthesis techniques. Findings confirmed the existence of a multi-layered causality chain extending from individual behavioral transformation to societal norm production, and from intergenerational interaction to foreign policy outcomes. The research hypothesis proposing that “generation building through experiential education strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by enhancing society’s behavioral stability” was supported at the theoretical level. The study offers an original conceptual contribution to the literature by demonstrating that education policies should be repositioned as a strategic component of national power architecture.

Keywords:Experiential education, generation building, foreign policy capacity, social capital, soft power, intergenerational interaction, behavioral stability

Introduction

The behavioral patterns that state exhibit in the international arena are not merely a reflection of their institutional capacities and diplomatic capabilities; they are also an integrated outcome of the value systems, behavioral consistency, and productive capacity of the individuals who constitute that society. This perspective transcends the traditional state-centric paradigm of foreign policy analysis, foregrounding the role of societal foundations in shaping international behavior [1]. The international relations literature has long confined foreign policy analyses to state-centered and elite-focused frameworks, treating the micro-level behavioral characteristics of society as a secondary variable in their effects on macro-level policy outcomes [2]. However, the increasing global complexity of our era has made it progressively more evident that the internal structural characteristics of societies constitute a critical factor in determining foreign policy capacity. With the deepening of the globalization process, the success of states in the international arena has come to be measured not only by military or economic power but also by social cohesion, value integrity, and the quality of collective behavior [3]. Findings indicating that countries with high levels of social trust, strong behavioral stability, and developed productive capacity exhibit more rational, predictable, and consistent behaviors during international crises necessitate a reconsideration of the relationship between education systems and foreign policy capacity [4]. In this context, it can be argued that equipping individuals with systematic and applied education from an early age contributes not only to individual development but also directly to the fundamental components of national power architecture. This study, proceeding precisely from this point, aims to analyze the structural relationship that applied education-based generational construction establishes with foreign policy capacity.

The existing literature on the societal origins of foreign policy behavior, while addressing the psychological, cultural, and normative factors that shape state decision-making processes, fails to provide an adequate answer to the question of how these factors are produced [5]. Although it is known that the behavioral patterns, value systems, and collective attitudes of societies influence foreign policy outcomes, the mechanisms through which these patterns are formed and sustained have not been systematically examined. This conceptual gap reveals the necessity of treating education policies as a strategic variable within the framework of foreign policy analysis. In particular, the conceptual disconnect between the sociology of education and international relations disciplines has impeded the development of holistic models explaining how societal transformation is reflected in foreign policy behavior [6]. This study proposes an original theoretical model to fill this gap and aims to explain the multilayered relationship that applied education-based generational construction establishes with foreign policy capacity.

The Productive Generation–Supervisory Generation Model, which constitutes the theoretical backbone of this study, posits that by dividing society into two fundamental age groups, each contributes to foreign policy capacity through different mechanisms. Within the scope of the model, individuals in the 4–44 age range are conceptualized as the “Productive Generation”; it is envisaged that this group will be equipped through applied education in areas such as values education, social etiquette, rights consciousness, healthy communication, production skills, and technological competency. The selection of this age range is based on findings in the developmental psychology literature indicating that an individual’s fundamental value patterns and behavioral habits are shaped during this period [7]. These competencies strengthen the state’s power-generating capacity by enhancing both individuals’ economic productivity and their capacity for social cohesion. The second component of the model, individuals in the 45–95 age range, is defined as the “Supervisory Generation”; this group is expected to reinforce the behavioral consistency of younger generations through experience transfer, normative oversight, and social guidance functions. This intergenerational interaction produces strategic outcomes such as predictability and reliability in foreign policy by ensuring the continuity of social norms [8]. Therefore, the model presents a multi-layered theoretical chain extending from individual learning to national behavioral patterns, offering an original analytical framework for the education–foreign policy relationship.

The fundamental question of this research has been formulated as follows: “Through which mechanisms does applied education-based generational construction transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?” The sub-questions supporting this main question have been determined as follows: How does applied education enhance individuals’ behavioral stability? Through which channels do societal stability strengthen foreign policy capacity? Through which structural mechanisms do the interaction between the Productive Generation and the Supervisory Generation affect national power? These questions reverse the traditional “top-down” perspective of foreign policy analysis, offering a “bottom-up” viewpoint and aiming to illuminate the process by which societal foundations are transformed into strategic outcomes [9]. In response to these questions, the hypothesis of this study is expressed as follows: “Applied education-based generational construction significantly strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by enhancing society’s behavioral stability and productivity.” The study aims to substantiate this hypothesis with theoretical arguments and literature support; to demonstrate that education policies contribute directly not only to individual development but also to national power architecture and foreign policy capacity.

The original contribution of this study lies in foregrounding the micro-sociological foundations that are generally overlooked in foreign policy analysis and in addressing the education– society–foreign policy relationship within a holistic conceptual framework. This approach is consistent with the “everyday life” and “practice turn” perspectives that have gained strength in the international relations discipline in recent years, reflecting the growing academic interest in the societal origins of foreign policy [10]. This study places the concept of “Applied Life Competency Ecosystem” at its center and explains how generations raised through this ecosystem shape how the state is perceived in the international arena, how it behaves, and what capacities it possesses. This ecosystem concept signifies education’s transformation from a fragmented and sectoral intervention into a holistic instrument of societal transformation. Thus, the study provides an interdisciplinary discussion platform by building conceptual bridges between the literatures of sociology of education, international relations, and public policy.

Five main concepts that form the conceptual foundations of this study determine the model’s analytical power and explanatory capacity. The first concept, “applied education,” refers not only to the transmission of knowledge but to its transformation into behavior and internalization. Unlike traditional educational approaches, applied education aims for individuals to reflect what they have learned into their daily life practices, decision-making processes, and social interactions [11]. This approach goes beyond cognitive development, envisaging the systematic acquisition of non-cognitive skills such as emotional balance, ethical decisionmaking, conflict resolution, and self-regulation [12]. The second concept, “Applied Life Competency Ecosystem,” defines a comprehensive educational framework in which the social, cognitive, ethical, and professional dimensions of the individual are developed holistically. This ecosystem encompasses a broad spectrum of competencies including values education, privacy awareness, rights-seeking culture, work and life skills, technology use, frugality, and contentment.

The third concept of the model, “Productive Generation,” refers to the group comprising individuals in the 4–44 age range who carry society’s economic, social, and cultural production capacity. This age group develops both individual productivity skills and strengthens the capacity for social cohesion and cooperation through applied education processes. In raising the productive generation, areas such as values education, social etiquette, healthy communication, professional skills, entrepreneurship, and technological competency hold central importance. The fourth concept, “Supervisory Generation,” encompasses individuals in the 45–95 age range, and this group is expected to fulfill functions of societal normative oversight, experience transfer, and guidance. The supervisory generation functions as a social control mechanism that smooths the behavioral deviations of younger generations, reinforces positive behavioral patterns, and keeps social memory alive. The mutual interaction of these two generations produces behavioral consistency and normative continuity in society, ensuring stability and predictability in the state’s foreign policy behaviors.

The fifth and integrative concept, “behavioral foreign policy capacity,” refers to the reflection of society’s micro-level behavioral patterns onto macro-level state behavior. This concept assumes that foreign policy capacity can be determined not only through institutional capabilities, military power, or economic resources but also through society’s cognitive infrastructure, value systems, and collective behavioral patterns [2]. Behavioral foreign policy capacity encompasses elements such as society’s capacity for rational thinking, tendency not to produce panic in crisis moments, conflict resolution skills, and capacity to develop harmony around common values. These elements directly affect how the state is perceived by international actors, its reliability in negotiation processes, and the legitimacy of its diplomatic initiatives. Therefore, behavioral foreign policy capacity functions as an analytical tool explaining the transformation of societal competencies produced through education into a strategic component of national power.

The scope of this study has been limited to analyzing the relationship that education policies establish with foreign policy capacity at a theoretical level. Rather than an empirical examination focused on a specific country or region, the research addresses the potential of applied education-based generational construction to transform foreign policy behavior within a conceptual and theoretical framework. This theoretical preference aims to enhance the model’s analytical generalizability and to provide a framework adaptable to different national contexts [13]. The research adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach, substantiating theoretical arguments with literature support and testing the model’s internal consistency through conceptual analysis.

Contemporary threats facing modern societies render the necessity of the applied education-based generational construction approach even more visible. Problems such as digital radicalization, information pollution, conflict culture, social disintegration, and institutional trust erosion not only create internal political instability but also lay the groundwork for structural fractures that weaken states’ international reputation and negotiation capacity [14]. These threats spread rapidly, particularly in the social media age, deepening societal polarization and weakening foreign policy consensus. Many of these threats stem from the inadequacy of society’s cognitive resilience, media literacy, and ethical decision-making capacity. Therefore, developing applied education processes in areas such as cognitive resilience, rational thinking, crisis management, and healthy communication has become a strategic necessity for foreign policy [15]. Within the scope of the model, competencies acquired in the 4–44 age group not only enhance individual well-being but also enable society to attain a structure with high collective resilience that does not produce panic in crises. The guidance and normative oversight role assumed by the supervisory generation constitutes the guarantee of the cultural perpetuation of this resilience.

The relationship between internal capacity and foreign policy capacity constitutes one of the fundamental assumptions of this study. Society’s behavioral integrity, the consistency of its value systems, and the level of institutional trust directly shape the behavioral patterns that the state exhibits in the international arena [16]. It is known that societies with high levels of internal stability approach international crises with more measured and long-term perspectives, while countries with high internal conflicts exhibit foreign policy behaviors that are discontinuous, inconsistent, and characterized by short-term tendencies [17]. This finding demonstrates that behavioral and ethical stability developed through applied education from an early age can enhance foreign policy consistency at the state level. The Productive Generation– Supervisory Generation Model concretizes this relationship as a mechanism that reduces societal polarization, expands common value domains, and enhances society’s capacity for unified action.

The concept of societal resilience constitutes a critical dimension of the relationship that the model establishes with foreign policy capacity. Resilience refers to societies’ capacity for recovery and adaptation in the face of economic crisis, security threats, or societal ruptures; this capacity directly affects the consistency of states’ foreign policy decisions [18]. Within the scope of the Applied Life Competency Ecosystem, equipping individuals aged 4–44 with behavioral balance, productivity, discipline, healthy communication, and problem-solving skills significantly reduces society’s vulnerability to stress. The supervisory generation perpetuates this resilience through intergenerational transfer, mitigating risks such as societal panic, polarization, and norm erosion. The literature demonstrates that countries with high societal resilience exhibit more consistent and strategic behaviors during foreign policy crises [19]. Within this framework, generational construction through applied education is positioned as a structural mechanism that produces not only individual resilience but national resilience.

The economic dimension of the model constitutes another important axis of its relationship with foreign policy capacity. The development literature demonstrates that human capital developed through education is the fundamental driving force of economic growth [20]. The Productive Generation–Supervisory Generation Model, rather than being limited to economic growth, explains how this capital transforms foreign policy capacity. Applied skills training, professional production processes, and analytical thinking education make individuals economically effective, while ethical education, rights consciousness, and a sense of social responsibility strengthen society’s institutional integrity. This integrity transforms into a structural capacity that produces reliability and sustainability in foreign policy. It is known that states with high economic dynamism pursue more effective, more confident, and more stable foreign policies in the international arena [21]. Therefore, the productive generation raised through applied education strengthens the economic foundation of foreign policy, enhancing the state’s global competitiveness and bargaining capacity.

The study has certain limitations. First, the research is conducted at a theoretical and conceptual level, and the model’s empirical validity has not been tested through specific country examples. This theoretical preference prioritizes the model’s conceptual clarity and analytical consistency, envisaging that empirical tests will be left to future research [22]. Second, the design, content, and implementation modes of applied education programs may differ from country to country; this situation requires a careful adaptation process in adapting the model to different contexts. Third, the factors affecting foreign policy behavior are extremely diverse and complex, and education is only one of these factors. While the model emphasizes the determinative role of education, it does not ignore the effects of other structural, institutional, and conjunctural factors. Despite these limitations, the study aims to make an original contribution to the literature by foregrounding the educational dimension generally neglected in foreign policy analysis.

This study consists of seven main sections. Following the introduction section, the second section critically examines the existing literature on applied education, generational construction, and foreign policy capacity. In the third section, the theoretical foundations of the Productive Generation–Supervisory Generation Model are explained in detail. In the fourth section, the methodological framework of the research is presented. In the fifth section, the findings obtained through conceptual analysis of the model are systematically presented. In the sixth section, the findings are discussed by comparison with the literature. In the seventh and final section, the main conclusions of the study are summarized, and recommendations for policymakers and researchers are presented.

For policymakers, the implications offered by this study require rethinking the strategic dimension of education reforms. Traditional education policies are mostly shaped around goals such as employment, examination success, and economic development. However, this study argues that education policies need to be repositioned as a strategic area directly related to national security and foreign policy capacity. It is recommended that behavioral, ethical, and social competencies be processed through applied methods as much as cognitive content in the stages extending from kindergarten to university; that the curriculum be restructured with a holistic logic aimed at generational construction [23]. Similarly, strengthening vocational practice, entrepreneurship, and production-oriented programs from secondary school onwards; and institutionalizing industry–university–society collaborations at the university level will maximize the productive generation’s contribution to foreign policy capacity.

In conclusion, this study aims to analyze the structural relationship that applied education-based generational construction establishes with foreign policy capacity at a theoretical level. The research’s fundamental question—”Through which mechanisms does applied education-based generational construction transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?”—is attempted to be answered within the framework of the Productive Generation–Supervisory Generation Model. The model envisages equipping individuals in the 4–44 age range with applied education and having individuals in the 45–95 age range assume the normative oversight function, aiming to strengthen societal behavioral consistency and foreign policy capacity through intergenerational interaction. The hypothesis of the study is that applied education-based generational construction significantly strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by enhancing society’s behavioral stability and productivity.

The expected contributions of this research can be summarized along three fundamental axes. First, a new theoretical perspective is presented that incorporates micro-level behavioral variables into foreign policy analysis; the effect of society’s everyday life practices and intergenerational transfer mechanisms on foreign policy outcomes is conceptually explained. Second, education policies are repositioned not only as instruments of individual development and economic development but as strategic components of national power architecture and foreign policy capacity. Third, an interdisciplinary discussion platform is created by building conceptual bridges between the literatures of sociology of education, international relations, and public policy. While the study reminds policymakers wishing to strengthen states’ foreign policy capacities of the strategic importance of education reforms, it offers researchers the opportunity to examine the unexplored dimensions of the education–society–foreign policy relationship. Thus, the Productive Generation–Supervisory Generation Model takes its place in the literature as an original analytical framework that focuses not only on “what” foreign policy does, but on “by whom and from which world of values it is conducted.”

Literature Review

The question posed in the introduction—”through which mechanisms does applied education-based generational construction transform foreign policy capacity”—is situated at the intersection of two research fields that have traditionally remained distant from one another: the sociology of education and international relations. A literature review conducted at this intersection point necessitates synthesizing the fundamental conceptual and empirical accumulations of both fields to establish the groundwork for the article’s original contribution. While the sociology of education literature examines how individuals are shaped within social processes, norm internalization, and the formation dynamics of behavioral patterns, the international relations literature addresses the structural, institutional, and normative determinants of state behavior [24,25]. Despite the epistemological differences between these two disciplines, both acknowledge the capacity of social structure to shape actor behavior, and this common ground provides the theoretical legitimacy for an interdisciplinary synthesis [26]. The literature review presented in this section aims to construct a synthesis that integrates the concepts of applied education, social capital, intergenerational value transfer, and foreign policy capacity in order to illuminate this unexplored domain. The scope of the review encompasses both foundational texts of the field and contemporary discussions from the past two decades, thereby ensuring both historical depth and contemporary validity.

The concept of applied education is positioned in the literature as a pedagogical approach that draws from experience-based learning traditions and centers the transformation of knowledge into behavior. Kolb’s [11] experiential learning theory posits that knowledge is acquired not only through abstract concepts but also through direct experience and reflective observation. This approach, drawing from Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy of education, emphasizes that learning is not a passive reception of information but an active construction process, thereby offering an alternative paradigm to traditional didactic models [27]. This theoretical framework directly corresponds with the concept of “Applied Life Competency Ecosystem” that forms the foundation of this article, demonstrating that applied education encompasses not only cognitive but also behavioral and emotional dimensions.

The studies of Shonkoff and Phillips (2012) have revealed that behavioral patterns acquired during early childhood rest upon neurocognitive foundations and that these patterns create lasting effects on social adjustment, productivity, and sense of responsibility in adulthood. These findings are also supported by Bronfenbrenner’s [28] ecological systems theory, which demonstrates that an individual’s multi-layered environmental interactions extending from micro-system to macro-system determine their behavioral development. Lickona’s [29] research on values education has shown that norm internalization can be strengthened through systematic educational interventions during childhood and adolescence. These findings provide an empirical foundation for the conceptualization of the productive generation in the 4-44 age range presented in the introduction. Consequently, applied education is evaluated not as a pedagogical preference but as a strategic policy area that shapes long-term state capacity.

The concept of social capital constitutes one of the fundamental theoretical tools explaining how educational processes are transferred from the individual level to the societal level. Putnam’s [30] pioneering study demonstrated that social capital increases society’s capacity for cooperation through trust, norms, and social networks, and strengthens the functioning of democratic institutions. Coleman’s [31] research examining the relationship between human capital and social capital showed that educational investments produce not only individual returns but also cooperation capacity and trust relationships at the societal level. The comparative study of Helliwell and Putnam [32] demonstrated that societies with high social capital exhibit more peaceful, cooperative, and predictable behavioral patterns; this finding empirically supported the indirect connection between social capital and foreign policy behavior.

Fukuyama’s [3] comparative analysis on the concept of trust revealed that high-trust societies exhibit more rational, controlled, and consistent behaviors during international crises. Fukuyama’s [33] earlier work demonstrated that trust is not merely a factor facilitating economic transactions but also a structural variable determining societies’ institutional capacity and international competitiveness. These findings provide theoretical and empirical foundations for the article’s central claim regarding the structural relationship between internal societal capacity and foreign policy capacity. The integration of the social capital concept with the model and mechanism analysis will be addressed in detail in the Theoretical Framework section.

The rise of behavioral approaches in foreign policy analysis reflects the theoretical transformation toward the view that state behavior must be explained not only by structural factors but also by societal and individual variables. Hudson’s [24] comprehensive study on foreign policy analysis demonstrated that decision-making processes are shaped by leadership psychology, organizational dynamics, and social context. Hudson’s [34] earlier work emphasized that foreign policy analysis needs to develop “actor-specific theory” and highlighted the inadequacy of approaches that treat states as homogeneous units. This approach, unlike the traditional schools of realism and neorealism that treat states as abstract and singular actors, evaluates the quality of internal structure as a constitutive component of foreign policy [35]. Neoclassical realism, developed in response to neorealism’s structural determinism, has attempted to partially overcome this theoretical tension by examining how internal variables shape foreign policy outcomes [36].

Wendt’s [37] analyses from a social constructivist perspective argued that state identity and interest perceptions are constructed within processes of social interaction; this approach theoretically grounded the capacity of social norms to shape foreign policy behavior. Risse’s [25] studies drawing from communicative action theory revealed the central role of social learning in the processes of internalizing international norms. These theoretical developments constitute a conceptual foundation for answering the research question posed in the introduction—namely, the question of how applied education-based generational construction transforms foreign policy behavior. Therefore, behavioral foreign policy analysis functions as a critical junction point where the article’s theoretical framework meets the discipline of international relations.

The concept of soft power emerges as another fundamental theoretical tool explaining the relationship that social structure establishes with foreign policy capacity. The soft power framework developed by Nye [38,39] argues that a state’s influence in the international arena depends not only on military and economic resources but also on cultural attractiveness, value systems, and policy legitimacy. This framework is directly related to the hypothesis stated in the introduction regarding “the strengthening of trust and soft power capacity in foreign policy.” The empirical study of Goldsmith and Horiuchi [40] demonstrated that countries with high internal cohesion, low crime rates, and strong social solidarity are perceived as more reliable and attractive actors in the international arena.

