…[T]he
ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and
when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the
world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be
quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some
defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am
sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the
gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain
interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not
many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty
years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even
agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or
late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
- John Maynard
Keynes, The General Theory of Employment,
Interest, and Money (1939), the last page.
Theory and Explanation
in IR
General v. Idiosyncratic
Explanations
Value of General Explanations
-
parsimony: explain more with less (Occam’s razor)
-
prediction: general theories can predict future events
-
control: using a theory, one might
be able to prevent unwanted outcomes and generate wanted ones
Fancy terms
-
ontology: what exists
-
epistemology: how we know what exists
-
methodology: how we show how we know what exists
Theories v. Other
Knowledge
Supposedly
Non-Theoretical Knowledge
-
facts, rules of thumb, typologies (organization of facts),
empirical laws
o
empirical laws: statements of regularity or correspondence between
phenomenon
§
rare in the social sciences
-
most “facts” are theory-laden
o
e.g., democracy v. dictatorships; great powers v. minor powers
Theories
provide causal explanations
-
explanations are not descriptions
-
Relate specific events to general class of events
Theory: set of interrelated generalizations
(axioms) about a range of phenomena
-
specifies independent (explanans) and dependent variables
(explandandum)
Independent Variables
→ Dependent Variables
X
→Y
-
axioms are abstractions about empirical world
-
deduce hypotheses from axioms
o
hypotheses: prediction about relations between variables, usually
stated in if, then format
§
If two states are
democracies, then they will not
fight each other
Ad-hoc hypothesis testing is inferior to
theory-generated hypotheses
Theories
identify causes v. correlations
Correlation: regular association between variables
-
Not all correlations reflect causal relationships
-
May be useful to predict (e.g, contiguity and warfare)
Three Views
of Causation
1)
Covering Law(C. Hempel):
To say that C is the cause of E, is to say that
C is regularly followed by E (C → E)
Necessary
and sufficient conditions
-
C is necessary for E; without C, no E
-
C is sufficient for E; if C, then E
2)
Probabilistic Causes: C → E some percentage of
the time (e.g., smoking as a cause of cancer)
3) Causal
Mechanisms: processes (often unobservable) by which C generates E.
Contingency
and Causation
-
difficult to find necessary and sufficient conditions
-
Contingency (chance) plays a large role
Testing Theories
Falsification
Try to falsify theories:
what evidence would indicate that the theory is wrong?
Naïve v. Sophisticated
‘Falsification’
Naïve view: a single wrong prediction falsifies a theory
Sophisticated view: despite wrong predictions, a theory
should be accepted until a new theory is developed that
-
explains
what the prior theory explained
-
accounts
for the wrong predictions
Multiple causation is
prevalent
Different causal forces may produce the same effect
independently or interactively, so searching for a single or primary cause
may be futile
-
war
may result from misperceptions, aggression, and fear of future weakness
-
increased
trade, social contacts, institutions and democracy may reduce war
-
economic
cooperation may result from influence of domestic interests and socialization
to international norms
Independent
Causes
X → E1
Y → E1
Z → E1
Interactive
Causes
X ≠ E2
Y ≠ E2
Z ≠ E2
X + Y
→ E2
Y + Z
→ E2
X + Z
→ E2
Too Many Variables,
Too Few Cases
Many events in IR are rare (e.g., wars)
-
Between
1816-1997, there were 79 inter-state wars, and 401 wars of all types, or 4 wars
per decade (Sarkees, et al)
-
The
number of states has increased over time so that relative frequency of wars
(wars per system member) has declined
-
Looking
at all state-dyads for each year since World War II generates a data set with
303,814 observations, of which only 0.3 percent, or 1,042 dyads, were at war
(King & Zeng)
There are often more plausible causal variables than can
accurately be tested given the number of cases.
Methodological Errors and Faulty
Inferences
Selecting on the
dependent variable:
-
examine
(select) cases where the event or action occurred, not where it was absent.
Hypothesis: Evil dictators cause
wars.
Researchers studies wars; ignores non-wars
Want to find variation in independent and dependent
variables.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter
Hoc (False Cause) Fallacy
-
conflate
temporal sequence with causal sequence
-
e.g.,
arms build-up preceded war, therefore arms build-ups caused the war?
Revealed Preferences
-
examine
actions taken and impute motives from action
-
but
action may reflect constraints, not motives
-
problem
for interest-based theories
Levels of Analysis
Locates level
of the causal variable
1. Individual
2. State (political system,
bureaucracy)
3. System
Many IR scholars favor systemic explanations
-
parsimony:
can explain more with less
-
interactive
or ‘strategic’ component: what is the other individual, bureaucracy, or state
attempting to do?