Final answer:
Broad-based strategy options in foreign policy involve diverse topics and actors, requiring significant resources and time to implement, resulting in a lasting impact. Focus strategies are quicker, unilateral, and are more easily reversible, with a shorter-term impact. Broad-based strategies tend to have a more significant, lasting impact compared to focus strategies.
Step-by-step explanation:
Within the context of foreign policy, broad-based strategy options tend to encompass a wide range of topics and involve multiple organizations and actors. These strategies are characterized by their large scale, often necessitating significant resource allocation and lengthier timelines for implementation. Public laws, foreign policy budget allocations, international agreements, and the appointment of officials and ambassadors are considered outputs of a broad-based approach. Such decisions have a more lasting impact because they are comprehensive and integrated within the broader scheme of international relations and policy.
On the other hand, focus strategies, are more narrow in scope and are often quickly processed, unilateral decisions made by the president. They typically address immediate issues with a shorter time horizon, making them easier for subsequent decision-makers to reverse. Although these sharply focused outputs can have significant effects, they generally do not have the lasting impact of broader strategic decisions due to their narrower scope and shorter-term focus.
When comparing impact, broadly focused foreign policy outputs tend to have a more significant and enduring impact than sharply focused outputs. This is because broad-based strategies are integrated into a network of policy areas, involve diverse stakeholders, and are designed to address foundational aspects of foreign policy over a long term.