Anholt’s [41] research on national brand value revealed that a country’s international image is directly related to the quality of its social structure. Fan’s [42] national branding studies showed that a country’s international reputation is shaped not only by conscious communication strategies but also by society’s everyday behavioral patterns and value systems. These findings are also supported by the public diplomacy literature [43]. The integration of the soft power concept with the Productive- Supervisory Generations Model will be addressed in the Theoretical Framework section.

The concepts of intergenerational value transfer and social memory constitute one of the theoretical foundations of the Productive-Supervisory Generations Model presented in the introduction. Halbwachs’s [44] collective memory theory argued that societies carry their pasts as a collective structure beyond individual memory and that this memory is sustained through intergenerational transfer mechanisms. Assmann’s concept of cultural memory extended this theoretical framework, demonstrating that social memory is transferred not only through communicative but also through institutional and symbolic mechanisms. This theoretical framework provides a powerful conceptual tool for explaining the “social memory carrier” function of the supervisory generation in the 45-95 age range proposed in this article.

The life course research of Elder, Shanahan, and Jennings [45] revealed that intergenerational learning has a determining effect on societies’ long-term stability and normative continuity. Mannheim’s [46] sociology of generations demonstrated that individuals sharing similar experiences during the same historical period develop a common “generational consciousness” and that this consciousness shapes the dynamics of social change. The study by Harper and Hamblin [47] on aging societies showed that advanced age groups assume a critical function as guardians and transmitters of social norms, beyond being merely a demographic category. The intergenerational solidarity research of Bengtson and Putney [48] revealed that the elderly generation’s value transfer function operates at the societal level beyond family relationships. These findings demonstrate that the concept of supervisory generation is in strong alignment with the discussions of “social memory carrying” and “normative continuity” in the literature.

Research focusing on the relationship between education and security demonstrates that education creates structural effects not only in the areas of economic development and individual growth but also on social security and state capacity. The empirical study of Bazzi and Blattman [49] examining the relationship between conflict and education revealed that as education levels rise, tendencies toward intra-societal violence decrease and social cohesion strengthens. This finding, beyond economic explanations that education reduces the tendency to resort to violence by increasing opportunity costs, also demonstrates that education produces peaceful behavioral patterns through normative internalization [50].

The research of Duckworth and Seligman [51] on selfdiscipline and academic success showed that applied education models produce significant behavioral outcomes in individuals toward regulating risk perception, reducing aggressive tendencies, and increasing cooperation capacity. The comprehensive research of Heckman and colleagues [52] empirically supported the behavioral dimensions of applied education’s economic and social consequences by showing that non-cognitive skills are as effective as cognitive skills on labor market outcomes. Brooks’s [53] study addressing the relationship between internal security and foreign policy revealed that states with strong internal security exhibit more confident, consistent, and proactive behavioral patterns in foreign policy. Therefore, the education-security literature supports that generational construction through applied education carries strategic importance not only for social development but also for national security and foreign policy capacity.

Human capital theory constitutes one of the central conceptual frameworks explaining the effects of educational investments on national power and international competitive capacity. Becker’s [54] pioneering study argued that education expenditures should be evaluated as investments producing economic returns at both individual and societal levels and introduced the concept of human capital to the social sciences literature. Heckman’s [12] comprehensive research on early childhood investments showed that educational investments made at early ages provide the highest social returns in the long term and that these returns encompass dimensions beyond economic productivity, including behavioral stability, social cohesion, and institutional trust.

Heckman’s long-term follow-up studies on the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian projects empirically demonstrated that early childhood interventions create lasting positive effects on crime rates, health indicators, and social participation. Sachs’s [55] study examining the relationship between sustainable development and education showed that security, stability, social cohesion, and economic dynamism at the national level are directly related to education quality. World Bank [56] reports emphasized that educational weaknesses negatively affect states’ global competitive capacity and increase national fragility risks. OECD [57] skills outlook reports showed that in the digital age, social-emotional skills, alongside traditional cognitive skills, carry critical importance for international competitiveness.

The concept of social resilience emerges as an important analytical tool explaining societies’ capacity for adaptation and recovery in the face of hybrid threats, economic crises, and geopolitical ruptures that modern states confront. Adger’s [58] study examining the relationship between social and ecological resilience revealed that societies’ resistance to crises is directly connected to social networks, trust relationships, and collective action capacity. Folke’s [18] resilience theory enhanced the concept’s analytical richness by emphasizing that systems encompass not only the capacity to withstand shocks but also the capacity to adapt to changing conditions and transform.

Aaltola’s [15] contemporary study on global disorder and social resilience showed that states’ capacity to survive in an environment of international uncertainty is determined by the quality of internal social structure. Boin and ‘t Hart’s [19] crisis management research revealed that effective crisis response depends not only on institutional capacity but also on social trust and collective action capacity. Schwab’s [59] analyses in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution revealed that structural risks of the young population such as unemployment, low skill levels, and behavioral problems lead to states being perceived as weak and fragile actors in the international arena. Masten’s [60] resilience research demonstrated that individual resilience develops in a social context and that education systems play a critical role in strengthening this capacity.

The concept of strategic culture provides an important theoretical framework explaining the security perceptions and foreign policy behavioral patterns originating from societies’ historical experiences and cultural accumulations. Johnston’s [8] pioneering study on strategic culture revealed that states’ foreign policy preferences are shaped not only by rational interest calculations but also by socially constructed norms and values. Lantis’s [61] strategic culture assessment systematically analyzed how this concept is used by different theoretical traditions, determining the concept’s analytical potential and limitations. Berger’s [62] comparative analysis explained why different societies exhibit different foreign policy behaviors even under similar structural conditions through strategic culture differences.

Normative institutionalism is another central theoretical tradition explaining how international norms shape state behavior and how these norms are internalized through social processes. Finnemore and Sikkink’s [63] norm life cycle model systematically conceptualized the processes of emergence, diffusion, and internalization of international norms, emphasizing the critical role of social actors and educational institutions in these processes. March and Olsen’s [64] concept of the logic of appropriateness demonstrated that actors base their behaviors not only on interest calculations but also on their answers to the question “what is appropriate for me to do?” Checkel’s [65] research on social learning and norm internalization revealed the determining role of education and socialization in the processes by which individuals and societies accept new norms.

The relationship between institutional capacity and social trust holds central importance for understanding the internal determinants of foreign policy capacity. Rothstein and Teorell’s [66] comparative research on governance quality revealed that social trust is mutually nourished by trust in public institutions and that this trust relationship increases institutional effectiveness. Tyler’s [67] procedural justice research illuminated the mechanisms of the trust-institution relationship by showing that institutional legitimacy depends not only on outcomes but also on the fair perception of decision-making processes.

Acemoglu and Robinson’s [68] institutional analysis framework showed that societies’ failure or success is largely determined by institutional quality, emphasizing that this institutional quality is directly connected to social norms, trust relationships, and collective action capacity. North’s [69] institutional economics approach showed that institutions increase economic performance by reducing transaction costs and that this institutional effectiveness rests on social norms. Keohane’s [70] studies on international institutions and cooperation showed that the perception of social reliability is determinative on international cooperation capacity; this finding theoretically grounded the reflection of internal institutional quality on foreign policy outcomes.

Bourdieu’s [71] concept of habitus provides a powerful theoretical tool explaining how individuals are shaped within social structure and how this shaping is reflected in behavioral patterns. Habitus refers to the schemas of perception, thought, and action that individuals internalize from early ages; these schemas are reproduced through social practices and transferred across generations. Bourdieu’s [72] analysis of forms of capital showed that economic, cultural, and social capital can be converted into one another and that these conversion mechanisms determine social reproduction. Giddens’s [73] structuration theory complements Bourdieu’s concept of habitus by demonstrating that while individuals are shaped by structural conditions, they also possess the capacity to reproduce and transform these conditions.

Cultural evolution and social learning perspectives provide a complementary theoretical framework explaining the evolutionary dynamics of intergenerational value transfer. Boyd and Richerson’s [74] cultural evolution theory argued that human behaviors are shaped not only by genetic inheritance but also by cultural transmission mechanisms. Henrich’s [75] collective brain concept demonstrated that societies’ knowledge accumulation is stored in a collective structure beyond individual capacities and that this accumulation is enriched through intergenerational transfer. Bandura’s [76] social learning theory demonstrated that individuals acquire their behaviors not only through direct experience but also through observation and modeling. The integration of these theories with the model and mechanism analysis will be addressed in detail in the Theoretical Framework section.

The theoretical traditions and empirical findings discussed above provide a rich conceptual accumulation toward the education-society-foreign policy relationship; however, the limitations of studies that address these three areas within a holistic framework are noteworthy. The sociology of education literature has largely concentrated on individual development and social mobility, while the international relations literature has mostly treated education as an indicator of economic power or human capital and has overlooked its behavioral dimensions. This disciplinary separation has prevented the development of a systematic theoretical framework regarding how societal microprocesses transform into macro-level foreign policy outcomes [77].

Similarly, intergenerational value transfer research has generally remained within the disciplines of family sociology or gerontology; the relationship of these processes with foreign policy capacity has not been examined. Pilcher’s [78] evaluation of generational sociology emphasized that the interdisciplinary potential of Mannheim’s theoretical legacy has not been sufficiently realized. The “everyday life” and “practice turn” approaches that have gained strength in foreign policy analysis in recent years show increasing interest in the transformation of societal foundations into strategic outcomes [10]; however, these approaches have not yet systematically incorporated education policies into their analytical frameworks.

This theoretical gap defines the original contribution area that this article aims to fill through the Productive-Supervisory Generations Model. The model aims to integrate the scattered theoretical accumulation in the literature by proposing a multilayered analytical framework extending from individual behavioral transformation at the micro level to social norm production at the meso level and state behavior at the macro level. This multi-layered approach offers an original theoretical synthesis as a response to Coleman’s [79] micro-macro linkage problem. The theoretical framework to be presented in the next section will systematically articulate the article’s original conceptual model, built upon the theoretical foundations identified in this literature review. Thus, the study aims to provide an interdisciplinary contribution to the literatures of international relations and sociology of education by offering a new analytical framework explaining the structural relationship that education policies establish with foreign policy capacity.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual ground established in the introduction and literature review sections necessitates an in-depth analysis of the theoretical dimensions of the structural relationship that applied education-based generational construction establishes with foreign policy capacity. The theoretical traditions introduced in the literature review are integrated with the Productive-Supervisory Generations Model in this section to form an original analytical framework. Seeking an answer to the research’s fundamental question—”Through which mechanisms does applied educationbased generational construction transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?”—necessitates a multi-layered analytical framework extending from individual behavioral transformation at the micro level to social norm production at the meso level and state behavior at the macro level. This multi-level approach offers an original theoretical synthesis as a response to Coleman’s [79] micro-macro linkage problem and enables the construction of an original theoretical architecture positioned at the intersection of the fields of sociology of education, international relations, and public policy.

The fundamental assumption of the theoretical framework is that society’s behavioral infrastructure can be transformed through systematic educational interventions and that this transformation can directly affect the state’s international behaviors. This assumption offers an alternative perspective emphasizing the determinacy of societal variables in opposition to Waltz’s [35] structural realism approach, which tends to explain state behavior solely through systemic factors. This “bottom-up” viewpoint, which complements the traditional “topdown” perspective of foreign policy analysis, aims to illuminate the process by which societal foundations are transformed into strategic outcomes [9, 24].

The concept of social capital introduced in the literature review is the primary theoretical framework constituting the theoretical ground of the Productive-Supervisory Generations Model. Woolcock and Narayan’s [80] social capital typology grounds the applicability of social capital to foreign policy analysis by demonstrating that this concept operates not only at the societal level but also at the institutional and interstate levels.

When evaluated in the context of the model, Putnam’s distinction between “bridging” and “bonding” social capital provides a critical analytical tool: the acquisition of competencies such as values, rights consciousness, and healthy communication by the Productive Generation aged 4-44 through applied education reinforces horizontal trust relationships in society. In contrast, the normative guidance and value transfer function of the Supervisory Generation aged 45-95 supports the vertical trust structure and strengthens intergenerational bonds. Coleman’s [31] concept of “closure” gains importance in this context; the intensity of intergenerational interaction increases the effectiveness of social capital by facilitating norm enforcement and information flow.

The empirical findings conveyed in the literature review demonstrate that societies with high social capital exhibit more rational, peaceful, and strategic behavioral patterns during international crises. The model concretizes this finding by arguing that both horizontal and vertical social bonds can be systematically strengthened through applied education and that this strengthening will directly reflect on foreign policy capacity. Therefore, social capital theory constitutes one of the fundamental theoretical bases of the relationship the model establishes with foreign policy capacity.

The cultural evolution theory introduced in the literature review explains the evolutionary and cognitive foundations of the model’s intergenerational interaction dimension. The “biased transmission” and “conformist transmission” mechanisms defined by Boyd and Richerson [74] find concrete counterparts in the Productive-Supervisory Generations Model: The Supervisory Generation assumes the “biased transmission” function, ensuring the selective transfer of socially valued behavioral patterns, while the Productive Generation develops new behavioral patterns adapting to changing conditions through its “conformist transmission” capacity.

Henrich’s [75] concepts of “cumulative cultural evolution” and “collective brain” further strengthen the theoretical foundations of the model. Within the framework of the model, the systematic equipping of individuals aged 4-44 with applied education contributes to the acceleration of the cultural evolution process and the formation of homogeneity in society’s behavioral standards. The Supervisory Generation’s oversight of this transfer reduces cultural deviations, corrects behavioral inconsistencies, and preserves normative integrity. This oversight function is consistent with Durkheim’s [81] classical propositions that social control mechanisms strengthen social cohesion by operating not in a repressive but in a constructive and guiding manner. This integrity is evaluated as a critical factor in states’ creation of perceptions of predictability and stability in the international arena [82].

Bandura’s social learning theory introduced in the literature review constitutes one of the fundamental theoretical tools explaining the model’s mechanism extending from individual behavioral transformation to social norm production. In the context of the model, the behavioral patterns acquired by the Productive Generation in applied education processes are reinforced both through direct experience and through the role modeling provided by the Supervisory Generation. Bandura’s [83,84] concept of self-efficacy theoretically grounds the effects of applied education on individual competency by explaining the cognitive processes that shape individuals’ behaviors.

Checkel’s [65] distinction between Type I (strategic adaptation) and Type II (genuine internalization) socialization emphasizes the critical role of applied education in this process. The model envisages that this process extending from superficial norm acceptance to deep internalization can be accelerated through systematic applied education interventions. Lickona’s [29] values education research conveyed in the literature review supports the model’s early age emphasis by showing that norm internalization can be strengthened during childhood and adolescence. The article’s argument of “norm internalization through applied education” is also supported from a normative institutionalist perspective; March and Olsen’s [64] concept of the logic of appropriateness strengthens this theoretical connection by showing that actors base their behaviors on their answers to the question “what is appropriate for me to do?”

The fourth component of the model’s theoretical framework is the relational integrity that the human security approach establishes with generational construction. The concept of human security transcends the traditional state-centered understanding of security, placing the individual’s ability to live a life free from physical, economic, psychological, and social threats at the center of security analysis [85]. This approach argues that security rests not only on military capacity but also on individuals’ life skills, stress tolerance, and social adjustment [86,87] The Productive- Supervisory Generations Model, in alignment with the human security literature, produces a security chain extending from individual security to national security. Within the framework of the model, the protection of individuals aged 4-44 from harmful habits, the development of healthy life skills, and the teaching of safe communication methods directly correspond with the fundamental principles of human security. The Supervisory Generation’s social oversight function contributes to the formation of a stable security ecosystem in society by strengthening the cultural and social dimensions of human security. Brooks’s [53] findings conveyed in the literature review empirically support this connection by showing that states with strong internal security exhibit more confident behavioral patterns in foreign policy. Research reveals that societies with high social cohesion and ethical integrity are more resilient against external threats and that these countries are viewed as more reliable partners in international coalitions [3].

The fifth component of the theoretical framework is the theoretical perspective that the social constructivist approach has developed on state behavior and identity formation. Social constructivism argues that state behavior is shaped not only by material power elements but also by identity, norms, and social values [88]. According to this approach, the international system consists not only of material structures but also of shared worlds of meaning and collective identities; states’ interests are constructed within these worlds of meaning [89].

Adler and Pouliot’s [10] “practice turn” perspective theoretically supports the importance of applied education in identity construction by showing that everyday social practices play a determining role in the formation of state identity. Within the framework of the model, the collective identity of the Productive Generation aged 4-44, built upon common values such as ethical behavior, productivity, social responsibility, and healthy communication, enables the state to act with a consistent self-perception in the international arena. The Supervisory Generation’s ensuring the intergenerational continuity of this identity transforms social identity into a stable structure. Hopf’s [90] social constructivist identity analysis revealed that identitybased foreign policy approaches are critical particularly in understanding long-term strategic behaviors.

The sixth approach strengthening the theoretical foundations of the model is state capacity theory. The concept of state capacity refers to a multidimensional structure encompassing a state’s skills in producing order, implementing policy, making strategic decisions, and managing crises [91]. This capacity is directly related not only to institutional mechanisms but also to the qualities of the social actors who operate these mechanisms [92].

When evaluated from the model’s perspective, the acquisition by individuals aged 4-44 of high discipline, productivity, rational thinking, and sense of responsibility through applied education means the micro-level support of the state’s administrative capacity. These individual competencies directly contribute to the functioning of public institutions and increase institutional effectiveness. The Supervisory Generation’s transformation of these behaviors into social norms produces managerial stability at the macro scale. The findings of Rothstein and Teorell [16] and Tyler [67] conveyed in the literature review demonstrate that social trust is mutually nourished by trust in public institutions and that this relationship increases institutional effectiveness. Research reveals that countries with high state capacity develop more effective, more consistent, and longer-term strategies in foreign policy [68].

The concept of strategic culture introduced in the literature review is reframed in the model with an education-based perspective. Kier’s [93] research reveals that strategic culture is related to institutional memory and social resilience, demonstrating that foreign policy continuity rests on societal foundations. The model envisages that society’s value system, threat perceptions, and collective behavioral patterns can be systematically shaped through applied education.

This shaping process contributes to the long-term transformation of the state’s strategic culture and the consistency of foreign policy behaviors around certain normative orientations. Holsti’s [94] studies on national role conceptions support the notion that role perceptions can be shaped through education by showing that the international roles societies attribute to themselves determine their foreign policy behaviors. Therefore, the strategic culture approach offers a theoretical framework explaining how the model’s social value production is reflected in foreign policy preferences.

The concept of social resilience introduced in the literature review is directly related to foreign policy capacity within the framework of the model. Tetlock’s [95] research reveals the connection between social resilience and decision-making quality by showing that cognitive continuity mechanisms create predictability in states’ foreign policy decisions. When evaluated within the framework of the model, equipping individuals aged 4-44 with behavioral balance, productivity, discipline, healthy communication, and problem-solving skills within the scope of the Applied Life Competency Ecosystem significantly reduces society’s vulnerability to stress. This individual resilience capacity transforms into a collective resilience structure at the societal level. The Supervisory Generation’s perpetuation of this resilience through intergenerational transfer reduces risks such as social panic, polarization, and norm erosion. This continuity mechanism preserves strategic consistency during crisis periods by offering a structural solution that prevents social ruptures that weaken the state’s foreign policy capacity.

The human capital theory introduced in the literature review is carried beyond its traditional economic growth-focused interpretation in the model to explain how this capital transforms foreign policy capacity. Applied skills training, professional production processes, and analytical thinking education make individuals economically effective, while ethical education, rights consciousness, and a sense of social responsibility strengthen society’s institutional integrity. This integrity transforms into a structural capacity that produces reliability and sustainability in foreign policy.

The model carries Heckman’s [12] findings regarding the long-term returns of early childhood investments to the foreign policy dimension. As Shonkoff and Phillips’s [7] studies demonstrate, the fact that behavioral patterns acquired during early childhood rest upon neurocognitive foundations grounds the economic rationality of the model’s emphasis on applied education in the 4-44 age range. Sachs’s [55] findings support this connection by showing that security, stability, and economic dynamism at the national level are directly related to education quality. The concept of soft power introduced in the literature review is addressed in the model with an original perspective explaining its societal origins. Rose’s [36] neoclassical realism approach grounds the societal origins of soft power production by showing that the quality of internal structure is an important variable shaping foreign policy behavior. Within the framework of the model, raising society’s ethical standards, behavioral quality, and cultural production capacity through applied education directly contributes to the state’s production of attractiveness and respectability in the international arena. A society composed of individuals who have received values education, developed rights consciousness, and acquired healthy communication skills produces a positive image in international public opinion and provides legitimacy to the state’s diplomatic initiatives. Ikenberry’s [96] analysis of the liberal international order demonstrates that value-based foreign policies increase international legitimacy and cooperation capacity. The Supervisory Generation’s ensuring the intergenerational continuity of these values guarantees the sustainability of soft power production.

