International Relations as a Social Science: Relevance and Rigor

Basic Info

• Author(s):Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake
• Year of Publication: 2005
• Journal/Publisher: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; Sage Publications Inc.
• Link to Paper: https://www.jstorA8B7A1org/stable/25046115

Main Research Question

“Our primary argument is that progress in the study of international politics including in making its lessons more relevant to policy – depends on more, not less, rigorous theory and more, not less, systematic empirical testing (Frieden and Lake, 2005, p. 137).”

Essentially, the authors argue that the study and research in IR becomes relevant to real world policy issues and useful for practical applications when it is more ‘scientific’. They do acknowledge that theory does not always overpower politics but they emphasise the need for the discipline to be more scientific for it to be useful in the real world. 

Key Arguments and Findings

The Importance of Theory in Policy Making.

According to the authors, theory:

• Is not a substitute for policy expertise, problem-solving expertise, or political experience/struggle.
• Can discipline policy makers and prevent them from sloppy thinking and decision-making.

A scientific study in the field of IR can provide logical and empirical checks on people in decision-making roles and their possible biases/influences (Frieden and Lake, 2005, p. 138).

The authors also consider practical theories prevalent in IR discourse

Nuclear Deterrence Theory (Frieden and Lake, 2005, pp. 139-41)

• developed between 1952 and 1966
• most completed under RAND corporation under contract of the US Air Force
  • included military strategists, scientists, economists, and political scientists.
• Core problems addressed:
  • Immediate Deterrence: how to prevent attacks against the US
  • Extended Deterrence: serving US interests abroad
  • Gaining bargaining advantages over the Soviet Union.
• MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction
• Crisis would only arise if there was uncertainty about either side’s resolve on carrying out mutually assured destruction.
• The power of the theory rests on the clarity of its logic and the force of its (untested) implications
• Purely theoretical, logic based. No empirical evidence.
  • It cannot be reasonably tested either

An example of actual theory that affects political decision-making constantly

Democratic Peace Theory (Frieden and Lake, 2005, pp. 141-43)

• Suggested by Kant that perpetual peace could be formed from the principles of representative democracy, international law, and free and unrestricted international commerce.
• Empirical findings:
  • Democracies are no more or less prone to war than other types of regimes.
  • Democracies almost never escalate conflicts with each other to the level of war.
• Critique: lack of relevance to domestic politics.
• Two implications:
  • research becomes important out of academia because of the law-like status of theory.
  • The absence of consensus on the explanation weakens the impact of finding.
• Unlike Nuclear Deterrence Theory, which is logically consistent despite lack of empirical evidence.
  • There is empirical evidence, but no theoretical reasoning that is widely accepted. Nevertheless, it is still an important consideration in political decision-making.

Theory of Trade Preferences (Frieden and Lake, 2005, pp. 143-45)

• Countries have always protected domestic markets.
• It has been largely difficult to explain why trade policies vary across countries.
• Identifying how to bring maximal pressure to bear on others while imposing the fewest costs on their own economies: something that can be understood through political economy.
  • IMF and World bank often consider the political economy in its discussions relating to member states’ policies.
  • Also referred to by activist groups

Newer Theories (at the time)

The BargainingTheory of War (Frieden and Lake, 2005, pp. 146-49)

• Revolutionary for conflict studies
• “War is understood as a bargaining failure that leaves both sides worse off than if they had been able to negotiate an efficient solution.
• Extremely useful theory for understanding wars: answering the questions why do wars happen?
• Reasons for bargaining failures:
  • Lack of credibility in commitment.
  • Private Information, Incentives to give inaccurate signals and information

Open Economy Politics (Frieden and Lake, 2005, pp. 149-51)

• This was an influential approach intended to integrate the domestic policy making aspect of trade with the international context. The unit of analysis were firms, sectors, or factors of production (Frieden and Lake, 149)
• Questions asked:
  • How are individuals affected by domestic policy? (Frieden and Lake, 150)
  • How do national states interact with each other to determine the joint outcome of their actions? (Frieden and Lake, 150)
  • How do Institutions structure bargaining and affect outcomes? (Frieden and Lake, 150)

The Bargaining Theory of War and Open Economy Politics Theory are examples of theories that illustrate the potential theory has in benefiting policy if it becomes more scientific.

Why Is This Paper Important?

This paper continues to make strong and relevant contentions despite the fact that it is over 2 decades old. It illustrates the merit in making social science, IR, more scientific – it provides value beyond informed opinion and can have practical policy implications. 

TL;DR

The field of International Relations needs a more scientific approach. Rigorous theory and testing must be implemented to identify what drives policy, not just scholarly opinions. Examples include Nuclear Deterrence Theory, Democratic Peace Theory, Trade Preferences Theory, Strategic Bargaining Theory of War, Open Economy Politics Theory.