Grading Methodology

Our grading system is based on a scale of A to F (A – excellent, B – commendable, C – good, D – satisfactory, F – unsatisfactory). We arrived at the final grade shown on the cover of the book as follows:

• 30% is the rating of sectional indicators in the opening chapter;
• 70% is the weighted average of the ratings of individual areas.

The introductory chapter focuses on the following sectional indicators:

Political engagement expresses the willingness of the political elite to involve themselves in foreign-policy issues, appreciate their importance, advocate their resolution, and not hold them hostage to unrelated political disputes.

Institutional cohesion indicates the coherence of promoting foreign-policy interests among individual constitutional institutions (the President, the government) and central authorities, in particular the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Office of the Government.

Strategic vision is the capacity for a longer-term outlook, the overlap with purely tactical steps, and last but not least, the willingness and courage to formulate priorities and to structure the implementation of foreign policy around these priorities.

Proactive approach indicates the effort to overcome the reactive concept of foreign policy and consciously influence the international environment and, in particular partner states through the Czech Republic’s own policy initiatives.

International relevance is a category that expresses how strongly Czech politicians and diplomats resonate with the dominant trends underpinning international relations, including European policy.

Individual thematic and regional areas of Czech foreign policy, which are rated in the relevant chapters themselves, were rated in three main categories:

Activity (1/3 of the grade)

We asked two main questions in this category. Did the actions in question (or their absence) stem from strategic deliberation, or did we witness chaotic fumbling devoid of any concept? Was the policy actively pursued? Then, we focused on the activity itself and its evaluation by posing three sub-questions. Was the promotion of the specific policy backed by sufficient human and other (e.g. financial) resources? Did Czech foreign-policy stakeholders respond to existing challenges adroitly and in good time, or was foreign policy left trailing in the wake of events, accompanied by a paucity of initiative, or was it completely passive?  Is it possible to say that the main players of foreign policy were in agreement with each other (in particular the government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the President)? We awarded an “A” to an action which: was responsive and supported by sufficient financial and human resources; was based on the more broadly conceived long-term direction of the state and/or, for example, an approved policy document on the specific area; was sophisticated and well thought out in its arguments; and where there was agreement between individual stakeholders in Czech foreign policy.

Impact (1/3 of the grade)

Here, we examined whether the efforts made had led to the desired results that, in our opinion, had a positive impact on the Czech Republic. We also took account of results that had been achieved at the European Union and NATO level with significant Czech contributions. We negatively rated those cases where the declared objectives were not achieved and the fallout, in our opinion, had a negative impact on the Czech Republic, or where the Czech Republic hampered more than helped achieve positive results at EU or NATO level. We also negatively rated those areas and situations in which the Czech Republic had been incapable of even setting specific objectives, hence there was nothing to achieve.

Normative aspect (1/3 of the grade)

It is not always easy to grasp a subject as delicate as diplomacy and evaluate it according to several predetermined criteria. The normative aspect mainly articulates the opinion of the authors on how foreign policy was implemented in a given area and whether the tools used and the activities carried out were appropriate and beneficial. While evaluations in the above categories will always be somewhat subjective, the view of the authors themselves was the most important criterion in this case. The reasons why we decided to award the given grade in this category are explained more thoroughly in the text itself and in a short written assessment under each grade.

The final grade for each topic is the average of these criteria. For instance, for a given topic to be given a final grade of B, the average of the individual categories had to range between 1.91 and 2.3. For a final grade of B+, the average had to be between 1.61 and 1.9. For a grade of B-, the average had to range between 2.31 and 2.6. We then proceeded analogously for all grades from A to F. When assigning grades numerical values, a grade of B was equal to a value of 2, a grade of B+ corresponded to a value of 1.75, and a grade of B- was equal to a value of 2.5.