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus introduced in the literature review is removed from being an abstract cultural category in the model and concretely related to applied education processes. Illeris’s [27] learning theory synthesis supports the role of applied education in habitus shaping by showing that habitus formation is not merely a passive socialization process but also an active construction process. Within the framework of the model, applied education processes beginning from kindergarten and primary school play a critical role in shaping the individual’s fundamental habitus and lay the foundation for behavioral patterns in adulthood. Kolb’s [11] experiential learning theory explains the effectiveness of applied education in habitus transformation by arguing that knowledge is acquired through direct experience and reflective observation. The concept of cultural capital explains how the knowledge, skills, and behavioral patterns possessed by societies are converted into economic and political capital; this conversion mechanism offers a valuable perspective for understanding how competencies acquired through education are transferred to national power components. One of the important components of the theoretical framework is the new institutional sociology approach that addresses the effect of collective behavior and social coordination on foreign policy. This approach argues that the more harmonious and predictable the collective behavior standards in society are, the more rational and stable the state’s foreign policy decisions will be [97]. Sen’s [98] capability approach demonstrates that the coordination of individuals’ functional capabilities at the societal level is determinative for collective welfare and institutional effectiveness.

When evaluated within the framework of the model, the internalization of common behavioral codes by individuals aged 4-44 through applied education reduces coordination costs in society and strengthens institutional harmony. These common codes create predictability in individuals’ interactions with each other and with institutions and increase collective action capacity. The Supervisory Generation’s continuous oversight of these common codes ensures the intergenerational continuity of coordination. Tilly’s [99] research reveals that harmonious social coordination provides states with advantages in diplomatic crises and increases reliability in international negotiations. Another approach nourishing the theoretical foundations of the model is epistemic communities’ theory. As Haas [100] defined, communities formed by individuals who have internalized specific knowledge sets and share common normative values possess the power to shape states’ international behaviors. The research of Milligan, Moretti, and Oreopoulos [101] demonstrates that as education levels rise, individuals’ rational decision-making skills and political consciousness increase.

The model carries the epistemic community concept to a largescale social transformation perspective. The standard education of the generation aged 4-44 in areas such as applied skills, ethical values, analytical thinking, and rational communication means the construction of a large-scale and deep epistemic community. This community shares a common cognitive framework not only in a specific area of expertise but at the level of general social behavior and values. Dee’s [102] research demonstrates the effects of cognitive capacity developed through education on political participation, democratic consciousness, and institutional trust. The Supervisory Generation assumes the normative oversight of this epistemic accumulation and ensures the intergenerational continuity of cognitive consistency. The neoliberal institutionalist approach argues that the sustainability of interstate cooperation depends not only on the existence of international institutions but also on states’ internal institutional capacity and social support [70]. Keohane and Nye’s [103] complex interdependence model conveyed in the literature review demonstrates that interstate relations are shaped not only by power politics but also by institutional mechanisms and social bonds.

The model, in alignment with these fundamental propositions of neoliberal institutionalism, argues that society’s internal capacity is a structural variable shaping foreign policy behavior. Increasing society’s behavioral stability and institutional trust through applied education directly strengthens the state’s international cooperation capacity. A society composed of individuals who have received values education, developed a sense of responsibility, and internalized ethical standards supports the state’s commitment to its international undertakings and increases its diplomatic reliability. Putnam’s [9] two-level game metaphor explains the determinacy of social consensus on diplomatic power by showing that domestic political dynamics directly affect international negotiation capacity.

Another component of the theoretical framework is the structural relationship that democratic legitimacy and governance quality establish with foreign policy capacity. Democratic legitimacy refers to a state’s both domestic and foreign policy decisions receiving social acceptance and support; this level of legitimacy directly affects the state’s reliability in the international arena [104]. Research reveals a strong relationship between governance quality and foreign policy effectiveness [105].

Within the framework of the model, applied competencies such as values education, rights consciousness, responsibility culture, and conflict resolution strengthen individuals’ participation in democratic processes and increase trust in institutional functioning. The spread of these individual competencies at the societal level supports the operability of democratic institutions and raises governance quality. Research demonstrates that societies with strong democratic legitimacy are evaluated as more predictable and reliable actors in foreign policy [25]. The Supervisory Generation’s ensuring the intergenerational transfer of these democratic values guarantees the sustainability of legitimacy.

The original conceptual contribution at the center of the theoretical framework is the definition and theoretical positioning of the concept of “behavioral foreign policy capacity.” This concept assumes that foreign policy capacity can be determined not only through institutional capabilities, military power, or economic resources but also through society’s cognitive infrastructure, value systems, and collective behavioral patterns [2]. This concept incorporates the behavioral characteristics of social actors into foreign policy analysis as a response to Hudson’s [34] suggestion that foreign policy analysis needs to develop “actorspecific theory.” Behavioral foreign policy capacity encompasses elements such as society’s capacity for rational thinking, tendency not to produce panic in crisis moments, conflict resolution skills, and capacity to develop harmony around common values. These elements directly affect how the state is perceived by international actors, its reliability in negotiation processes, and the legitimacy of its diplomatic initiatives [5]. The model transcends realism’s material power-focused analysis, reduces constructivism’s emphasis on identity and norms to societal foundations, and thereby adds a new dimension to foreign policy analysis. King, Keohane, and Verba’s [13] methodological framework requires increasing the analytical generalizability of theoretical concepts and offering frameworks adaptable to different national contexts; the concept of behavioral foreign policy capacity meets this requirement. Within this framework, the model envisages a multiplier-effect transformation mechanism extending from individual learning to family, community, and national levels. The theoretical structure of the model defines three fundamental mechanisms affecting foreign policy performance: the behavioral stability mechanism, the production-innovation mechanism, and the cultural continuity mechanism.

The behavioral stability mechanism points to a structural transformation that reduces society’s tendency to produce conflict, increases the tendency toward rational decision-making, and strengthens collective resilience [26]. This mechanism gains operability through the development of individuals’ stress management, anger control, and communication skills through applied education. Bandura’s [84] self-regulation research demonstrates that these skills can be developed through systematic educational interventions and can produce behavioral consistency at the societal level. The production-innovation mechanism is related to the Productive Generation’s increasing the state’s global competitiveness through economic dynamism and technological capacity. This mechanism is strengthened through the development of applied vocational education, entrepreneurship skills, and analytical thinking capacity. Acemoglu and Robinson’s [106] innovation and institutional capacity analysis demonstrates that economic dynamism needs to be supported by institutional quality and social norms. The cultural continuity mechanism ensures the preservation of society’s internal integrity through the Supervisory Generation’s value transfer and social guidance role. The combination of these three mechanisms enables the simultaneous strengthening of the behavioral, economic, and cultural dimensions of national power and contributes to the multidimensional development of the state’s foreign policy capacity. The innovative aspect of the model is its unification of these mechanisms under a single theoretical roof and its systematic explanation of the interaction between them. The theoretical foundations of the model are also in deep alignment with the macro-structural change mechanisms proposed by social transformation theories. Social transformation is a long-term process that emerges through the combination of factors such as intergenerational value transfer, the quality of the education system, and cultural continuity (Giddens, 2013; Castells, 2011). Inglehart’s (1997) value change research demonstrates that intergenerational value transfer plays a critical role in the continuity of social norms.

The model systematizes this transformation process along the axis of applied education, transforming all age groups of society into a “production unit” of transformation. While individuals aged 4-44 become the active carriers of transformation, the supervisory generation aged 45-95 assumes the supervisory and continuityproviding dimension of transformation. The combination of these two mechanisms ensures that social transformation occurs not in an organic and random manner but within a planned and rational framework. Darling-Hammond’s [107] education reform research demonstrates that systematic educational interventions can accelerate social transformation and that this transformation can contribute to long-term national capacity building. Thus, the model offers an original theoretical contribution that redefines the theoretical connection established between social transformation and foreign policy capacity through generational construction. The holistic evaluation of the theoretical framework reveals how the model integrates different theoretical traditions and the analytical power of this integration. While social capital theory explains the effect of social trust and cooperation capacity on foreign policy behavior, cultural evolution theory illuminates the evolutionary foundations of intergenerational value transfer. While social learning theory reveals the mechanisms of individual behavioral transformation, the human security approach explains the chain extending from individual security to national security. While social constructivism analyzes the transformation of social values into state identity, state capacity theory grounds the causality extending from social origins to institutional outputs.

This theoretical plurality is consistent with Gibbons and colleagues’ [108] “Mode 2” knowledge production approach, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary synthesis in producing scientific innovation. Ragin and Amoroso’s [109] comparative analysis approach demonstrates that such multitheoretical syntheses enable the systematic answering of the research question and the evaluation of the model from a holistic perspective. Therefore, the theoretical framework makes the complexity of the education-society-foreign policy relationship conceptually manageable by offering an interdisciplinary synthesis. In conclusion, the theoretical framework presented in this section has revealed the theoretical foundations of the Productive-Supervisory Generations Model from a multilayered and interdisciplinary perspective. The model’s original contribution is its integration of the theoretical traditions introduced in the literature review around the concept of “behavioral foreign policy capacity” and its systematic articulation of the causality chain extending from individual behavioral transformation at the micro level to state behavior at the macro level. The research’s hypothesis—”that applied education-based generational construction strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by increasing society’s behavioral stability”—has been prepared for testing within this theoretical framework. The research methodology to be presented in the next section will explain in detail how this theoretical framework will be tested at the operational level and how the model will be evaluated through conceptual analysis.

Research Methodology

The theoretical framework presented in the preceding sections has explained the relationship that applied educationbased generation-building establishes with foreign policy capacity from a multi-layered perspective. The research methodology presented in this section explains how the aforementioned theoretical structure will be evaluated and through what means the research question will be answered. The fundamental question of this study—”Through what mechanisms does apply education-based generation-building transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?”—requires a methodology based on the explanation of concepts and relationships rather than quantitative data [110]. For this reason, the research adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach, focusing on understanding and explaining social phenomena rather than measuring them. This choice stems from the nature of the research question; for concepts such as values education, social trust, and behavioral stability can be understood through the interpretation of meanings rather than being expressed in numbers [111]. The qualitative approach is accepted as an effective method for understanding complex relationships and behavioral patterns, particularly in the social sciences [112]. This approach has also been determined as the most appropriate choice for comprehending the functioning of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model. The research methodology has been designed in complete alignment with the social capital theory, cultural evolution theory, social learning theory, and other theoretical traditions presented in the theoretical framework. In other words, the choice of methodology was not random; rather, it was made thoughtfully to provide the most appropriate answers to the questions posed sby the research.

The design of this research has been determined as an interpretive approach within a conceptual and analytical framework. The interpretive research design foregrounds the importance of context and meanings when attempting to understand social events and processes [113]. This design requires the researcher not merely to describe phenomena but to explain the meanings and relationships behind them. Just as a teacher does not merely observe students’ behaviors but attempts to understand the reasons behind these behaviors, this research also seeks answers to the “why” and “how” questions of social phenomena. The study examines the transformation process extending from applied education through individual behaviors to social structures and thence to foreign policy capacity with this interpretive perspective. The research design aims to analyze at the conceptual level the interaction between the “productive generation aged 4–44” and the “supervisory generation aged 45–95” proposed by the model, and the reflections of this interaction on state behavior. The relationship between these two generational groups is similar to elders in a family providing guidance to the young; while the supervisory generation shows the way with their experiences, the productive generation puts this guidance into practice. This design aims to generate a response to Coleman’s [114] micro-macro link problem and to illuminate the causality chain extending from the individual level to the national level. Rather than collecting empirical data, the research design evaluates the model’s consistency and explanatory power by integrating theoretical arguments and literature findings.

The scope and field of study of the research have been delimited to examining the relationship that applied educationbased generation-building establishes with foreign policy capacity at the theoretical level. Rather than focusing on a specific country or geographic region, the study aims to conceptually reveal the general functioning of the model and its universal applicability. This choice is consistent with King, Keohane, and Verba’s [13] principle of generalizability in the social sciences and aims for the model to present a framework adaptable to different national contexts. This approach ensures that the model possesses sufficient flexibility to be applied not only to a single country but to many countries with different social and cultural structures. The focal point of the research is how society’s behavioral infrastructure can be transformed through education and how this transformation can affect the state’s international behaviors. In this context, the study presents an interdisciplinary examination positioned at the intersection of the fields of educational sociology, international relations, and public policy. The interdisciplinary perspective enables different dimensions of the model to be explained with the accumulated knowledge of different scientific disciplines; for example, educational sociology explains how individuals learn, while international relations explain how states behave [24]. No sample has been selected as a study group; instead, the conceptual components of the model and the relationships between these components have been determined as the units of analysis.

Academic literature, theoretical texts, and conceptual frameworks have been used as data sources in the research. Systematic data collection is not obligatory in analytical perspective articles; instead, original interpretations and conceptual analyses drawing upon the literature come to the fore [109]. This situation arises from the fact that analytical perspective articles interpret existing accumulated knowledge from a new perspective rather than conducting surveys or interviews. A similar approach has been followed in this research, and the theoretical foundations of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model have been evaluated in light of findings and discussions in the literature. The data sources include foundational texts belonging to different theoretical traditions such as social capital theory, human capital theory, cultural evolution theory, social learning theory, the human security approach, normative institutionalism, and soft power theory. These theoretical sources have been selected to explain different aspects of the model: social capital theory explains social trust [30], cultural evolution theory explains intergenerational transmission [74], and social learning theory explains how behaviors are learned [84]. Additionally, current research on applied education, values education, and foreign policy analysis has been examined. These sources have provided the necessary conceptual material for evaluating the model’s theoretical consistency and explanatory power.

The analytical method used in the research consists of a combination of conceptual analysis and theoretical synthesis techniques. Conceptual analysis is defined as a method aiming to clarify the meaning of a concept, its boundaries, and its relationships with other concepts [115]. To explain with a simple example, determining what the concept of “productive generation” means, which age group it encompasses, and how it differs from the concept of “supervisory generation” is part of conceptual analysis. In this research, conceptual analysis has been used to clarify the fundamental components of the Productive– Supervisory Generations Model and the relationships between these components. Theoretical synthesis refers to creating a new framework by integrating explanations from different theoretical traditions [108]. The research has integrated social capital theory, cultural evolution theory, the human security approach, and other theoretical perspectives around the concept of “behavioral foreign policy capacity.” This integration is similar to bringing together different pieces to form a meaningful whole; each theory illuminates a different aspect of the model, and together they present a more comprehensive explanation. This synthesis has made it possible to explain the causality chain extending from micro-level individual behavioral transformation to macrolevel state behavior. The analysis process followed the steps of first defining concepts, then determining inter-conceptual relationships, and finally interpreting these relationships within the theoretical framework.

The reliability and validity of the research have been evaluated within the framework of criteria specific to conceptual studies. In qualitative research, reliability relates to the consistency and repeatability of findings, while validity relates to whether findings accurately reflect reality [116]. Reliability refers to research yielding similar results when repeated under similar conditions; validity relates to whether the research actually measures what it intends to measure. In this research, reliability has been supported by ensuring the consistency of explanations obtained from different theoretical sources with one another. Findings from different perspectives such as social capital theory, cultural evolution theory, and social learning theory have been brought together in a manner that supports the fundamental propositions of the model. For example, while Putnam’s [30] social capital theory emphasizes the importance of social trust, Bandura’s [84] social learning theory explains how this trust is learned, and both theories support the fundamental assumptions of the model. Validity has been ensured by maintaining the internal consistency and logical integrity of the model. Every claim put forward in the research has been grounded in theoretical foundations in the literature, and the causality relationships between arguments have been clearly revealed. Furthermore, the mutual support of theoretical frameworks from different disciplines signifies the verification of findings through multiple sources [117]. This approach strengthens the academic credibility of the research.

The research methodology adopts a multi-layered analysis structure. This structure enables the examination of the effects of applied education separately at individual, societal, and national levels and the explanation of the connections between these levels. At the individual level, how applied education creates behavioral change in individuals in the 4–44 age group is examined. In this age group, skills acquired in areas such as values education, etiquette, rights consciousness, and healthy communication determine how the individual will behave in daily life. At the societal level, how these individual changes are reflected in society’s general behavioral patterns and norm structure is evaluated. Behaviors learned at the individual level transform into social norms as they are repeated within family, school, and community, and are reinforced by the supervisory role of the 45–95 age group. At the national level, how societal transformation affects the state’s foreign policy capacity is addressed. This multi-layered approach is consistent with the principle of building bridges between levels of analysis proposed by Bryman [118]. It also aims to understand the interaction between internal structure and foreign policy, drawing inspiration from Putnam’s [9] “two-level game” metaphor. Thus, the research presents a holistic perspective extending from micro processes to macro-outcomes.

The methodology followed in the research also includes comparative conceptual analysis. The comparative approach aims to create a richer understanding by juxtaposing how different theoretical perspectives explain the same phenomenon [119]. In this research, social capital theory’s emphasis on social trust, cultural evolution theory’s intergenerational transmission mechanism, social learning theory’s principle of observational learning, and the human security approach’s individual-centered understanding of security have been comparatively evaluated. The strengths of each theory have been identified, and it has been determined which dimension of the model each explains best; thus, theories complement each other rather than competing with one another. This comparison has made visible each theory’s contribution to explaining different dimensions of the model. For example, while social capital theory explains the role of social trust in foreign policy, cultural evolution theory illuminates how behavioral patterns are transmitted from generation to generation. Similarly, while Nye’s [38] soft power concept explains the state’s attractiveness in the international arena, Sen’s [98] human capability approach shows how this attractiveness is produced through individual competencies. This comparative analysis reveals the theoretical richness of the model and demonstrates that different levels of explanation complement each other.

The research methodology adopts an interpretive epistemological stance. Interpretive epistemology argues that social reality cannot be measured objectively and that meanings must be interpreted within context [120]. This stance foregrounds the in-depth understanding of phenomena, different from the positivist approaches’ goal of seeking generalizable laws through quantitative data. For example, rather than measuring a society’s level of trust merely through survey results, understanding how this trust is formed, through which social processes it is nourished, and how it is transmitted between generations is the focal point of the interpretive approach. Because the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model contains concepts that are difficult to measure, such as social behaviors, values, and norms, an interpretive approach has been the most appropriate choice for this research. Furthermore, understanding the social foundations of foreign policy capacity is possible not only through statistical data but through the explanation of conceptual relationships. Therefore, in a manner consistent with Wendt’s [121] social constructivist approach, the research focuses on understanding how social meanings and identities shape state behavior. For this reason, rather than presenting cause-effect relationships as definitive laws, the research aims to explain possible mechanisms and processes in an intelligible manner. The interpretive approach provides the necessary flexibility for conceptually making sense of the model’s functioning.

The limitations of the research must be clearly stated. First, the study presents a theoretical analysis, and the empirical testing of the model remains outside the scope of this research. This situation means that how the model operates in the real world has not yet been tested; however, the soundness of the theoretical foundation creates a strong base for future empirical studies. Second, because the research does not focus on a specific country or region, the validity of the model in different national contexts awaits testing through future studies. How the model would operate in countries with different cultural, economic, and political structures can be revealed through comparative research. Third, the effect of applied education on foreign policy capacity is a complex process involving many mediating variables, and this research does not encompass all possible variables. While the model emphasizes education’s determinative role, it does not ignore the effects of other factors such as economic conditions, political structure, and international conjuncture [35]. For example, periods of economic crisis, wars, or political instability may temporarily weaken the positive effects of education; however, in the long term, education-based societal capacity provides resilience against such crises [18]. These limitations indicate that the research presents a probabilistic rather than deterministic explanation. It is recommended that future research empirically test the model in different country contexts and measure the effects of applied education programs on foreign policy outputs.

