Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics

With a New Preface by Harvey Starr

Benjamin A. Most, Harvey Starr

• Publisher: University of South Carolina Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781611175929
• eBook ISBN: 9781611175936
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Through the use of logic, simulation, and empirical data, Benjamin A. Most and Harvey Starr develop and demonstrate a nuanced and more appropriate conceptualization of explanation in international relations and foreign policy in Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. They demonstrate that a concern with the logical underpinnings of research raises a series of theoretical, conceptual, and epistemological issues that must be addressed if theory and research design are to meet the challenges of cumulation in the study of international relations (or any area of social science). The authors argue for understanding the critical, yet subtle, interplay of the elements with a research triad composed of theory, logic, and method.

1

INTRODUCTION:

Cumulation, Theory and the Logic of Inquiry

INTRODUCTION: AIMS AND GENERAL ISSUES

The aims of the following presentation are both quite modest and brash. Much of what we will say about logic, its place in the development of research design and its interaction with theory, data, and analysis, will not be surprising to students of logic or philosophy of science. By the time we reach the end of this discussion, however, we will have said some very brash things about the study of political science, international politics, and international conflict. Through the use of logic, simulation, and empirical data of various kinds, we will have reached conclusions regarding the search for generalizations, the place of general laws, the use of critical tests to judge between contending explanations, the use of micro-macro distinctions, the relationships between environmental or contextual structures and the choices and behavior of environed entities, and specific differences in perspective on systemic and decision-maker levels of analysis in the study of international politics.

In taking up these issues we venture into the emerging cottage industry that concerns the nature, scope, study, and progress of the field of international relations. Over the past decade much of the research and writing on the study of international politics, especially “scientific” or quantitative approaches, has tended to be introspective.¹ Looking back at the work that has been completed, scholars have concluded that much progress has been made in what Dina Zinnes (1976a) has called “additive cumulation.” That is, analysts’ descriptive sense of international relations and foreign policy phenomena has substantially expanded in quantity and quality. New data sets exist. Scholars cite one another. The understanding of a variety of analytical techniques has greatly improved. In terms of what Zinnes calls “integrative cumulation,” however, the record is generally much less impressive. Scholars have asked “where have all the theories gone?” in the long road to theory in international relations research (e.g., Phillips, 1974).

Many argue that theoretical understanding has not been greatly advanced. The results do not seem to add up very readily; there is great difficulty in synthesizing seemingly disparate work. Researchers do not seem to be identifying solutions to the theoretical, methodological and policy problems that challenge them. The field seems incapable of bringing closure to important theoretical and empirical questions.

The value of such reviews is clear. The discussions yield important suggestions for recasting systematic and quantitative research on international politics. The first purpose of this book is to augment the “cumulation” literature by focusing on topics that are germane to most current researchers in international politics. We begin with two basic contentions. We argue that scholars need to recognize the existence of a research triad consisting of method, theory, and logic, and that each leg of this triad is critical for advancing our knowledge of international phenomena.² Second, we argue that analysts have not generally understood the nature of that triad and that they have therefore paid primary attention to standard methodological questions regarding the collection of data, their quality, and the choice of appropriate analytical techniques. Diagnoses of the failure to make much headway toward an integrative understanding of international relations and foreign policy phenomena have focused primarily on the quality of existing data sets, the need to develop new or “better” data, the utility of various statistical or mathematical procedures, and analysts’ tendency to use an ad hoc hypothesis testing approach (regarding the latter, see Zinnes, 1976b).

While methodology texts and general discussions of research strategies—which discuss various aspects of data and design—may be found in abundance, few efforts are made to probe conceptual and epistemological research issues in the international relations field. While standard questions of method are important (as will be elaborated below), they have overshadowed both theoretical issues on one hand, and logical/epistemological concerns, on the other. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (1985a:128, 130) summarizes this position when arguing: “To the extent that logical consistency is accepted as an elemental requirement of all research, formal, explicit theorizing takes intellectual, if not temporal precedence over empiricism. . . . Too often, however, our empirical predilections lead us to fail to explore the logical basis for the empirical expectations derived from competing hypotheses” (emphasis in original).³

We will demonstrate in the following chapters that a concern with the logical underpinnings of research leads inexorably to broader conceptual and theoretical concerns. Our focus is therefore on a series of theoretical, conceptual, logical and epistemological issues which, though quite simple and not unique to the study of international relations, are generally unrecognized and which impede the development of a base of verifiable and generalizable knowledge about the causes and consequences of international phenomena. We argue that an additional explanation of the failure to produce meaningful cumulation and results may be that international relations scholars have often failed to recognize those difficulties. Furthermore, in many cases analysts’ theoretical arguments, concepts, research designs, statistical/mathematical procedures, and general understanding of the means and ultimate ends of the research enterprise in international relations are logically inconsistent.