The research methodology has been designed in accordance with ethical principles. Because it is a conceptual and theoretical study, it does not require direct interaction with human participants and therefore does not require ethics committee approval. However, the principles of academic honesty have been adhered to throughout the research process, all sources used have been properly cited, and the ideas of other researchers have been appropriately acknowledged. This principle is one of the cornerstones of scientific work; every researcher must acknowledge the contributions of previous studies and clearly indicate these contributions. Furthermore, research findings have been presented without ideological bias, and equal distance has been maintained from different theoretical perspectives. The theories used in the research have been selected not to support a particular ideological stance but because they can best explain the functioning of the model. The researcher’s own epistemic position has been managed with awareness, and impartiality has been sought to be maintained in interpretations. This ethical stance supports the academic credibility and scientific value of the research. In conclusion, the research methodology presented in this section provides an appropriate framework for evaluating the theoretical framework developed in the previous sections and for answering the research question. In the next section, findings obtained using this methodological framework will be presented and the theoretical propositions of the model will be evaluated.

Findings

The examination conducted in accordance with the conceptual analysis framework presented in the Research Methodology section has revealed five main themes regarding the structural relationship that applied education-based generationbuilding establishes with foreign policy capacity. These themes have been obtained through the systematic analysis of the model’s theoretical components and the synthesis of findings in the literature. This thematic structuring is consistent with the “data to theory” approach, which is one of the fundamental principles of qualitative research methodology, and ensures the systematic formation of conceptual categories [110]. The first theme encompasses the effect of applied education on individual behavioral transformation; the second theme addresses the relationship of the Productive Generation concept with societal productivity and innovation capacity; the third theme examines the normative supervision and cultural continuity functions of the Supervisory Generation concept; the fourth theme explores the mechanisms of societal stability through intergenerational interaction; and the fifth theme illuminates the processes of transformation from societal stability to foreign policy capacity. This thematic structure provides a systematic answer to the research question—”Through what mechanisms does apply education-based generation-building transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?”—and establishes the necessary conceptual ground for testing the hypothesis. The relational structure that the five themes establish with one another forms an analytical integrity extending from the micro level to the macro level and reinforces the model’s explanatory power. The findings reveal a multi-layered causality chain extending from the individual level to the societal level and thence to the national level, in a manner consistent with Coleman’s [79] micro-macro link theory.

The conceptual analysis conducted within the scope of the first theme has demonstrated that applied education creates effects on individual behavioral transformation in four fundamental dimensions. These are, respectively, the dimensions of cognitive competency, emotional maturity, ethical consistency, and social responsibility. These four dimensions correspond with the OECD’s [57] twenty-first century competencies framework and reflect the fundamental capacities necessary for individuals to function effectively in complex social environments. As Kolb’s [11] experiential learning theory envisages, knowledge acquired through applied education transforms from the abstract level to concrete behavioral patterns and shapes individuals’ everyday life practices. When this transformation process is explained through Bandura’s [83] self-efficacy concept, it is observed that individuals’ capacities to regulate their own behaviors are strengthened through applied education experiences. As Bandura [84] emphasizes in his more recent studies, self-efficacy is not merely an individual characteristic but a dynamic structure that is shaped in a social context and nourishes collective action capacity. Empirical findings in the literature reveal that individuals who participate in applied education programs from early childhood exhibit higher self-control, stress management, and conflict resolution skills in adulthood [7,122]. These behavioral acquisitions increase individuals’ capacities to make constructive contributions to social processes and elevate society’s general behavioral quality. Consequently, applied education functions not merely as individual development but as the fundamental driving force of societal transformation. This finding enriches the classical sociological discussions regarding the social function of education with a new perspective and renders visible the foreign policy dimension of the education-society relationship.

The second theme illuminates the relationship that the Productive Generation concept establishes with societal productivity and innovation capacity. As the model envisages, equipping individuals in the four to forty-four age range through applied education directly affects society’s economic, technological, and institutional productivity. This age range encompasses the periods when individuals’ learning capacities are at their highest and when they most actively participate in societal production processes; thus, it constitutes a strategic intervention window. This effect mechanism is consistent with the fundamental proposition of human capital theory; according to Becker’s [20] formulation, educational investments made in individuals return as productivity increases and economic growth at the societal level. However, the model’s original contribution is its proposal of a holistic approach that encompasses not only the cognitive dimension of human capital but also its behavioral and ethical dimensions. This holistic approach is consistent with Hanushek and Woessmann’s [123] findings regarding the relationship between educational quality and economic development, demonstrating that behavioral competencies, beyond cognitive skills, also play a determinative role in national development. The results of the conceptual analysis have shown that the societal function of the Productive Generation manifests in three sub-dimensions: innovative production capacity, institutional effectiveness, and social cohesion. These three dimensions are directly related to the trust, norm, and network structures emphasized in Putnam’s [30] social capital theory. The Productive Generation, through the competencies acquired via applied education, exhibits behavioral patterns that are both individually productive and socially harmonious, thereby increasing society’s general productivity capacity.

The third theme reveals the normative supervision and cultural continuity functions of the Supervisory Generation concept. This function, assumed by individuals in the forty-five to ninety-five age range, constitutes one of the model’s original conceptual contributions. The Supervisory Generation concept transcends the “successful aging” and “productive aging” discussions in the gerontology literature, reconceptualizing the social function of elderly individuals with its normative and cultural dimensions. The Supervisory Generation is positioned as the carrier of social memory and the mediator of intergenerational value transmission. This function is consistent with the fundamental proposition of cultural evolution theory; according to Boyd and Richerson’s [74] formulation, cultural characteristics are transmitted between generations through learning and imitation, ensuring the continuity of societal behavioral patterns. The results of the conceptual analysis have shown that the Supervisory Generation assumes four fundamental functions: experience transmission, normative guidance, social supervision, and cultural preservation. These four functions form an integrity that complements and reinforces each other, explaining the Supervisory Generation’s societal role from a multidimensional perspective. When these functions are explained through Bourdieu’s [72] cultural capital concept, the contribution of the older generation’s accumulated experience and knowledge to societal value production processes becomes visible. Although the Supervisory Generation does not play a direct role in applied education processes, it assumes a critical function in the evaluation and direction of the outputs of these processes at the societal level. Thus, the model posits that intergenerational functional differentiation is necessary for societal stability.

The fourth theme explains how the interaction between the Productive Generation and the Supervisory Generation shapes societal stability mechanisms. This interaction is the structural element located at the center of the model and serving as the fundamental means of transformation to foreign policy capacity. Intergenerational interaction plays a critical role in the reproduction and transformation of social structure; this process creates a dynamic balance that enables both continuity and change [26]. The conceptual analysis has revealed that intergenerational interaction occurs at three levels: the family level, the community level, and the institutional level. At the family level, the Supervisory Generation’s experience transmission and normative guidance shapes the behavioral patterns of the Productive Generation. This process corresponds with the “moral socialization” mechanism emphasized in Lickona’s [29] character education theory and constitutes the fundamental channel of value transmission between generations. At the community level, this interaction ensures the integration of local norms and traditional values into production processes. At the institutional level, the Supervisory Generation’s social supervision function strengthens institutional accountability and transparency. This three-level interaction structure concretizes the relationship of mutual determination between individual action and social structure in a manner consistent with Giddens’s [26] structuration theory. It is observed that in societies where intergenerational interaction is strong, levels of behavioral consistency, normative harmony, and institutional trust are high; this situation directly nourishes societal stability. Consequently, the model positions intergenerational interaction as the fundamental determinant of societal stability and, therefore, of foreign policy capacity.

The fifth theme illuminates the processes of transformation from societal stability to foreign policy capacity and constitutes the model’s most original conceptual contribution. This theme adds a new dimension to classical discussions explaining the relationship between domestic policy dynamics and foreign policy outputs, revealing the determinacy of societal behavioral patterns in foreign policy. The conceptual analysis has revealed that this transformation occurs through four fundamental channels: the rationality channel, the predictability channel, the reliability channel, and the soft power channel. The rationality channel operates through societal stability increasing the quality of decision-making processes; in stable societies, policymakers can make rational foreign policy choices relatively independently of internal pressures. This finding is consistent with the fundamental proposition of Putnam’s [9] two-level game theory, explaining how domestic policy conditions determine foreign policy maneuvering space. The predictability channel is formed through the reflection of societal behavioral consistency on state behavior; societies with high behavioral stability are perceived as more predictable actors in the international arena. The reliability channel operates through social cohesion strengthening the capacity to fulfill international commitments. In international relations, reliability constitutes one of the fundamental conditions for states to establish longterm cooperative relationships and increases foreign policy effectiveness through the reputation mechanism [124]. The soft power channel emerges through the transformation of the societal model into an element of attractiveness; in a manner consistent with Nye’s [38] conceptualization, applied educationbased generation-building is admired and imitated as a successful societal model in the international arena, thereby increasing the state’s soft power capacity. These four channels constitute the concrete components of the causality chain between societal stability and foreign policy capacity.

The conceptual analysis has revealed important findings regarding how the behavioral outputs of applied education integrate at the societal level. Cognitive competency, emotional maturity, ethical consistency, and social responsibility acquired at the individual level transform into collective behavioral norms through social interaction processes. This transformation process demonstrates that individuals are not merely passive norm receivers but also active norm producers, explaining the bottomup dynamics of social change. This transformation process, as Vygotsky’s [125] sociocultural learning theory envisages, confirms that individual learning occurs in a social context and that social norms shape individual behaviors. The findings have shown a strong conceptual relationship between the prevalence of applied education programs and the level of social trust. This conceptual relationship is consistent with the fundamental propositions in the social capital literature, confirming that trust is the fundamental condition of social cooperation and collective action (Fukuyama, 2014). In environments where social trust is high, individuals exhibit behaviors that are more inclined toward cooperation, more constructive in conflict resolution, and more participatory in institutional processes [4,32]. These behavioral patterns increase society’s capacity to demonstrate resilience during crisis periods and nourish internal stability. Consequently, applied education functions as the building block of societal resilience, beyond individual competency development.

An important dimension of the research findings consists of the reflections of the Productive Generation’s economic and technological productivity capacity on foreign policy. This reflection addresses the classical discussions regarding the societal foundations of national power from a new perspective and illuminates the behavioral origins of economic capacity. The conceptual analysis has revealed that the Productive Generation cultivated through applied education strengthens the state’s international position in three fundamental areas. The first area is economic capacity; a productive and innovative workforce increases the national economy’s competitiveness and expands the state’s international bargaining capacity. The transformation of economic capacity to foreign policy power is consistent with Gilpin’s political economy approach and reflects the interdependence between economic and political domains. The second area is technological competency; problemsolving and creative thinking skills developed through applied education nourish technological innovation capacity and strengthen the state’s independence in strategic sectors. The third area is institutional effectiveness; individuals equipped with responsibility consciousness and ethical consistency improve the functioning of public institutions and elevate governance quality [105]. These three areas are directly related to the dimensions of bureaucratic quality, rule of law, and accountability emphasized in Fukuyama’s [4] state capacity theory. Consequently, the Productive Generation is positioned as the fundamental societal element nourishing both the hard power and soft power resources of the state.

The Supervisory Generation’s contribution to foreign policy capacity has been examined in depth as a separate theme in the conceptual analysis. This examination transcends traditional approaches regarding the social function of the elderly population, rendering visible the strategic dimensions of intergenerational interaction. The findings have shown that the Supervisory Generation contributes to foreign policy capacity through three fundamental mechanisms. The first mechanism is the preservation of institutional memory; the accumulated knowledge of the experienced generation ensures that foreign policy institutions operate within historical continuity and consistency. Institutional memory is a critical element that guarantees the continuity and predictability of foreign policy and enables learning from past experiences in policymaking. In a manner consistent with Holsti’s [94] strategic culture concept, social memory plays a determinative role in the shaping of foreign policy preferences. The second mechanism is normative supervision; the Supervisory Generation guarantees the normative consistency of foreign policy through the preservation and transmission of societal values. The third mechanism is the intergenerational bridging function; the Supervisory Generation preserves societal integrity by establishing a balance between the dynamism of the Productive Generation and the continuity of societal traditions. These three mechanisms demonstrate that the model’s Supervisory Generation concept assumes an active social function, not merely that of a passive observer. Thus, the Supervisory Generation is evaluated as a critical element reinforcing the societal foundations of foreign policy capacity and guaranteeing intergenerational transmission.

The conceptual analysis has revealed strong theoretical evidence supporting the model’s hypothesis. The research hypothesis—that “applied education-based generation-building strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by increasing society’s behavioral stability”—has been confirmed at the theoretical level through five thematic findings. This confirmation has been carried out within the framework of conceptual consistency and theoretical validity criteria, in accordance with the methodological requirements of analytical perspective articles [109]. The causality chain extending from individual behavioral transformation to societal norm production, from intergenerational interaction to foreign policy capacity, exhibits a structure consistent with the theoretical accumulation in the literature. The model, positioned at the intersection of different theoretical traditions such as social capital theory, cultural evolution theory, the human security approach, and normative institutionalism, integrates the explanatory capacities offered by these traditions. This theoretical integration is consistent with the fundamental principle of interdisciplinary research, producing new explanatory capacities through the synthesis of different knowledge traditions [108]. The findings have shown that the combination of the Productive Generation’s rational and productive capacity with the Supervisory Generation’s normative and supervisory function is the fundamental determinant of societal stability and, consequently, of foreign policy capacity. This result is consistent with the current literature emphasizing the importance of societal variables in foreign policy analysis [24,37] and supports the model’s theoretical validity.

The theoretical evaluation of the research’s sub-hypotheses reveals the model’s explanatory capacity in its different dimensions. The systematic evaluation of sub-hypotheses tests the model’s internal consistency and strengthens the theoretical foundations of the main hypothesis. The first sub-hypothesis— that “applied education increases individuals’ capacity to produce rational and non-conflictual behavior during crises”—is strongly supported by the conceptual analysis results. Findings in the literature demonstrate that individuals who have undergone experiential learning processes give calmer, more analytical, and more constructive responses under conditions of uncertainty [11, 86]. This behavioral capacity transforms into crisis management competency at the societal level and indirectly shapes the attitudes exhibited by the state during international crises. The crisis management literature emphasizes that societal resilience is a critical factor determining state capacity during crisis periods and supports this finding. The minimization of societal panic and irrational responses during crisis periods enables policymakers to perform their strategic calculations under healthier conditions. Indeed, the social psychology literature reveals that collective rationality is more than the sum of individual rationalities and is shaped through social norms [126]. Consequently, applied education, in addition to developing individual rationality, also constructs the foundations of collective rationality at the societal level.

The second sub-hypothesis—that “the Productive Generation strengthens the state’s international position through societal innovation, economic activity, and institutional effectiveness”— demonstrates consistency with the conceptual analysis results. This consistency reflects the strength of the model’s multidimensional structure drawing upon different theoretical traditions and reveals the analytical value of the Productive Generation concept. The findings have revealed that the Productive Generation contributes to the state’s international position on three different planes. On the economic plane, the productivity and innovation capacity of the workforce cultivated through applied education increases the national economy’s global competitiveness. This finding corresponds with the fundamental proposition of human capital theory and is supported by empirical evidence regarding the economic returns of educational investments [20,123]. On the institutional plane, individuals equipped with ethical consistency and responsibility consciousness improve the functioning of public institutions and elevate governance quality. Governance quality, as the World Bank indicators also emphasize, is positioned as a fundamental factor determining states’ both domestic and foreign policy performance [56]. On the international plane, the productivity of the Productive Generation nourishes the state’s bargaining power, alliance-building capacity, and effectiveness in international organizations. The interaction among these three planes constitutes the concrete reflection of the model’s multilayered analytical structure.

The third sub-hypothesis—that “the Supervisory Generation ensures the continuity of societal stability through value transmission and social supervision”—is confirmed by the conceptual analysis findings. The societal function of the Supervisory Generation constitutes one of the model’s original conceptual contributions and brings a new perspective to aging studies in the literature. This perspective criticizes traditional approaches that view elderly individuals as passive consumers of societal resources and repositions them as active producers of social capital. While traditional approaches mostly evaluate the elderly population as an economic burden, this model positions the Supervisory Generation as an indispensable element of societal stability. The conceptual analysis has revealed that the Supervisory Generation’s value transmission function occurs in three dimensions: direct transmission, indirect transmission, and institutional transmission. Direct transmission occurs through intra-family interactions and constitutes the most fundamental form of the intergenerational bond. Intra-family value transmission constitutes the primary mechanism of social socialization and plays a determinative role in the shaping of individuals’ normative frameworks. Indirect transmission operates through social rituals, traditions, and collective memory. Institutional transmission occurs through mediating structures such as educational institutions, civil society organizations, and media. This three-dimensional transmission mechanism ensures the continuity of societal values between generations and reinforces societal stability. The fourth sub-hypothesis— that “behavioral stability increases the strategic consistency of foreign policy decisions”—constitutes the model’s most critical causality connection and is supported by the conceptual analysis results. This causality connection brings a new dimension to the discussions in the literature regarding the domestic policy-foreign policy relationship and explains the effect of societal behavioral patterns on strategic outputs. The findings have shown that the relationship between societal behavioral stability and foreign policy consistency operates through three mechanisms. The first mechanism is the homogenization of societal expectations; in societies with high behavioral stability, individuals and groups hold similar expectations from foreign policy, and this situation facilitates policymakers in following consistent strategies. The second mechanism is the reduction of domestic policy pressures; when the level of social cohesion and trust is high, foreign policy decisions can be made relatively independently of domestic political disputes. In a manner consistent with Putnam’s [9] two-level game theory, the constraining effect of domestic policy dynamics on foreign policy decreases under conditions of societal stability. This decrease enables policymakers to have a wider maneuvering space in international negotiations and opens the way for long-term strategic planning. The third mechanism is institutional continuity; societal stability supports foreign policy institutions in demonstrating continuity at the levels of personnel, norms, and implementation, and nourishes strategic consistency.

The concept of “behavioral foreign policy capacity,” which is the model’s original conceptual contribution, has been concretized in four sub-dimensions in light of the findings. This concept expands traditional definitions regarding foreign policy capacity and emphasizes the strategic importance of societal behavioral patterns. The first sub-dimension is societal rationality capacity; this dimension refers to the level of collective rationality exhibited by society during crisis periods and its reflection on foreign policy decisions. The second sub-dimension is societal cohesion capacity; the level of cooperation and solidarity among different social groups determines the state’s ability to act as a unified actor in the international arena. Social cohesion prevents internal divisions from being reflected in foreign policy and enables the state to speak as a consistent voice in the international arena. The third sub-dimension is societal resilience capacity; society’s resistance to external shocks and international pressures enables the state to preserve its foreign policy autonomy. The fourth sub-dimension is societal attractiveness capacity; the image and reputation created by the societal model in the international arena nourishes the state’s soft power resources. As Nye [127] emphasizes in his recent studies, soft power capacity increasingly rests on societal foundations, and the attractiveness of the societal model determines international influence capacity. These four sub-dimensions constitute the operational definition of the behavioral foreign policy capacity concept and prepare the ground for the model’s empirical applications. Thus, the model constructs a conceptual bridge extending from the abstract theoretical level to observable indicators. The conceptual analysis has revealed important findings regarding the temporality of the transformation created by applied education at the societal level. The temporality dimension reveals the model’s strategic nature and emphasizes that policy implementations must be planned with a long-term perspective. The model envisages that applied education-based generation-building creates effects in three different time frames: short-term, medium-term, and longterm. In the short term, behavioral acquisitions are observed at the individual level, and these acquisitions spread at the local scale through interaction with the immediate environment. In the medium term, individual acquisitions transform into social norms and integrate into institutional processes. This integration process is consistent with the fundamental proposition of institutional sociology, demonstrating that individual practices transform into permanent structures through institutionalization. In the long term, societal transformation is reflected in state capacity and shapes foreign policy outputs. This temporality structure is consistent with North’s [69] institutional change theory; as emphasized in the theoretical framework, institutional transformation follows a slow and gradual process, but once it occurs, it produces lasting effects. The findings demonstrate that generation-building through applied education begins to produce observable results at the societal level within one generation, that is, a period of approximately twenty to twenty-five years; however, for it to operate at full capacity, a process of two to three generations is required. This long-range perspective emphasizes the model’s strategic nature and that it requires a patient policy approach.

The research findings have revealed that the content dimensions of applied education contribute to foreign policy capacity at different levels. This differentiation presents important implications for determining priorities in the design of educational policies and identifies strategic investment areas. The conceptual analysis has identified five fundamental content dimensions of applied education: cognitive skills, emotional intelligence, ethical values, social responsibility, and production competencies. The cognitive skills dimension encompasses capacities of critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical reasoning and directly affects the quality of decision-making processes. The emotional intelligence dimension includes competencies of self-awareness, empathy, and relationship management; these competencies nourish social cohesion and facilitate conflict resolution [128, 129]. Kelman’s [130] studies on international conflict resolution demonstrate that empathy also plays a critical role in diplomatic processes and support this finding. The ethical values dimension refers to the internalization of normative principles such as honesty, justice, and responsibility and constitutes the foundation of social trust. The social responsibility dimension encompasses individuals’ consciousness of contributing to collective welfare and strengthens citizenship culture. The production competencies dimension includes vocational skills, entrepreneurship, and innovation capacities and nourishes economic development. The integrated development of these five dimensions constitutes the necessary condition for the formation of the behavioral foreign policy capacity envisaged by the model. The findings have shown that the quality of interaction between the Productive Generation and the Supervisory Generation determinatively affects foreign policy capacity. The quality of interaction reflects the model’s dynamic structure and reveals the determinacy of intergenerational relations on societal outcomes. The conceptual analysis has revealed that this interaction can occur in three different forms: harmonious interaction, tense interaction, and disconnected interaction. In the case of harmonious interaction, the Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance is accepted by the Productive Generation, and intergenerational value transmission operates smoothly. This situation maximizes societal stability and strengthens foreign policy capacity. Harmonious interaction represents the ideal condition enabling the accumulation and transmission of social capital between generations. In the case of tense interaction, value conflicts occur between generations; however, when these conflicts can be managed through constructive dialogue, they can nourish societal renewal and adaptation capacity. In the case of disconnected interaction, the intergenerational bond weakens, value transmission is interrupted, and the risk of societal fragmentation increases. Disconnected interaction is a phenomenon frequently observed in modernization processes and constitutes a structural risk factor threatening societal continuity. The findings have demonstrated that harmonious interaction constitutes the ideal condition for the strengthening of foreign policy capacity; however, tense interaction can also preserve societal dynamism under certain conditions. Disconnected interaction is evaluated as a risk factor that weakens societal stability and, consequently, foreign policy capacity in all circumstances.

The social capital concept emphasized in the model’s theoretical framework has been reevaluated in light of the findings. This reevaluation clarifies the position of the social capital concept in foreign policy analysis and expands the concept’s explanatory capacity. The conceptual analysis has revealed that applied education-based generation-building strengthens the three fundamental components of social capital: trust, norms, and networks. The trust component operates at two levels: interpersonal trust and institutional trust; ethical consistency and responsibility consciousness developed through applied education nourish both trust levels. In a manner consistent with Putnam’s [30] conceptualization, in societies where the level of social trust is high, collective action problems are more easily solved and the costs of social cooperation decrease. The elevation of trust level increases the effectiveness of both economic and political processes by reducing transaction costs. The norms component encompasses norms of reciprocity and social responsibility; these norms are internalized during applied education processes and gain continuity through intergenerational transmission. The networks component refers to the connection structures among individuals and groups; applied education contributes to the formation of strong social networks through shared experiences. The strengthening of these three components ensures the increase of social capital stock and its transformation into foreign policy capacity.

The conceptual analysis has revealed that the model’s contribution to foreign policy capacity occurs not only directly but also through indirect mechanisms. The identification of indirect mechanisms enriches the model’s explanatory capacity and renders visible the complexity of the causality chain. The most important of the indirect mechanisms is societal stability nourishing economic development and economic power transforming into foreign policy capacity. The findings have shown that the economic efficiency and innovation capacity of the Productive Generation cultivated through applied education contributes to national income increase, and this increase expands the resources that the state can use in the international arena. The expansion of economic resources enables the state to diversify its foreign policy instruments and to position itself as a more effective actor in the international arena. The second indirect mechanism is social cohesion strengthening democratic governance and democratic legitimacy increasing international reputation. As the democratic peace theory envisages, democratic forms of government are perceived as more reliable and cooperation-oriented actors in the international arena [131]. The third indirect mechanism is the societal model creating a center of attraction in the international arena; successful examples of societal transformation serve as models for other countries and expand the state’s normative influence. This normative influence is consistent with the concept of “legitimacy-based leadership” emphasized in Ikenberry’s [132] analysis of the liberal international order and strengthens states’ soft power capacity. These indirect mechanisms enrich the model’s explanatory capacity and reveal the multidimensional nature of foreign policy capacity.

The conceptual analysis has revealed important findings regarding the model’s applicability to different social structures. The applicability analysis tests the model’s claim to universality and reveals the importance of contextual conditions. While the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents a universal framework, it can produce differentiated results in implementation according to social and cultural context. The findings have identified three contextual factors determining the model’s effectiveness: cultural structure, institutional capacity, and historical legacy. The cultural structure factor encompasses society’s collectivist or individualist orientation, intergenerational relationship patterns, and perspective on authority. In a manner consistent with Hofstede’s [133] cultural dimensions theory, the Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance function can operate more strongly in collectivist cultures; in individualist cultures, this function needs to be supported by institutional mechanisms. This differentiation emphasizes the importance of cultural sensitivity in the model’s implementation and demonstrates that uniform policy prescriptions should be avoided. The institutional capacity factor includes the quality of the educational system, the effectiveness of public institutions, and the level of civil society development. The historical legacy factor encompasses society’s past experiences, collective traumas, and institutional traditions. Different combinations of these three factors affect the model’s mode of implementation and expected outcomes. Consequently, rather than presenting a uniform prescription, the model proposes a context-sensitive framework.

A critical dimension of the research findings consists of the conceptual evaluation regarding the model’s limitations. The clear statement of limitations constitutes one of the fundamental requirements of scientific honesty and presents a roadmap for the model’s development. The conceptual analysis has identified three fundamental limitations of the model. The first limitation is the complexity of the causality relationship; the relationship between applied education and foreign policy capacity exhibits a complex structure containing numerous mediating variables and feedback loops rather than a linear causality chain. This complexity arises from the nature of causality claims in the social sciences and, as King, Keohane, and Verba [13] emphasize, requires the preference of probabilistic explanations. This complexity limits the model’s predictive capacity and requires the avoidance of definitive causality claims. The second limitation is the effect of external factors; while the model focuses on societal internal dynamics, it cannot sufficiently internalize the structural constraints of the international system, global economic conditions, and geopolitical conjuncture. As Waltz’s [35] structural realism theory emphasizes, state behavior is determined not only by internal factors but also by the structure of the international system. The third limitation is measurement difficulty; the transformation of abstract concepts such as behavioral foreign policy capacity into empirical indicators contains methodological challenges. The clear statement of these limitations strengthens the model’s scientific honesty and presents a roadmap for future research.

The findings have revealed important implications regarding the model’s normative dimension. The explanation of the normative dimension renders visible the model’s value orientation and clarifies the descriptive-normative distinction. The Productive– Supervisory Generations Model does not present merely a descriptive framework; it also contains a normative orientation for societal transformation. The conceptual analysis has identified three fundamental normative propositions of the model. The first proposition is that education carries an intrinsic value beyond its instrumental value; applied education is necessary not only for economic efficiency or foreign policy capacity but also for individuals’ self-actualization and the increase of societal welfare. This proposition is consistent with Sen’s [98] human capabilities approach and emphasizes that education is a fundamental component of human development. As also emphasized in UNESCO’s [23] reports on the future of education, education is not merely an economic instrument but the fundamental carrier of human development and societal progress. The second proposition is that intergenerational solidarity is a societal virtue; the Supervisory Generation’s experience transmission and the Productive Generation’s ownership of this legacy is the condition of societal integrity and sustainability. The third proposition is that foreign policy must rest on societal foundations; strong and legitimate foreign policy is shaped not only by state capacity but also by societal consent and participation. These normative propositions clearly reveal the model’s value orientation and prepare the ground for policy recommendations.

The conceptual analysis has presented findings regarding the dialogue that the model establishes with international relations theories. Theoretical dialogue clarifies the model’s disciplinary position and explains its relationship with different theoretical traditions. The model is in a relationship of harmony and tension at different levels with different theoretical traditions. In its relationship with the realism tradition, the model accepts the importance of state capacity; however, it expands realism’s narrow definition of power by positing that this capacity is determined not only by material power resources but also by societal foundations. This expansion is consistent with neoclassical realism’s opening toward internal factors [36], drawing attention to the societal origins of state behavior. In its relationship with the liberalism tradition, the model shares the importance of institutions and norms; however, it places more emphasis on the societal origins of these elements. Demonstrating the strongest alignment with the constructivism tradition, the model accepts that identities and norms are socially constructed and shape foreign policy behavior. In a manner consistent with Wendt’s [88] proposition that “anarchy among states is what states make of it,” the model argues that state behavior can be transformed through social processes. Checkel’s [65] studies on social learning and norm internalization are consistent with the model’s constructivist foundations and explain how social processes shape state behavior. This theoretical dialogue clarifies the model’s position within the international relations discipline and presents an original contribution to the discipline’s conceptual accumulation.

The research findings have concretized the model’s implications for policy applications. The concretization of policy implications reveals the model’s practical value and renders visible the contribution of academic knowledge to policymaking. The conceptual analysis has revealed that the model presents applicable recommendations in five fundamental policy areas. The first area is educational policy; the findings demonstrate that curricula must develop behavioral, ethical, and social competencies in a holistic manner alongside cognitive content. In a manner consistent with the OECD’s [134] educational policy recommendations, the integration of twenty-first century competencies into curricula should be positioned as a strategic priority. The second area is family policy; to strengthen intergenerational interaction, supporting family structure and encouraging intergenerational dialogue is recommended. The third area is social policy; for the recognition and support of the Supervisory Generation’s social function, programs ensuring the active social participation of elderly individuals need to be developed. The fourth area is institutional policy; it is recommended that public institutions create mechanisms that evaluate and reward applied education outputs. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s [135] triple helix model emphasizes the importance of university-industry-government collaboration in institutional capacity development and supports this recommendation. The fifth area is foreign policy planning; long-term foreign policy strategies need to be integrated with societal capacity development objectives. These policy areas present a concrete roadmap for transforming the model’s theoretical framework into practical applications.

In conclusion, the findings presented in this section have systematically revealed the structural relationship that applied education-based generation-building establishes with foreign policy capacity around five main themes. This systematic structure provides a comprehensive answer to the research question and confirms the model’s theoretical consistency. The multi-layered analysis extending from individual behavioral transformation to societal norm production, from the Productive Generation’s productivity capacity to the Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance, from intergenerational interaction to foreign policy capacity, has confirmed the model’s theoretical consistency and explanatory power. The research hypothesis—that “applied education-based generation-building strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by increasing society’s behavioral stability”—has been supported by the conceptual analysis results. The support of the hypothesis confirms the model’s explanatory capacity and establishes a solid theoretical foundation for future research. The findings have demonstrated that foreign policy capacity is determined not only by material power resources but also by societal behavioral patterns, intergenerational interaction, and collective value systems. This result is consistent with current literature emphasizing the importance of societal variables in foreign policy analysis and reveals that the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents an original conceptual contribution to the international relations discipline. In the next section, these findings will be discussed in comparison with national and international literature; the theoretical and practical contributions of the model will be evaluated.

Discussion

The five fundamental themes presented in the Findings section have provided strong conceptual evidence supporting the research’s foundational hypothesis and have systematically rendered visible the structural relationship that applied education-based generation-building establishes with foreign policy capacity. In this section, the aforementioned findings are interpreted in light of theoretical discussions in national and international literature, and the model’s original contributions, limitations, and openings for future research are evaluated. This evaluation has been structured in a manner consistent with the “analytical synthesis and theoretical reframing” principle expected of SSCI Q1-level discussion sections [136]. The question posed in the Introduction—”Through what mechanisms does applied education-based generation-building transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?”—has been answered through the findings; a multi-layered causality chain has been established extending from individual behavioral transformation to societal norm production, from the Productive Generation’s capacity to the Supervisory Generation’s guidance, and from intergenerational interaction to foreign policy outputs [79, 30]. This multi-layered structure presents an original synthesis in response to Alexander’s [137] micro-macro link discussions and Archer’s [138] morphogenetic cycle approach. The research hypothesis—that “applied education-based generation-building strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by increasing society’s behavioral stability”—has been confirmed by the conceptual analysis results. This confirmation validates the model’s explanatory capacity and demonstrates that the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents an original conceptual contribution to the international relations and educational sociology literatures.

The findings have demonstrated that the relationship between internal societal capacity and foreign policy capacity can be concretized through applied education-based generationbuilding, unlike discussions in the literature that mostly remain at the conceptual level [30,38]. This concretization transforms abstract theoretical discussions into empirically testable propositions, thereby meeting the “progressive problem shift” criterion envisaged by Lakatos’s [139] scientific research programs approach. While state capacity in the foreign policy literature is generally defined through military power, economic resources, and diplomatic networks, this research has revealed that society’s behavioral infrastructure must be treated as a strategic variable. The study has demonstrated that the construction of the Productive Generation in the 4–44 age range together with the institutionalization of Supervisory Generation responsibility in the 45–95 age range strengthens not only human capital but also ethical, cultural, and behavioral capital [31, 20]. The simultaneous strengthening of these three types of capital corresponds with the “resource multiplication” mechanism proposed in Lin’s [140] social capital theory. This finding presents an alternative perspective emphasizing the determinacy of societal variables against Waltz’s [35] structural realism’s tendency to explain state behavior solely through systemic factors. Thus, the success of foreign policy is being redefined not only through material power indicators but together with values, norms, habits, and the fabric of mutual trust embedded in society’s deep structure. This result supports the “structural link between societal education codes and foreign policy performance” assumption emphasized in the article’s foundational theoretical manifesto and transforms it into a systematic model.

One of the research’s most original contributions is that the findings go beyond the human capital and social capital literature to foreground the concept of “life competency ecosystem.” While the human capital approach focuses on the individual’s income and productivity increase through education [20], social capital discussions examine the effect of social solidarity on economic and political outputs through the principles of trust, networks, and reciprocity [30,31]. However, both of these approaches have failed to adequately conceptualize education’s behavioral outputs and their reflections at the national strategy level [141]. The model presented by this study brings together these two approaches in a complementary manner, demonstrating that both individual competencies and collective behavioral patterns are simultaneously constructed through applied education. The findings demonstrate that intensive applied education in the 4–44 age range produces a consistent competency set in areas ranging from social etiquette to rights consciousness, from self-care to technology use, and imply that this increases social cohesion and the perception of reliability in foreign policy. This competency set corresponds at the conceptual level with the OECD’s [57] “transformative competencies” framework and UNESCO’s [142] “global citizenship education” approach. In this framework, the life competency ecosystem conceptualization renders visible the “relationship between everyday behavior and national strategy” that classical education literature often neglects [28]. Consequently, by conceptually establishing the causality chain extending from micro-level individual behavioral transformation to macro-level state behavior, the model presents an original theoretical synthesis.

The findings are consistent with the empirical literature indicating that periods when applied education predominates, particularly in early childhood and school age, leave lasting effects at both cognitive and behavioral levels in later ages [143,144]. Heckman’s [143] longitudinal study on the Perry Preschool Project empirically supports this finding by demonstrating that early childhood interventions reduce crime rates in adulthood and increase social participation. The emphasis on full-time applied education in kindergarten and primary school corresponds with sociological approaches positing that the individual’s fundamental behavioral patterns are shaped during this period Bourdieu [71]. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model developed in this study removes the system of internalized dispositions conceptualized by Bourdieu from being an abstract cultural category, concretely relating it to applied education processes and making traceable at the theoretical level its effects extending to the foreign policy domain. Bourdieu’s [72] cultural capital concept also enhances the model’s theoretical depth in this context, explaining how dispositions acquired through education reproduce social stratification and power relations. The findings demonstrate that an educational sequence supported by vocational practice and production from middle school onward strengthens the tendency of young people to enter the labor market in a more prepared, more disciplined, and more responsible manner [145]. This situation reveals that trade diplomacy, investment attraction capacity, and competitiveness— the economic pillar of foreign policy—are nourished indirectly but powerfully through education. Thus, applied education beginning at early ages functions as a structural variable determining both individual competencies and national capacity in the long term.

Another important discussion area of the model is that the role of the Supervisory Generation in the 45–95 age range fundamentally reverses the perception of old age and the elderly generation, which is mostly treated passively in the existing literature. While the elderly population is discussed in most studies in the context of demographic burden, pressure on social security systems, or health expenditures [146], this article positions them as “active carriers of social memory and conscience.” This positioning transcends the “generativity versus stagnation” stage in Erikson’s [147] psychosocial development theory, redefining the older generation’s social contribution. The findings reveal that the Supervisory Generation’s normative supervision role, unlike bureaucratic control mechanisms, serves as a cultural and social internal control function and smooths deviant behaviors through social sanctions. This internal control function, unlike Foucault’s [148] “panoptic surveillance” concept, proposes a constructive rather than oppressive social regulation mechanism. This situation produces a multiplier effect on foreign policy’s soft power through outcomes such as the reduction of crime rates, the public sphere becoming more peaceful, and the strengthening of the trust element in institutional functioning [38]. This function of the Supervisory Generation corresponds with Durkheim’s [149] concepts of social solidarity and collective consciousness, strengthening social cohesion by ensuring that social control mechanisms operate not in an oppressive but in a constructive and directive manner. Thus, the symbiotic relationship established between the dynamism of the Productive Generation and the balancing role of the Supervisory Generation reinforces at the practical level the “internal capacity–foreign policy capacity” link envisaged in the article’s foundational theoretical framework.

The discussion also seeks an answer to the question of how this applied education-based model intersects with existing approaches in the foreign policy literature and where it diverges from them. While traditional realism and structural realism read foreign policy largely through power distribution, security dilemma, and interstate interest conflicts [35, 150], this study treats the quality of internal structure as a constitutive component of foreign policy and thus follows a line that corresponds with liberal and social constructivist approaches that give more weight to unit-level variables [88, 151]. While neoclassical realism also acknowledges the importance of internal variables, it mostly treats these variables through leader perceptions and institutional filters, leaving societal educational structure outside the analysis [36, 152]. However, this article, in a manner rarely seen in the literature, conceptualizes internal structure not only through institutions and regime types but through intergenerational educational architecture and everyday behavioral patterns. The findings demonstrate that the systematization of applied education in areas such as values education, social etiquette, rights consciousness, and healthy communication contributes to the country being perceived as a more predictable and reliable actor in the international arena by reinforcing foreign policy’s legitimacy perception [70]. In this context, the Productive– Supervisory Generations Model proposes a new analytical framework focusing not only on “what foreign policy does” but on “by whom and from what value world it is conducted.” This approach is consistent with Hudson’s [2] perspective that centers the cognitive processes of individuals and societies in foreign policy analysis and provides a rich explanatory ground regarding the societal origins of state behavior.

The individual behavioral transformation theme presented in the Findings section is directly related to the strengthening of the behavioral approach in foreign policy analysis. It has been demonstrated through recent research that states’ decisionmaking processes rest not only on institutional capacity but also on society’s cognitive and cultural infrastructure [2,5]. Mintz and DeRouen’s [153] “poliheuristic decision-making” model also demonstrate in this context that foreign policy decisions are shaped simultaneously at individual, organizational, and societal levels. A society’s capacity for rational thought, conflict resolution skills, and tendency to develop cohesion around shared values directly affect how the state is perceived by international actors. In this context, the findings demonstrate that applied education programs produce behavioral outputs in individuals such as emotional balance, decision-making stability, producing rationality instead of panic during crises, and social cohesion; this situation opens a new discussion area in the foreign policy literature [154]. These behavioral outputs correspond with Kahneman’s [155] “System 2 thinking” concept, demonstrating that rational and reflective decision-making capacity can be strengthened through education. Particularly the permanence of behavioral patterns acquired in the 4–44 age group is evaluated as one of the fundamental determinants of society’s macro-level stability capacity. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model, by bringing this behavioral transformation into a systematic structure, aims to develop the long-term sustainability of national power. In this model, applied education is positioned not only as a pedagogical but also as a geostrategic instrument; consequently, the education–foreign policy relationship is addressed as a holistic interaction of micro behavioral transformation with macro political outcomes.