Using War to Illustrate the Arguments

Often, scholars begin with questionable epistemological assumptions, utilize inappropriate techniques, and ultimately search for the wrong ends. This has occurred across all areas and subjects in the study of international relations. While our examples are drawn from international relations as a whole, and our conclusions are expanded to deal with the general foreign policy making process (see chapter 5 in particular), we draw primarily from the area of international conflict and war to illustrate our arguments.

There are a number of reasons for such a focus. The first, and simplest, is that this is the research area with which we are most familiar. In addition, international conflict and war have been, and continue to be, important and central concerns to the study of international relations; the decision process related to the use of force, or to go to war, is illustrative of the processes behind major foreign policy decisions. Using this approach, we are also more readily able to draw illustrations from our own research on the diffusion of violent conflict. We often make reference to our own work on the study of diffusion to indicate ways in which to avoid these logical traps—from conceptualization (Most and Starr, 1981), through research design, to analysis and interpretation (e.g., Most and Starr, 1980; Starr and Most 1983, 1985a).⁴ We have, thus, developed our arguments most fully in regard to the conceptualization and study of “war,” as presented in chapter 4.⁵ However, we will also find that treatments of alliance, systemic polarity and war, dyadic power relationships and war, and many other substantive areas consist of results that fail to add up because of flaws in analysts’ logic that have weakened both theory and research design.

Using this specific area of inquiry we can present our arguments without expanding the present volume into a comprehensive international relations theory textbook. By developing one ongoing example in depth, we hope to enhance the reader’s comprehension of a series of rather complex arguments and analyses. This may be more easily done if the same concepts and foci are carried on from chapter to chapter.

One central concern in this volume is that research design may not be logically consistent with the empirical phenomena and related theory it is supposed to study. War is a useful example of a whole range of phenomena that are resultants of the interaction of states or other international actors. As we will show, many of the problems to be discussed arise from the failure to understand that many international phenomena are interdependent outcomes of the interaction of two or more actors. This failure is a central reason for our concern with the logic of research design.

As can be demonstrated through analytic tools such as game theory, many of the things we study in international relations occur only as the combined, interdependent choice of two or more actors. War may be the most clear-cut example of this pervasive phenomena. This characterization of war is systematically developed in chapters 3 and 4 (after the framework of “opportunity and willingness” is developed in chapter 2). However, this characteristic is certainly not limited to war, but is similar in the creation of alliances, the formation of IGOs (or in some models, the creation of international regimes), and the conclusion of treaties or agreements in any area. In chapter 5 our analyses are generalized to foreign policy, and we discuss alliance theory, general security theory, and broad questions of international cooperation.

One important part of the conceptualization of “process” we present derives from our concern with phenomena that are the product of state interaction. Here, process means the interdependent outcome of two or more actors choosing policy options from a menu of opportunities or possibilities that constrain their choice. That is, process, in part, denotes a conscious process of choice in each of two or more actors, and that the international phenomena under study occurs only through the interaction of the results of such choice. As discussed in chapter 2, this view is quite different from deterministic theories of international relations which can be based on the structure of the international system, or, as discussed in chapter 4, on the characteristics of individual states.

Thus, war is being used to illustrate a broad range of international behavior. The arguments presented are not intended to be confined to war, and examples will be given to show how the arguments relate to other phenomena. International conflict and war, do, however, provide us with a manageable focus for the development of our overall presentation.