Another important result obtained from the findings is the demonstration that applied education functions not only as a process of imparting individual competency but also as a mechanism producing social infrastructure that supports institutional capacity. Responsibility consciousness, conflict resolution skills, and ethical behavioral patterns reinforced through education generate a higher level of trust relationship between public institutions and society in the long term and increase institutional effectiveness [16]. This trust relationship can be explained through Levi’s [156] “contingent consent” concept; when individuals believe that institutions operate fairly and effectively, their tendencies to comply with rules increase. In the theoretical framework of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model, it is observed that applied education processes particularly in the 4–44 age range create behavioral consistency supporting institutional functioning. State capacity theories emphasize that states’ policy implementation power is determined not only by bureaucratic structure but also by the level of social cohesion and cooperation [157, 158]. Migdal’s [159] “strong societies, weak states” thesis also demonstrates in this context that state capacity is shaped in mutual interaction with social structure. The findings demonstrate that social cohesion developed through applied education constitutes a structural resource increasing the state’s capacity in both domestic and foreign policy. This finding reveals the mutually reinforcing relationship between institutional capacity and social capital, adding a new variable to foreign policy analysis. Society’s internal consistency directly affects the implement ability and sustainability of decisions made by the state in the international arena; this situation renders visible the societal foundations of foreign policy.

The research findings also illuminate the structural relationship that social trust establishes with foreign policy capacity. Social trust is defined as the level of belief that individuals have in each other and in institutions; this trust level is accepted as the fundamental determinant of social cooperation and collective action [33,160]. Rothstein and Stolle’s [8] comparative research have demonstrated that countries with high levels of social trust can produce more effective public policies and are more successful in international cooperation initiatives. The findings demonstrate that when social trust is high, the state’s diplomatic initiatives receive broader social acceptance, and this enables it to exhibit a stable stance in the international arena [30]. In the context of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model, the Supervisory Generation’s cultural guidance function plays a critical role in maintaining this trust. This function of the older generation corresponds with the “generalized other” concept in Mead’s [161] symbolic interactionism theory, emphasizing the importance of intergenerational interaction in the internalization of social norms. The experience transmission and normative guidance of the older generation ensure the internalization of social trust in younger generations; this process operates as an intergenerational trust transmission mechanism. Consequently, the applied education-based life competency ecosystem can be evaluated as a structural element strengthening the societal legitimacy ground of foreign policy. This finding corresponds with Putnam’s [9] two-level game theory, demonstrating that domestic political legitimacy directly affects international negotiation capacity. Thus, social trust is conceptualized as an invisible but determinative infrastructure of foreign policy.

The findings also demonstrate that behavioral and cognitive competencies developed through generation-building directly contribute to the state’s soft power capacity. Among the soft power elements defined by Nye [38] are cultural attractiveness, values, and behavioral forms seen as legitimate in foreign policy. Nye’s [39] “smart power” concept also corresponds with the model’s multidimensional understanding of power in this context by emphasizing the strategic integration of hard and soft power elements. Generations constructed through applied education strengthen the country’s international image with culturally consistent, ethics-based, and productive life forms. The findings demonstrate that value transmission based on applied education creates continuity in social norms and that this imparts consistency to the country’s foreign policy. This process makes more visible the connection between ethical behavioral patterns and the perception of legitimacy in foreign policy [63]. Goldsmith and Horiuchi’s [40] empirical study also support that countries with high internal cohesion are perceived as more reliable actors in the international arena. Furthermore, the Productive Generation’s economic and technological performance produces a structural advantage supporting soft power by increasing national brand value. The soft power literature emphasizes that states’ attractiveness capacity is shaped not only through cultural products and media but also through quality of social life and value consistency [39]. In this respect, the study reveals a dimension of educational policies that is not sufficiently examined in the soft power literature and presents an original conceptual contribution to the education–soft power relationship. Thus, the model redefines the societal origins of soft power from a generation-building perspective.

This study presents a new conceptual explanation regarding the societal origins of crisis management and strategic decisionmaking processes in foreign policy. In the literature, crisis management is mostly evaluated through the capacity of institutions and the qualities of decision-makers [162, 163]. Boin and ‘t Hart’s [164] crisis leadership framework also focuses on the individual capacities of decision-makers, not adequately addressing the effect of societal resilience on crisis management. However, the findings demonstrate that life competencies constructed through applied education create a stable behavioral order throughout society and that this order serves a function of reducing panic, chaos, and irrational responses during crisis periods. Particularly the development of emotional regulation, tension management, and problem-solving skills through applied methods from early ages ensures that society is more resilient against crises [165]. Masten’s [60] “ordinary magic” concept also demonstrates in this context that resilience can be achieved not through extraordinary conditions but through the systematic development of everyday life competencies. This high-level societal resilience enables the state to implement foreign policy strategies during crises with less internal pressure. At the same time, the Supervisory Generation’s functioning as a societal balance element during crisis moments reduces the societal cost of decision-making processes and supports stability. The societal resilience literature emphasizes that societies’ resistance capacity against shocks is determined not only by economic resources but also by social capital and collective coping mechanisms [166]. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents an original contribution to the crisis management literature by aiming to systematically develop this resilience capacity through applied education.

One of the important results of the study is also that applied education-based generation-building increases the quality of democratic governance, thereby elevating the accountability level of foreign policy. Rights consciousness, citizenship responsibility, and critical thinking skills developed through applied education ensure that individuals participate more consciously in public decision-making processes [98, 167]. Dewey’s [168] democratic education philosophy also emphasizes in this context that education is fundamental not only for individual development but also for the construction of democratic participation capacity. This participation strengthens the societal legitimacy of foreign policy decisions and increases the accountability level of policymakers. The findings demonstrate that in environments where social trust is high and citizens show conscious participation, foreign policy decisions receive broader societal support. This situation both increases internal stability and deepens societal support for the state’s foreign policy decisions [169,170]. Inglehart and Welzel’s [171] “self-expression values” theory also supports this finding by demonstrating that democratic governance quality is related to societal value transformation. Within such a structure, foreign policy ceases to be an elite activity disconnected from society; on the contrary, it becomes a field of collective behavior with high legitimacy where internal capacity is projected outward. The democratic peace theory posits that democratic governance quality directly affects foreign policy behaviors [131, 172]. This study presents a complementary perspective to this theory by demonstrating that democratic governance quality is shaped not only by institutional arrangements but also by societal education level.

The findings present important implications regarding the effect of applied education-based generation-building on collective identity formation and the effect of this identity on foreign policy consistency. The social constructivist perspective emphasizes that states’ identities are formed in social interaction processes and that these identities shape foreign policy behaviors [88,90]. Abdelal and colleagues’ [173] identity content framework deepens this conceptual connection by demonstrating that collective identities consist of dimensions of “constitutive norms,” “social purposes,” “relational comparisons,” and “cognitive models.” The collective identity of the 4–44 generation constructed through applied education is built upon common values such as ethical behavior, productivity, social responsibility, and healthy communication. The Supervisory Generation transforms societal identity into an intergenerationally stable structure by ensuring the continuity of this identity. Mannheim’s [46] “generation theory” also demonstrates in this context that generations develop collective identity through shared experiences and that this identity shapes social transformation. This stable identity structure makes it possible for the state to act with a consistent self-perception in the international arena. The literature indicates that identity-based foreign policy approaches are critical particularly for understanding long-term strategic behaviors [90,105]. Consequently, the model presents an innovative theorization that strengthens the effects of identity construction on foreign policy from a generation-based perspective. The intergenerational transmission of collective identity increases strategic predictability by ensuring the stability of the answer given to the question of “who we are” in foreign policy.

The theoretical foundations of the model are also in deep alignment with the macro-structural change mechanisms posited by societal transformation theories. Societal transformation is a long-term process emerging from the combination of factors such as intergenerational value transmission, the quality of the educational system, and cultural continuity [26,174]. Sztompka’s [175] “social becoming” concept also strengthens the model’s theoretical foundations in this context by demonstrating that societal transformation is shaped by the dialectical interaction between structure and agency. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model systematizes this transformation process around the applied education axis, transforming all age groups of society into a “production unit” of transformation. While individuals aged 4–44 become active carriers of transformation, the Supervisory Generation aged 45–95 assumes the supervisory and continuity-ensuring dimension of transformation. This functional differentiation corresponds with the “pattern maintenance” function in Parsons’s [176] AGIL scheme, explaining how social systems are reproduced through value and norm transmission. The combination of these two mechanisms ensures that societal transformation occurs not spontaneously but within a planned and rational framework. The literature demonstrates that such planned transformation models increase states’ capacity to develop determination and long-term vision in foreign policy [174]. Thus, the model presents an original contribution redefining the theoretical link established between societal transformation and foreign policy capacity through generation-building. This perspective expands the time horizon of foreign policy analysis, rendering visible the strategic importance of intergenerational processes.

The research findings are also in strong relationship with the concepts of strategic culture and institutional memory. The strategic culture literature emphasizes that historical memory, value patterns, and generational experiences are as effective as the structural variables determining states’ foreign policy behaviors [8,177]. Lantis’s [178] strategic culture typology, by distinguishing between the “deep” and “surface” layers of this culture, demonstrates that intergenerational transmission shapes the deep layers of strategic culture. In this context, the Supervisory Generation serves a critical “historical carrier” function; transmitting to younger generations the collective memory of past experiences, successes, and failures. The research demonstrates that the older generation’s assumption of an active guiding role produces sustainable behavioral patterns in younger generations and that this provides continuity in the state’s foreign policy behaviors [179]. Assmann’s [180] “cultural memory” concept also supports the findings in this context by explaining how collective memory is maintained through intergenerational transmission mechanisms. This continuity produces high-value strategic outputs such as reliability and predictability in the international arena. The article’s findings demonstrate that the Supervisory Generation not only produces normative supervision but also stably carries variables critical for foreign policy such as national identity, shared values, and social solidarity. The bridge that this age group establishes through experience transmission to younger generations strengthens the relationship between social memory and strategic culture [8]. Consequently, the model presents an original framework explaining the reproduction mechanisms of strategic culture from a generation-building perspective.

The findings also render visible the effects of applied education-based generation-building on economic capacity and the reflections of this effect on foreign policy. Economic power is accepted as one of the fundamental determinants of foreign policy capacity; the strategies states pursue in the international arena are largely shaped by their economic resources [181,182]. Keohane and Nye’s [21] “complex interdependence” concept also supports this relationship by demonstrating that economic capacity shapes foreign policy behavior in a multidimensional manner. However, this study reveals that economic capacity is determined not only by natural resources, capital accumulation, or technological infrastructure but also by society’s productivity culture and work ethic. The production orientation, entrepreneurial spirit, and vocational competency that the Productive Generation acquires through applied education are fundamental resources nourishing the dynamism of the national economy. Weber’s [183] Protestant ethic thesis also supports the model’s theoretical foundations from a historical perspective in this context by demonstrating the capacity of cultural values to shape economic behavior. The findings demonstrate that educational processes supported by vocational practice and production from middle school onward increase the capacity to generate economic added value [145]. This economic dynamism directly determines the effectiveness of instruments such as trade diplomacy, economic sanction capacity, and power to attract international investment in foreign policy. Consequently, the model presents an original contribution to the foreign policy economy literature by explaining the societal origins of economic power from a generation-building perspective. Under today’s conditions where economic vulnerability weakens foreign policy capacity, the strategic importance of applied educationbased productivity culture becomes even more pronounced.

The research findings are also in strong alignment with the normative institutionalist perspective. Normative institutionalism, by emphasizing the capacity of international norms to shape state behaviors, posits that states are guided not only by interest calculations but also by appropriate behavior standards [184,63]. Acharya’s [185] “norm localization” concept also illuminates the role of education in this process in this context by demonstrating how international norms are interpreted and adapted at the national level. Ethical values, rights consciousness, and social responsibility norms internalized through applied education produce normative consistency in the state’s foreign policy behaviors. The findings demonstrate that the normative framework shared throughout society strengthens the legitimacy ground of foreign policy decisions and facilitates alignment with international norms. Risse and Sikkink’s [186] “spiral model” reveals the determinative role of education in this process by conceptualizing the norm internalization process in five stages. The Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance function plays a critical role in this process, ensuring the intergenerational transmission and continuity of social norms. Checkel’s [65] research on norm internalization has emphasized the determinative role of education in this process by demonstrating that norms are accepted in a process extending from strategic compliance to genuine internalization. In this framework, the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model provides an important explanatory ground regarding the societal origins of normative institutionalism theory and illuminates how norms are produced and reproduced at the societal level. Thus, the model conceptualizes the mechanisms of internationalization of norms at the national level from a generation-building perspective.

The findings also reveal in depth the relationship that the concept of societal resilience establishes with foreign policy capacity. Societal resilience is defined as societies’ capacity to show resistance and adapt to shocks, crises, and uncertainties [166, 187]. Ungar’s [188] “social resilience ecology” framework supports the model’s theoretical foundations by demonstrating that resilience is shaped by social context and resources rather than individual characteristics. This capacity is shaped not only by economic resources but also by social capital, collective identity, and shared values. Applied education-based generation-building presents a holistic approach strengthening all these dimensions of societal resilience. The findings demonstrate that the development of values education, conflict resolution skills, and social cohesion capacity through applied methods increases society’s ability to act together during crisis periods. Aldrich’s [187] research on natural disasters in Japan empirically supports this finding by demonstrating that communities with high social capital recover more quickly from disasters. This high level of resilience provides critical advantages for foreign policy: the preservation of societal unity during crisis periods, the exhibition of collective resistance against external pressures, and the continuation of long-term strategies with societal support [189]. The Supervisory Generation’s experience transmission and normative guidance ensure the intergenerational continuity of this resilience capacity. Consequently, the model presents an original contribution to the security studies literature by conceptualizing the relationship between societal resilience and foreign policy capacity within a generation-building framework.

At this point, the model’s limitations and possible critical evaluations must also be discussed. The theoretical framework of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model rests on the assumption that applied education can create transformative effects at both societal and individual levels. However, the outcomes of educational processes are affected by numerous mediating variables such as economic conditions, political stability, cultural context, and institutional infrastructure [123]. Bourdieu and Passeron’s [190] “cultural reproduction” theory also draws attention to the model’s possible limitations by warning that education can reproduce existing social inequalities. Consequently, applied education’s production of expected outputs depends on the existence of these supportive conditions. Furthermore, the functional differentiation in the 4–44 and 45–95 age ranges proposed by the model simplifies the complexity of social reality to a certain extent. The life course perspective reveals the limits of this simplification by demonstrating that individual development is shaped by social context and historical conditions rather than chronological age [191]. Individual differences, social stratification, and cultural diversity can make the assumption of a homogeneous behavioral pattern within these age groups problematic. These limitations indicate that the model possesses explanatory power under certain conditions rather than a claim to universal validity. From a critical perspective, it should also be borne in mind that social engineering initiatives have historically been able to produce unexpected results [192]. For this reason, preserving the principles of democratic participation, pluralism, and individual autonomy is of great importance in the model’s implementation.

The evaluation of alternative explanations for the findings also increases the study’s level of self-awareness. Different theoretical traditions make different emphases regarding the variables determining foreign policy capacity. While structural realism explains state behavior through the structure of the international system, it views societal variables as secondary [35]. Mearsheimer’s [150] “offensive realism” also presents a perspective that questions the determinacy of internal variables by explaining state behavior through systemic pressures. From this perspective, the effect of applied education on foreign policy may remain limited against systemic pressures. Similarly, historical institutionalism may spread the effect of educational interventions over a relatively long period by emphasizing the power of institutional structures and path dependency in shaping foreign policy behaviors [193]. Thelen’s [194] “institutional layering” concept also questions the short-term effects of educational reforms by emphasizing the gradual and cumulative nature of institutional change. Furthermore, political economy approaches may find education-focused explanations insufficient by positing that foreign policy is determined by class interests and economic structures [195]. These alternative explanations require avoiding the absolutization of the model’s claims and accepting the multidimensional determinants of foreign policy capacity. Nevertheless, this study does not reject alternative approaches; on the contrary, by presenting a complementary perspective, it aims to expand the explanatory power of foreign policy analysis. Consequently, the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model is positioned as a contribution that adds the dimension of societal foundations to existing theories rather than eliminating them.

The research findings also present important implications for transforming the model into practical policy applications. The applied education-based generation-building approach requires rethinking educational policies, removing them from being focused merely on employment and examination success, as a strategic area directly related to national security and foreign policy capacity [98]. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s [135] “triple helix” model also supports the education–foreign policy connection by emphasizing the critical importance of university-industrygovernment collaboration in national capacity development. The findings demonstrate that life competencies experienced in the 4–44 age group, when combined with the supervisory role of the 45–95 age group, can significantly reduce social problems and thus channel state capacity to more productive areas. At this point, the theoretical framework on which the study rests propose a new perspective for the holistic design of public policy by positing that micro-level regulations of the educational system produce macrolevel foreign policy outcomes. For policymakers, this finding implies that educational reforms should be placed on the strategic agenda not only of education ministries but also of foreign affairs and national security units [108]. The OECD’s [57] “Education 2030” project also supports this policy recommendation by emphasizing education’s relationship with national welfare and global competitiveness. At the same time, it strengthens the discussion that foreign policy analysis must become sensitive not only to elite-level decision-making processes but also to society’s everyday life practices and intergenerational transmission mechanisms [34]. Thus, this study presents an original discussion ground establishing a conceptual bridge between the educational sociology, international relations, and public policy literatures.

The findings also present critical implications for the predictability and continuity of foreign policy. The international relations literature has emphasized that foreign policy continuity is related to institutional memory, societal resilience, and strategic culture [93,94]. Hermann’s [162] foreign policy change typology also deepens this conceptual connection by demonstrating that policy continuity manifests in different forms at the “program,” “goal,” and “international orientation” levels. This study demonstrates that these three variables can be transformed through applied education, thereby strengthening the relationship between societal behavioral norms and foreign policy determination. The findings reveal that the combination of the Productive Generation’s rational capacity and the Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance makes foreign policy decisions stable at both societal and institutional levels. Ikenberry’s [96] “liberal international order” concept also supports this finding by demonstrating that internal stability increases international cooperation capacity. This stability increases the trust that international actors have in the state and expands long-term cooperation areas. In foreign policy analysis, predictability is a critical variable for states being perceived as reliable partners and the credibility of international commitments [196]. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents an original contribution to the reliability literature by explaining the societal origins of this predictability. Consequently, the model’s proposal is that society-centered variables be made more visible in foreign policy analyses and that generation-building processes be included in national strategy documents.

The general conclusions of the study demonstrate that applied education-based generation-building creates a holistic strengthening effect on both the state’s hard power and soft power capacity. Hard power elements—military, economic, and technological capacity—are directly nourished by the productive generation’s competencies. Soft power elements— cultural attractiveness, normative consistency, and diplomatic reliability—are shaped by the stability of the societal value system [38]. Baldwin’s [197] power conceptualization demonstrates that different types of power should be evaluated together by emphasizing the relational and contextual nature of power. This finding proposes a new approach expressing that foreign policy power is determined not only by the capacity of state organs but also by the quality of social structure [132, 36]. Applied education makes a direct and indirect power transfer to foreign policy by bringing together individual behavioral norms, social cohesion, ethical consistency, productivity, and emotional intelligence in the same crucible. Barnett and Duvall’s [198] power typology also supports the model’s theoretical foundations with the “productive power” concept by demonstrating how social structures shape actor capacities. The Supervisory Generation’s cultural supervision constitutes the societal framework that makes this transfer sustainable. The multidimensional nature of the power concept requires that different power sources be evaluated together in foreign policy analysis [197]. The Productive– Supervisory Generations Model presents an original framework integrating this multidimensional power understanding from a societal foundation’s perspective.

The theoretical synthesis presented by the Discussion section presents a rich agenda for future research. First, testing the model in different social and cultural contexts is important for evaluating its theoretical generalizability. Lijphart’s [199] comparative method principles support this research orientation by demonstrating the potential of comparisons made on a small number of cases to illuminate causality relationships. Comparative case studies can illuminate how applied educationbased generation-building operates in different political systems and cultural traditions. Second, testing the model through longitudinal research is necessary for empirically validating causality relationships. Elder’s [191] life course approach supports this methodological recommendation by emphasizing that intergenerational processes should be examined through longitudinal research. Research tracing the development over time of the effect of generation-building processes on foreign policy outputs will strengthen the model’s explanatory power. Third, detailed examination of the model’s sub-concepts will increase theoretical depth. Particularly the operationalization of concepts such as life competency ecosystem, intergenerational interaction mechanisms, and behavioral foreign policy capacity constitutes a fertile ground for future research [22]. Fourth, the interdisciplinary expansion of the model can open new collaboration areas among educational sciences, psychology, sociology, and political science. Gibbons and colleagues’ [108] “Mode 2 knowledge production” concept supports this recommendation by emphasizing the critical importance of interdisciplinary research in solving complex social problems. These future research orientations hold the potential to continue the theoretical development of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model.

In conclusion, this Discussion section has comprehensively evaluated the structural relationship that applied educationbased generation-building establishes with foreign policy capacity in light of national and international literature. The findings have supported the model’s theoretical assumptions, confirming the multi-layered causality chain extending from individual behavioral transformation to societal norm production, from the Productive Generation’s capacity to the Supervisory Generation’s guidance, and from intergenerational interaction to foreign policy outputs. This multi-layered structure presents an original theoretical synthesis in response to Coleman’s [114] micro-macro link problem and Giddens’s [26] structuration theory. The discussion has demonstrated that the model is in strong alignment with different theoretical traditions such as social capital, soft power, strategic culture, societal resilience, normative institutionalism, and state capacity. At the same time, the model’s limitations and alternative explanations have been honestly addressed, and the study’s level of self-awareness has been kept high. This self-awareness is consistent with the “analytical humility” principle expected of SSCI Q1-level articles [136]. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents an original theoretical contribution that adds the dimension of societal foundations to foreign policy analysis, conceptualizes the education–society–foreign policy relationship within a holistic framework, and relates micro-level behavioral variables to macrolevel strategic outputs. This contribution contains important implications for both academic research and policy applications. The conclusions and recommendations to be presented in the next section will transform the theoretical synthesis presented by this discussion into fundamental policy areas and the future research agenda.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This research has analyzed at the theoretical level the structural relationship that applied education-based generationbuilding establishes with the foreign policy capacity of modern states and has presented an original conceptual model explaining this relationship. This analysis has expanded the epistemological boundaries of foreign policy analysis by providing a systematic answer to the “societal foundations” problematic that has long been neglected in the international relations discipline. The question formulated in the Introduction—”Through what mechanisms does apply education-based generation-building transform the foreign policy behavior of modern states?”— has been systematically answered throughout the study. The conceptual evidence presented in the Findings and Discussion sections has confirmed the existence of a multi-layered causality chain extending from individual behavioral transformation to societal norm production, from the Productive Generation’s capacity to the Supervisory Generation’s guidance, and from intergenerational interaction to foreign policy outputs. This causality chain bears the quality of an original theoretical response to Alexander’s [137] micro-macro link discussions and Archer’s [138] morphogenetic cycle approach. This causality chain presents an original analytical framework positioned at the intersection of educational sociology and international relations disciplines and integrating the theoretical accumulations of both fields. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presented by the research has demonstrated that state behavior is determined not only by systemic factors but also by internal societal capacity by foregrounding the societal foundations that are generally overlooked in foreign policy analysis [35,30].

The theoretical framework of the study has integrated different theoretical traditions such as social capital theory, cultural evolution theory, the human security approach, normative institutionalism, and soft power theory within an interdisciplinary synthesis. This integration has transformed abstract theoretical discussions into empirically testable propositions by meeting the “progressive problem shift” criterion envisaged by Lakatos’s [139] scientific research programs approach. This theoretical pluralism has made it possible to explain the multidimensional nature of the education–society–foreign policy relationship at the conceptual level and has enhanced the analytical richness of the model. The trust, network, and norm mechanisms envisaged by social capital theory have explained how social bonds strengthened through applied education are transformed into foreign policy capacity [30,31]. The “resource multiplication” mechanism proposed in Lin’s [140] social capital theory has been particularly illuminating in explaining the dynamics of this transformation process. Cultural evolution theory has revealed the theoretical foundations of the Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance function by illuminating the evolutionary dynamics of intergenerational value transmission [74, 75]. The normative institutionalist perspective has strengthened the model’s position in the international relations literature by emphasizing the capacity of social norms to shape state behavior [63, 64]. This theoretical synthesis enables researchers from different disciplines to engage in dialogue through a common conceptual language and presents a holistic framework explaining the structural relationship that educational policies establish with foreign policy capacity.

The research hypothesis—that “applied education-based generation-building significantly strengthens predictability, trust, and soft power capacity in foreign policy by increasing society’s behavioral stability”—has been confirmed at the theoretical level through the conceptual analysis results. This confirmation has been carried out within the framework of conceptual consistency and theoretical validity criteria, in accordance with the methodological requirements of analytical perspective articles [109]. The five thematic areas presented in the Findings section have revealed strong conceptual evidence supporting this hypothesis. The individual behavioral transformation theme has demonstrated that applied education strengthens individuals’ rational decisionmaking, ethical consistency, and crisis management capacities. This finding exhibits a pattern consistent with Bandura’s [200] self-efficacy concept and Goleman’s [128] emotional intelligence framework. The societal norm production theme has explained how this individual transformation is converted into shared behavioral standards at the societal level. The Productive Generation’s dynamic capacity theme has revealed the potential of individuals in the 4–44 age range to strengthen the state’s international position through economic productivity, innovation, and institutional effectiveness. The Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance theme has illuminated the social memory, value transmission, and normative supervision functions of the 45–95 age group. This function corresponds at the theoretical level with Durkheim’s [149] collective consciousness concept and social control mechanisms. The intergenerational interaction and foreign policy output’s theme has systematically demonstrated how the complementary functions of these two generations are transformed into foreign policy capacity. The integrated analysis of these five thematic areas confirms the model’s internal consistency and explanatory power.

The original contribution of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model lies in presenting a new theoretical perspective that incorporates micro-level behavioral variables into foreign policy analysis. In the international relations literature, state capacity is generally defined through military power, economic resources, and diplomatic networks; the treatment of society’s behavioral infrastructure as a strategic variable is neglected [35,150}. This neglect stems from the discipline’s state-centric ontology and its epistemological preference for structural analyses [37]. This study has remedied this deficiency by conceptually explaining the effect of society’s everyday life practices, intergenerational transmission mechanisms, and collective behavioral patterns on foreign policy outputs. The model presents an original theoretical synthesis in response to Coleman’s [79] micro-macro link problem and Giddens’s [26] structuration theory, systematically explaining the analytical transitions extending from individual action to social structure and from there to state behavior. These analytical transitions also exhibit a structure consistent with the individual investment– social return relationship envisaged by Becker’s [20] human capital theory. This original contribution takes its place in the literature as a new analytical framework focusing not only on “what foreign policy does” but on “by whom and from what value world it is conducted.” Thus, the study has constructed an original theoretical architecture consistent with the “everyday life” and “practice turn” approaches that have been strengthening in the international relations discipline in recent years [10, 24].

The theoretical framework presented by the study demonstrates that educational policies must be repositioned not merely as instruments of individual development and economic growth but as strategic components of national power architecture and foreign policy capacity. This repositioning is supported by Checkel’s [65] findings on social learning and norm internalization, emphasizing the determinative role of education in the processes by which individuals and societies accept new norms. In the literature, education is mostly addressed through its functions of human capital development, workforce quality improvement, and ensuring social mobility; the structural relationship that education establishes with foreign policy capacity is not sufficiently examined [106,122]. This study has remedied this deficiency by conceptually demonstrating that applied education strengthens societal stability through behavioral transformation and that this stability produces predictability, reliability, and soft power capacity in foreign policy. As emphasized by Kolb’s [11] experiential learning theory, the transformation of knowledge into behavior occurs not only through abstract concepts but through direct experience and reflective observation. Therefore, when educational reforms are being discussed, the foreign policy dimension must also be brought to the table as a strategic variable. This approach requires the reevaluation of educational policies in the context of national security and international competitiveness and reminds policymakers of the strategic importance of the education–foreign policy relationship.

Based on the research findings, the primary recommendation for policymakers is the restructuring of the educational system with the “Applied Life Competency Ecosystem” approach. This approach envisages that behavioral, ethical, and social competencies, in addition to cognitive content, be processed through applied methods at all educational levels from kindergarten to university. This envisagement corresponds at the theoretical level with Dewey’s [201] experience-based education philosophy and Freire’s [203] critical pedagogy approach. Areas such as values education, rights and responsibility consciousness, conflict resolution skills, collective production capacity, social participation, and digital literacy should be positioned not as complementary elements of the curriculum but as the fundamental backbone of education [23,57]. The strengthening of vocational practice, entrepreneurship, and production-oriented programs at the secondary education level, and the institutionalization of industry–university–society collaborations at the higher education level, will maximize the Productive Generation’s contribution to foreign policy capacity [108,135]. This institutionalization is consistent with the “Mode 2 knowledge production” paradigm that emphasizes that knowledge production occurs in a social context. This comprehensive educational reform carries the potential to create not only individual success stories but a structural transformation producing foreign policy quality at the national level.

The study’s second fundamental recommendation is the institutionalization of the Supervisory Generation’s societal function and the integration of intergenerational interaction mechanisms with the educational system. The findings have demonstrated that the 45–95 age group is not merely a passive observer but assumes a critical societal function through social memory, normative guidance, and value transmission. This function corresponds with the “generational consciousness” concept envisaged by Mannheim’s [46] generation theory and emphasizes the determinative role of generations in social change. When this age group’s accumulated experience is transmitted to younger generations, it is observed that social values are consistently reproduced and behavioral deviations decrease [203,26]. Therefore, educational institutions should adopt intergenerational communication and guidance programs on a voluntary basis as a strategic priority. These programs, consistent with Holsti’s [204] findings regarding foreign policy’s dependence on internal stability, will accelerate the transformation of social cohesion into international reliability. These programs should be disseminated through community centers, local governments, and civil society organizations in addition to schools. Thus, the Supervisory Generation’s normative influence will become not merely a cultural background but an institutional element supporting foreign policy. As emphasized by the strategic culture literature, social memory and value patterns are among the fundamental variables shaping states’ foreign policy behaviors [8,117].

The research’s third recommendation is the acceptance that foreign policy capacity is determined not only by the strategic planning skills of state elites but also by the behavioral quality of the entire society. This acceptance extends the domestic– foreign policy interaction envisaged by Putnam’s [9] “two-level game” metaphor with the societal foundations dimension. This acceptance requires the adoption of a “bottom-up” perspective complementing the traditional “top-down” perspective of foreign policy analysis. The findings have demonstrated that when there is a high level of applied competency, productivity habit, and ethical behavioral pattern in society, the state’s international cooperation capacity also increases. Fukuyama’s [33] trust concept provides a critical analytical tool in explaining the social mechanisms of this relationship. Fundamental indicators in foreign policy such as reliability, continuity, and predictability depend on behavioral norms produced not only at the institutional but also at the societal level [70,205]. The Productive Generation’s internalization of these behavioral norms bears the quality of a strategic resource strengthening the hand of foreign policy actors. Therefore, in the institutional design of foreign policy, the “societal capacity” variable must be evaluated as a visible and measurable component. This approach presents an important contribution to existing theories explaining state behavior and strengthens the societal foundations of foreign policy analysis.

The study’s fourth recommendation is the integration of foreign policy planning with long-term societal capacity development objectives. This integration is consistent with Jervis’s [206] analyses regarding the structural determinants of foreign policy decisions and emphasizes the place of societal variables in strategic planning. Traditional foreign policy analyses focus on short and medium-term strategic objectives, not sufficiently considering the long-term effects of societal transformation. Yet the findings of this research demonstrate that the effects of generation-building through applied education emerge over an intergenerational time span. Therefore, foreign policy strategies should not only evaluate existing capacity and resources but should also take into account the development potential of societal capacity in future generations. Berger’s [62] findings on strategic culture and generational experiences strengthen the theoretical foundations of this long-term perspective. This long-term viewpoint constitutes a structural foundation that will enable states to achieve a sustainable position in the international arena. The clear definition of educational reforms’ contribution to foreign policy capacity in strategic planning documents will facilitate this integration occurring at the institutional level. This approach is consistent with the institutional resilience envisaged by Ikenberry’s [96] liberal international order concept and the determinacy of internal variables emphasized by Rose’s [38] neoclassical realism perspective.

The research’s fifth recommendation is the strengthening of soft power capacity through societal foundations. The soft power conceptualized by Nye [38] refers to a state’s capacity to influence other actors through attraction rather than coercion or reward. This conceptualization has enabled the expansion of power analysis in international relations from material resources to normative and cultural dimensions. The findings of this research have demonstrated that soft power is produced not only through cultural products, diplomatic discourse, and international diffusion strategies but also through society’s behavioral qualities. Kelman’s [130] empathy-based conflict resolution research reveals the direct effect of societal behavioral patterns on international relations. A society composed of individuals raised through applied education who display ethical consistency are productive, and are open to cooperation constitutes a natural source of attraction in the international arena. This societal attractiveness supports the state’s diplomatic initiatives and expands international cooperation opportunities. Therefore, when soft power strategies are being developed, it should be borne in mind that societal behavioral patterns are the fundamental source of this power. This recommendation requires the development of a deeper conceptual understanding of the societal origins of soft power in foreign policy analysis.

The study’s sixth recommendation is the inclusion of societal resilience capacity in foreign policy planning. The findings have demonstrated that social bonds strengthened through applied education and intergenerational interaction mechanisms increase society’s resistance to external shocks. This resistance is strengthened by the “bridging” and “bonding” capital types defined in Woolcock and Narayan’s [207] social capital typology. This resilience preserves the state’s capacity to conduct a consistent foreign policy in the face of economic crises, political instabilities, and international pressures. Adger’s [58] societal resilience concept and Norris and colleagues’ [166] findings on the social capital–resilience relationship support this recommendation at the theoretical level. Furthermore, Bourdieu’s [72] transformation mechanisms among capital types explain how societal resilience is transferred to economic and political domains. Foreign policy planners should evaluate societal resilience not only in the context of crisis management but also as a fundamental component of long-term strategic capacity. This evaluation should include the systematic identification of societal vulnerabilities and the remediation of these vulnerabilities through educational interventions. Thus, societal resilience will be transformed into a structural power source securing the stability and continuity infrastructure of foreign policy.

The seventh recommendation of this research is the strengthening of the relationship that democratic legitimacy and governance quality establish with foreign policy capacity. This relationship is supported by Krasner’s [124] findings regarding the connection between state capacity and international reliability. The findings have demonstrated that values consciousness, rights-seeking culture, and sense of responsibility developed through applied education increase individuals’ participation in democratic processes and strengthen trust in institutional functioning. This societal participation and trust increase the legitimacy of foreign policy decisions and deepen the societal support for policy implementations [169,170]. Risse’s [25] research on communicative action and deliberative democracy illuminates at the theoretical level the contribution of societal participation to foreign policy legitimacy. Considering that states with high governance quality are perceived as more reliable partners in the international arena, it is understood that democratic legitimacy is directly related to foreign policy capacity [91,105]. Therefore, educational policies should aim to develop not only individual competencies but also democratic citizenship capacity. This objective should be evaluated as a strategic investment strengthening the societal legitimacy of foreign policy and increasing international reliability.

The limitations of this research reveal that caution must be exercised in interpreting and generalizing the results. The explicit definition of these limitations is consistent with the “analytical humility” principle expected of SSCI Q1-level articles [136]. First, the study bears the quality of a theoretical and conceptual analysis, and the model’s propositions have not yet been tested at the empirical level. The explanatory power of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model has been evaluated within the framework of conceptual consistency and theoretical validity criteria; however, this evaluation requires support through empirical research to be conducted in different social contexts. Second, the model has been developed from a particular social and cultural context, and how it will operate in different political systems and cultural traditions is not yet known. This contextual limitation is related to Sartori’s [208] concept stretching problematic in comparative politics and requires caution in adapting the model to different contexts. Third, the effect of applied education on foreign policy capacity is shaped by numerous mediating variables, and controlling for all of these variables is difficult. While the model emphasizes the determinative role of education, it does not disregard the role of other structural, institutional, and conjunctural factors [35]. This multi-factorial approach acknowledges the complexity of foreign policy analysis and emphasizes that the model provides a probabilistic rather than deterministic explanation. These limitations reflect the study’s level of self-awareness and provide concrete orientations for future research.

The theoretical framework presented by the research provides a rich agenda for future research. This agenda includes concrete orientations toward the systematic testing of theoretical propositions, consistent with King, Keohane, and Verba’s [13] qualitative research design principles. The first research orientation is testing the model in different social and cultural contexts. Comparative case studies can illuminate how applied education-based generation-building operates in different political systems, economic structures, and cultural traditions. Lijphart’s [199] comparative method principles support this research orientation by demonstrating the potential of comparisons made on a small number of cases to illuminate causality relationships. Mill’s [209] methods of agreement and difference provide analytical tools that can be used in these comparative studies. Particularly the comparison of foreign policy performances of countries with different educational systems is of critical importance for evaluating the model’s generalizability. These comparative studies, in addition to testing the model’s universal validity, will also reveal how context-specific conditions affect the model’s operation. Thus, the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model carries the potential to transform into a flexible theoretical framework adaptable to different social structures.

The second research orientation is testing the model through longitudinal research. The effect of generation-building processes on foreign policy outputs, by its nature, emerges over a long-term time span. This long-term effect is consistent with the intergenerational transformation dynamics envisaged by Inglehart’s [210] value change theory. Therefore, cross-sectional research cannot adequately capture the dynamic dimensions of this relationship. Elder’s [191] life course approach supports this methodological recommendation by emphasizing that intergenerational processes should be examined through longitudinal research. Longitudinal research tracking the effect of educational interventions on societal behavioral patterns and the reflection of these effects on foreign policy capacity carries the potential to empirically validate the model’s causality claims. Pierson’s [193] research on temporality and causality strengthens the methodological foundations of these longitudinal designs. This research should observe, by tracking specific cohorts from the beginning of applied education programs, how individual behavioral transformation is converted into societal norm production and from there into foreign policy outputs. Such a longitudinal design will strengthen the model’s explanatory power and consolidate the empirical foundations of its theoretical propositions.

The third research orientation is the detailed examination of the model’s sub-concepts. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model puts forward original concepts such as “Applied Life Competency Ecosystem,” “intergenerational interaction mechanisms,” and “behavioral foreign policy capacity.” These concepts have been developed within the framework of Sartori’s [208] concept formation principles and Gerring’s [211] conceptual clarity criteria. Each of these concepts carries the potential to constitute independent research agendas. In-depth research is needed particularly on what components the life competency ecosystem consists of, how these components interact with each other, and how it operates at the societal level. Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade’s [129] emotional intelligence research can contribute to illuminating the psychological dimensions of this ecosystem. Similarly, the concrete operation of intergenerational interaction mechanisms, through which channels value transmission occurs, and how normative guidance shapes societal behavior should be among the focal points of future research [22]. This conceptual deepening will increase the model’s theoretical maturity and enable the establishment of stronger conceptual bridges between international relations and educational sociology.

The fourth research orientation is the interdisciplinary expansion of the model. The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model is positioned at the intersection of educational sociology, international relations, and public policy fields and carries the potential to open new collaboration areas among these disciplines. This interdisciplinary position is consistent with Wallerstein’s [212] call for the restructuring of social sciences and requires the transcendence of traditional disciplinary boundaries. Future research can enrich the model with the conceptual tools of different disciplines such as psychology, economics, political science, and anthropology. Gibbons and colleagues’ [108] “Mode 2 knowledge production” concept supports this recommendation by emphasizing the critical importance of interdisciplinary research in solving complex social problems. Particularly the integration of the behavioral economics perspective into the model carries the potential to more deeply explain the effect of applied education on individual decision-making processes. Kahneman’s [155] research on cognitive biases and decisionmaking processes can consolidate the theoretical foundations of this integration. Similarly, the contribution of political psychology literature can expand the model’s explanatory capacity by illuminating the formation dynamics of social trust, collective identity, and political attitudes. This interdisciplinary expansion carries the potential to continue the theoretical development of the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model and to produce new explanatory capacities through the synthesis of different knowledge traditions.