Logic and Inquiry

While questions of necessity and sufficiency are introduced and developed in depth in chapter 3, one simple result of that discussion can be noted here to illustrate our concern with the impact of logic. Many research projects are based on the form “if X, then Y.” This form delineates sufficiency, that X always leads to Y. However, more often than not, the research is designed to analyze only those cases where Y actually occurs (collecting all examples of war, crisis, alliance, diplomatic exchange, etc.). When this is done, statistical analysis can reveal only that Y is always preceded by X (X does not always lead to Y). This latter form delineates a necessary relationship. Thus, the design does not match and cannot answer the question posed. One simple remedy is to collect data on cases where Y is not the result (–Y) as well, in order to test sufficiency (X always leads to Y, but Y is not always preceded by X). Bueno de Mesquita (e.g., 1981a, 1985a) is one of the few students of international politics who has explicitly taken the issue of necessity and sufficiency into account, and has produced appropriate research designs.⁶

In the following chapters we attempt to demonstrate—rather than simply assert—the existence, nature, and importance of the theoretical and epistemological questions with which we are concerned. In addition to indicating shortcomings as noted above, more positively, we indicate the implications of analysts’ failure to recognize such concerns and develop a variety of potential solutions to each difficulty. The implications of those procedures for theory in international relations are outlined, often using illustrations drawn from our own work on international conflict. Inferences are drawn in regard to such topics as:

1. New conceptualizations of what it may mean to “explain” international relations and foreign policy phenomena⁷.

2. A reanalysis of the ultimate end of research in international relations, focusing particularly on empirical generalizations, “true” or “nice” laws.

3. The conceptual and theoretical limitations of “middle-range” theory and the need for renewed efforts to construct “grand theory.”

4. The utility of beginning, rather than concluding, with “stylized” facts and explanations.

5. The related issue of the problem of gaining closure on theoretical and empirical questions—designing research programs so that more promising avenues can be pursued, and less promising areas can be identified and bypassed.

6. The critical importance and (yet) subtle interplay between analysts’ theoretical arguments and their research design; the holistic quality of the research triad of logic, theory, and method.

7. The weaknesses of static attribute analysis, and the need for more dynamic, process-oriented approaches to the study of international relations.

8. The crucial importance of a second triad—the ecological triad of Harold and Margaret Sprout composed of entity, environment, and the entity-environment relationship; the importance of micro-macro linkages, and micro-macro/process-structure linkages.

Several of the themes introduced above require further development, particularly as they help introduce the concepts of opportunity and willingness, which are presented in depth in chapter 2. These concepts, in turn, provide an anchor for the arguments to be presented in all of the following chapters.

CUMULATION

Discussions concerning the development of theory, or the general health of the study of international relations have focused on the notion of cumulation (see, for example, Rosenau, 1976a, part 2; Starr, 1974; Zinnes, 1980; Hopmann, Singer and Zinnes, 1981; Russett, 1983; Most and Starr, 1984; and Papadakis and Starr, 1987). Many scholars speak of cumulation in the same terms that others speak of progress. For example, Dryzek (1986:301, 302) defines progress as “an increasing ability to explain and connect complex phenomena,” with science progressing through “accumulation.”⁸ Boynton (1976:145) neatly sums up this conception of cumulation by noting that it is “a frame of mind of the practitioners of the field,” that suggests “what is known now that was not known before and what can be done now that could not be done before.”

Several commentators have distinguished between different types of cumulation. The distinction between “narrow” views of cumulation that stress accumulations of data and findings and “broad” conceptions that focus on theoretical development (Rosenau, 1976b:6), is most clearly drawn by Zinnes (1976a:162). Zinnes’s terminology of “additive” and “integrative” cumulation rather than narrow and broad, has become standard usage (corresponding also to Ashley’s [1976:152] notions of “expansive” and “selective” cumulation, respectively).

For Zinnes, additive cumulation occurs whe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Preface to the 2015 Edition
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Introduction: Cumulation, Theory, and the Logic of Inquiry
• 2 Opportunity and Willingness: A Pre-Theoretic Framework
• 3. Basic Logic and Research Design: Conceptualization, Case Selection, and the Form of Relationships
• 4. Conceptualizing War: Attributes and Process
• 5. Foreign Policy Substitutability and “Nice” Laws: Integrating Process and Theory
• 6. The Logic of International Structure: Power, War, and Micro-Macro Linkages
• 7. Conclusion: Closure, Cumulation, and International Relations Theory
• Notes
• References
• Index