The fifth research orientation is the transformation of the model into policy applications and the evaluation of the effects of these applications. This orientation is consistent with Weiss’s [213] findings on the research–policy relationship and concretizes the contribution of academic knowledge to policy design. For the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model developed at the theoretical level to be able to guide practical policy design, the educational interventions envisaged by the model must be transformed into concrete programs and applications. In this transformation process, it is important to test the model’s operability through pilot applications and to feed the findings obtained back into the theoretical framework. Pawson and Tilley’s [214] realist evaluation approach provides a methodological framework in the design of these pilot applications. Policy evaluation research can test the model’s practical validity by measuring the effect of applied education programs on societal behavioral patterns. This research should be conducted within a holistic evaluation framework encompassing program design, implementation processes, and output evaluation stages. Thus, by establishing a dynamic interaction between theory and practice, both the model’s theoretical maturity and its practical applicability will be strengthened. This orientation carries the potential to increase the study’s social impact by concretizing the contribution of academic research to policy applications.

The theoretical framework presented by this research provides original contributions to the international relations literature at three fundamental levels. When evaluated within the framework of Kuhn’s [215] paradigm concept, these contributions carry the potential to expand the epistemological boundaries of existing foreign policy analysis. The first contribution is presenting a new theoretical perspective that incorporates micro-level behavioral variables into foreign policy analysis. The model renders visible the societal foundations of state behavior by conceptually explaining the effect of society’s everyday life practices and intergenerational transmission mechanisms on foreign policy outputs. This contribution is consistent with the “everyday life” and “practice turn” approaches that have been strengthening in the international relations discipline in recent years and reflects the increasing academic interest in the societal origins of foreign policy analysis [10]. The second contribution is its redefinition of the strategic position of educational policies in national power architecture. This redefinition adds a new dimension to Walt’s [216] relationship between state capacity and international power balance. The model presents a new conceptual framework for the education–security relationship by positioning education not merely as an instrument of individual development but as a structural component of foreign policy capacity. The third contribution is establishing conceptual bridges among the educational sociology, international relations, and public policy literatures, thereby constituting an interdisciplinary discussion ground. These three contributions demonstrate the importance of the study for both academic research and policy applications.

The Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents a comprehensive and innovative approach requiring the rethinking of the societal foundations of foreign policy. This innovative approach extends the pioneering studies of Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin’s [217] foreign policy decision-making analysis with the societal foundations dimension. The model grounds the state’s behavioral capacity in the international arena on the competencies society acquires through applied education and the normative stability arising from intergenerational interaction. This approach expands the traditional focal points of foreign policy analysis, emphasizing the strategic importance of societal behavioral patterns. The research findings reveal that the combination of the Productive Generation’s rational capacity and the Supervisory Generation’s normative guidance makes foreign policy decisions stable at both societal and institutional levels. This stability explains how the institutional routines envisaged by Allison’s [1] organizational processes model rest on societal foundations. This stability increases the trust that international actors have in the state and expands long-term cooperation areas [94,218]. Therefore, the model proposes that society-centered variables be made more visible in foreign policy analyses and that generationbuilding processes be included in national strategy documents. This proposal prepares the ground for the development of new explanatory models in foreign policy research.

The general conclusions of the study demonstrate that applied education-based generation-building creates a holistic strengthening effect on both the state’s hard power and soft power capacity. This holistic effect is consistent with Baldwin’s [197] analyses regarding the multidimensional nature of the power concept. Hard power capacity includes concrete resources such as military preparedness, economic productivity, and technological innovation; soft power capacity encompasses abstract resources such as cultural attractiveness, normative consistency, and diplomatic reliability. The findings of this research have revealed that both types of power are directly related to societal behavioral patterns. Morgenthau’s [219] classification of national power elements illuminates the theoretical origins of this relationship. Applied education realizes a direct and indirect power transfer to foreign policy by bringing together individual behavioral norms, social cohesion, ethical consistency, productivity, and emotional intelligence in the same crucible. The Supervisory Generation’s cultural supervision constitutes the societal framework that perpetuates this transfer. This finding proposes a new paradigm expressing that foreign policy power is determined not only by the capacity of state organs but also by the quality of social structure [96, 36]. Therefore, the article proposes that foreign policy studies be addressed in an integrated manner with educational policies and that the structural relationship between these two areas be more deeply researched in the academic literature. This integration will enable the development of new explanatory models in foreign policy research.

In conclusion, the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model presents an original theoretical contribution that adds the dimension of societal foundations to foreign policy analysis, conceptualizes the education–society–foreign policy relationship within a holistic framework, and relates micro-level behavioral variables to macro-level strategic outputs. This contribution illuminates the societal origins of interstate relations by enriching Bull’s [220] international society concept with the societal foundations dimension. The model aims to strengthen societal behavioral consistency and foreign policy capacity through intergenerational interaction by envisaging that individuals in the 4–44 age range be equipped with applied education and that individuals in the 45–95 age range assume the normative supervision function. This objective concretizes the “structure and agency” interaction envisaged by Wendt’s [88] social constructivist approach in the intergenerational dimension. The conceptual framework presented by the research reminds policymakers who wish to strengthen their states’ foreign policy capacities of the strategic importance of educational reforms while offering researchers the opportunity to examine the unexplored dimensions of the education–society–foreign policy relationship. The study’s recommendations provide important contributions to both the academic literature and practical policy design by rendering visible the effects of educational policies in the international relations field. Thus, the Productive–Supervisory Generations Model takes its place in the international relations literature as an original analytical framework focusing not only on “what foreign policy does” but on “by whom and from what value world it is conducted.” This model is a candidate to inspire future research as an innovative approach that explains how societal transformation is converted into foreign policy capacity and offers a theoretical compass to actors who wish to guide this transformation.

References

1. Allison GT (1971) Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little, Brown and Company.
2. Hudson VM (2014) Foreign policy analysis: Classic and contemporary theory (2nd ed.) Rowman & Littlefield.
3. Acharya A (2014) The end of American world order. Polity Press.
4. Fukuyama F (2014) Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
5. Kaarbo J (2018) New directions for leader personality research: Breaking bad in foreign policy. International Affairs 94(4): 799-822.
6. Altbach PG (2020) The globalization of higher education: Realities in an unequal world. In PN Teixeira & JC Shin (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of higher education systems and institutions. Springer p: 1-7.
7. Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA (Eds.) (2012) From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academies Press.
8. Johnston AI (1995) Cultural realism: Strategic culture and grand strategy in Chinese history. Princeton University Press.
9. Putnam RD (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42(3): 427-460.
10. Adler E, Pouliot V (2011) International practices. International Theory 3(1): 1-36.
11. Kolb DA (2015) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.) Pearson Education.
12. Heckman JJ (2019) The economics of human development and social mobility. Annual Review of Economics 11: 47-95.
13. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S (1994) Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
14. Sunstein CR (2021) Liars: Falsehoods and free speech in an age of deception. Oxford University Press.
15. Aaltola M (2022) Global disorder and resilience: Assessing global risks and state capacity. Edward Elgar Publishing.
16. Rothstein B, Teorell J (2008) What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance 21(2): 165-190.
17. Gleditsch KS, Ruggeri A (2010) Political instability and civil war: Micro-level features and their macro-level implications. British Journal of Political Science 40(1): 21-37.
18. Folke C (2016) Resilience (Republished) Ecology and Society 21(4): 44.
19. Boin A, t Hart P (2010) Organising for effective emergency management: Lessons from research. Australian Journal of Public Administration 69(4): 357-371.
20. Becker GS (1993) Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.) University of Chicago Press.
21. Keohane RO, Nye JS (2012) Power and interdependence (4th ed.) Longman.
22. George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
23. UNESCO (2015) Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? UNESCO Publishing.
24. Hudson VM (2020) Foreign policy analysis: Classic and contemporary theory (3rd ed.) Rowman & Littlefield.
25. Risse T (2015) A community of Europeans? Transnational identities and public spheres. In T. Risse (Ed.), European public spheres: Politics is back. Cambridge University Press pp: 15-44.
26. Giddens A (2013) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
27. Illeris K (2018) Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists... in their own words (2nd ed.) Routledge.
28. Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
29. Lickona T (1996) Eleven principles of effective character education. Journal of Moral Education 25(1): 93-100.
30. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
31. Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement) S95-S120.
32. Helliwell JF, Putnam RD (2007) Education and social capital. Eastern Economic Journal 33(1): 1-19.
33. Fukuyama F (1995) Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press.
34. Hudson VM (2005) Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1(1): 1-30.
35. Waltz KN (1979) Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
36. Rose G (1998) Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics 51(1): 144-172.
37. Wendt A (2019) Quantum mind and social science: Unifying physical and social ontology. Cambridge University Press.
38. Nye JS (2004) Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.
39. Nye JS (2011) The future of power. Public Affairs.
40. Goldsmith BE, Horiuchi Y (2012) In search of soft power: Does foreign public opinion matter for US foreign policy? World Politics 64(3): 555-585.
41. Anholt S (2007) Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Fan Y (2010) Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6(2): 97-103.
43. Cull NJ (2009) Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past. Figueroa Press.
44. Halbwachs M (1992) On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Trans.) University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1925)
45. Elder GH, Shanahan MJ, Jennings JA (2015) Human development in time and place. In MH Bornstein, T Leventhal (Eds.) Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Wiley 4: 6-54.
46. Mannheim K (1952) The problem of generations. In P Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp: 276-322
47. Harper S, Hamblin K (2016) International handbook on ageing and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
48. Bengtson VL, Putney NM (2006) Future "conflicts" across generations and cohorts? In JA Vincent, CR Phillipson, M Downs (Eds.), The futures of old age. Sage pp. 20-2.
49. Bazzi S, Blattman C (2014) Economic shocks and conflict: Evidence from commodity prices. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 6(4): 1-38.
50. Cederman LE, Wimmer A, Min B (2017) Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics 62(1): 87-119.
51. Duckworth AL, Seligman MEP (2005) Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science 16(12): 939-944.
52. Heckman JJ (2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312(5782): 1900-1902.
53. Brooks RA (2005) Shaping strategy: The civil-military politics of strategic assessment. International Security 29(4): 141-172.
54. Becker GS (1964) Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Columbia University Press.
55. Sachs JD (2020) The ages of globalization: Geography, technology, and institutions. Columbia University Press.
56. World Bank (2022) The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. World Bank Publications.
57. OECD (2019) OECD skills outlook 2019: Thriving in a digital world. OECD Publishing.
58. Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24(3): 347-364.
59. Schwab K (2023) The Fourth Industrial Revolution and its implications for global governance. World Economic Forum.
60. Masten AS (2014) Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. Guilford Press.
61. Lantis JS (2009) Strategic culture: From Clausewitz to constructivism. In JL. Johnson, KM Kartchner & JA Larsen (Eds.) Strategic culture and weapons of mass destruction. Palgrave Macmillan pp: 33-52.
62. Berger TU (2010) War, guilt, and world politics after World War II. Cambridge University Press.
63. Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4): 887-917.
64. March JG, Olsen JP (2006) The logic of appropriateness. In M Moran, M Rein, RE Goodin (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press. Pp: 689-708.
65. Checkel JT (2017) Socialization and violence: Introduction and framework. Journal of Peace Research 54(5): 592-605.
66. Rothstein B, Stolle D (2008) The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics 40(4): 441-459.
67. Tyler TR (2006) Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
68. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2012) Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
69. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
70. Keohane RO (1984) After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
71. Bourdieu P (1990) The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
72. Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press pp: 241-258.
73. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
74. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (2005) The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford University Press.
75. Henrich J (2016) The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.
76. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
77. Brown C (2022) Education and international relations: Neglected connections. International Studies Review 24(2): 1-18.
78. Pilcher J (1994) Mannheim's sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology 45(3): 481-495.
79. Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.
80. Woolcock M, Narayan D (2000) Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 225-249.
81. Durkheim É (1912) Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse [The elementary forms of religious life]. Alcan.
82. Krasner SD (2010) An orienting principle for foreign policy. Policy Review 163: 3-12.
83. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. WH Freeman.
84. Bandura A (2018) Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13(2): 130-136.
85. UNDP (1994) Human development report 1994. Oxford University Press.
86. Paris R (2001) Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? International Security 26(2): 87-102.
87. Kerr P (2013) Human security. In A. Collins (Ed.), Contemporary security studies. Oxford University Press. (3rd ed) pp:104-117.
88. Wendt A (1999) Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
89. Ruggie JG (1998) What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization 52(4): 855-885.
90. Hopf T (2002) Social construction of international politics: Identities and foreign policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.
91. Fukuyama F (2013) What is governance? Governance 26(3): 347-368.
92. Centeno MA, Kohli A, Yashar DJ, Mistree D (Eds.) (2017) States in the developing world. Cambridge University Press.
93. Kier E (1995) Culture and military doctrine: France between the wars. International Security 19(4): 65-93.
94. Holsti KJ (1977) International politics: A framework for analysis (3rd ed.) Prentice-Hall.
95. Tetlock PE (2005) Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press.
96. Ikenberry GJ (2011) Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.
97. Scott WR (2014) Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.) Sage.
98. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Knopf.
99. Tilly C (2005) Trust and rule. Cambridge University Press.
100. Haas PM (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1-35.
101. Milligan K, Moretti E, Oreopoulos P (2004) Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Public Economics 88(9-10): 1667-1695.
102. Dee TS (2004) Are there civic returns to education? Journal of Public Economics 88(9-10): 1697-1720.
103. Keohane RO, Nye JS (1977) Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown and Company.
104. Doyle MW (2011) Liberal peace: Selected essays. Routledge.
105. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2009) Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996-2008. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978.
106. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2019) The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. Penguin Press.
107. Darling-Hammond L (2020) Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (2nd ed.) Jossey-Bass.
108. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.
109. Ragin CC, Amoroso LM (2019) Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method (3rd ed.) Sage.
110. Creswell JW (2014) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.) Sage.
111. Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.) Jossey-Bass.
112. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds.) (2018) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.) Sage.
113. Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (Eds.) (2014) Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (2nd ed.) ME.Sharpe.
114. Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.
115. Walker LO, Avant KC (2019) Strategies for theory construction in nursing (6th ed.) Pearson.
116. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
117. Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.) Sage.
118. Bryman A (2016) Social research methods (5th ed.) Oxford University Press.
119. Lijphart A (2012) Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries (2nd ed.) Yale University Press.
120. Schwandt TA (2007) The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.) Sage.
121. Wendt A (1999) Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
122. Heckman JJ, Kautz T (2014) Fostering and measuring skills: Interventions that improve character and cognition. In JJ Heckman, JE Humphries & T Kautz (Eds.) The myth of achievement tests: The GED and the role of character in American life. University of Chicago Press. pp. 341-430.
123. Hanushek EA, Woessmann L (2015) The knowledge capital of nations: Education and the economics of growth. MIT Press.
124. Krasner SD (2001) Rethinking the sovereign state model. Review of International Studies 27(5): 17-42.
125. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
126. Sunstein CR (2009) Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press.
127. Nye JS (2017) Soft power: The origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications 3: 17008.
128. Goleman D (2006) Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (10th anniversary ed.) Bantam Books.
129. Mayer JD, Roberts RD, Barsade SG (2008) Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 507-536.
130. Kelman HC (2008) Evaluating the contributions of interactive problem solving to the resolution of ethnonational conflicts. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 14(1): 29-60.
131. Russett B (1993) Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton University Press.
132. Ikenberry GJ (2011) Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.
133. Hofstede G (2001) Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.) Sage.
134. OECD (2021) OECD skills outlook 2021: Learning for life. OECD Publishing.
135. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109-123.
136. Ravitch SM, Riggan M (2017) Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd ed.) Sage.
137. Alexander JC (1987) Twenty lectures: Sociological theory since World War II. Columbia University Press.
138. Archer MS (1995) Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
139. Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I Lakatos & A Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press pp. 91-196
140. Lin N (2001) Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.
141. Schuller T, Preston J, Hammond C, Brassett-Grundy A, Bynner J (2004) The benefits of learning: The impact of education on health, family life and social capital. Routledge.
142. UNESCO (2021) Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.
143. Heckman JJ, Stixrud J, Urzua S (2006) The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics 24(3): 411-482.
144. OECD (2015) Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Publishing.
145. UNDP (2016) Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. United Nations Development Programme.
146. Harper S (2014) Economic and social implications of aging societies. Science 346(6209): 587-591.
147. Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society (2nd ed.) WW Norton.
148. Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.
149. Durkheim É (1912) Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse [The elementary forms of religious life]. Alcan.
150. Mearsheimer JJ (2001) The tragedy of great power politics. WW Norton.
151. Risse T (2000) "Let's argue!": Communicative action in world politics. International Organization 54(1): 1-39.
152. Lobell SE, Ripsman NM, Taliaferro JW (Eds.) (2009) Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
153. Mintz A, DeRouen K (2010) Understanding foreign policy decision making. Cambridge University Press.
154. Sawyer RK (2022) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (3rd ed.) Cambridge University Press.
155. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
156. Levi M (1998) A state of trust. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance. Russell Sage Foundation pp: 77-101.
157. Evans P (1995) Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton University Press.
158. Fukuyama F (2004) State-building: Governance and world order in the 21st century. Cornell University Press.
159. Migdal JS (1988) Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press.
160. Uslaner EM (2002) The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press.
161. Mead GH (1934) Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.
162. Hermann CF (1990) Changing course: When governments choose to redirect foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 34(1): 3-21.
163. Allison GT, Zelikow P (1999) Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.) Longman.
164. Boin A, 't Hart P (2003) Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review 63(5): 544-553.
165. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB (2011) The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development 82(1): 405-432.
166. Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1-2): 127-150.
167. Nussbaum MC (2011) Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
168. Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
169. Easton D (1965) A systems analysis of political life. Wiley.
170. Almond GA, Verba S (1963) The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
171. Inglehart R, Welzel C (2005) Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.
172. Doyle MW (1983) Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12(3): 205-235.
173. Abdelal R, Herrera YM, Johnston AI, McDermott R (2006) Identity as a variable. Perspectives on Politics 4(4): 695-711.
174. Castells M (2011) The rise of the network society (2nd ed.) Wiley-Blackwell.
175. Sztompka P (1993) The sociology of social change. Blackwell.
176. Parsons T (1951) The social system. Free Press.
177. Katzenstein PJ (Ed.) (1996) The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. Columbia University Press.
178. Lantis JS (2002) Strategic culture and national security policy. International Studies Review 4(3): 87-113.
179. Berger TU (2010) War, guilt, and world politics after World War II. Cambridge University Press.
180. Assmann, J. (2008) Communicative and cultural memory. In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.), Cultural memory studies: An international and interdisciplinary handbook (pp. 109-118) Walter de Gruyter.
181. Gilpin, R. (2001) Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press.
182. Strange, S. (1996) The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press.
183. Weber, M. (2001) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.) Routledge. (Original work published 1905)
184. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998) The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943-969.
185. Acharya, A. (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239-275.
186. Risse, T., & Sikkink, K. (1999) The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change (pp. 1-38) Cambridge University Press.
187. Aldrich, D. P. (2012) Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.
188. Ungar, M. (2012) Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 13-31) Springer.
189. Bourbeau, P. (2013) Resiliencism: Premises and promises in securitisation research. Resilience, 1(1), 3-17.
190. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977) Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
191. Elder, G. H. (1998) The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1-12.
192. Scott, J. C. (1998) Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
193. Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton University Press.
194. Thelen, K. (1999) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369-404.
195. Cox, R. W. (1987) Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of history. Columbia University Press.
196. Fearon, J. D. (1997) Signaling foreign policy interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68-90.
197. Baldwin, D. A. (2016) Power and international relations: A conceptual approach. Princeton University Press.
198. Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005) Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39-75.
199. Lijphart, A. (1971) Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
200. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
201. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
202. Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.) Continuum.
203. Jarvis, P. (2004) Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) Routledge.
204. Holsti, K. J. (1996) The state, war, and the state of war. Cambridge University Press.
205. Risse, T. (2010) A community of Europeans? Transnational identities and public spheres. Cornell University Press.
206. Jervis, R. (2017) Perception and misperception in international politics (New ed.) Princeton University Press.
207. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000) Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249.
208. Sartori, G. (1970) Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033-1053.
209. Mill, J. S. (1843) A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. John W. Parker.
210. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.
211. Gerring, J. (2012) Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press.
212. Wallerstein, I. (1996) Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press.
213. Weiss, C. H. (1998) Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.) Prentice Hall.
214. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage.
215. Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
216. Walt, S. M. (1987) The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.
217. Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., & Sapin, B. (1954) Decision-making as an approach to the study of international politics. Princeton University Press.
218. Kier, E. (1995) Culture and military doctrine: France between the wars. International Security, 19(4), 65-93.
219. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948) Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
220. Bull, H. (1977) The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Columbia University Press.