Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T16:21:50.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lakatos and Neorealism: A Reply to Vasquez

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Colin Elman  and
Miriam Fendius Elman
Colin Elman
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Miriam Fendius Elman
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We disagree that our correspondence (Elman and Elman 1995) regarding Schroeder (1994) supports Vasquez's (1997) verdict that the neorealist scientific research program is degenerating. We argue that Vasquez's conclusion is based on a misstatement of the Lakatosian criteria of appraisal and a mistaken conflation of the neorealist research program with the proposition that balancing is a common foreign policy. We do, however, welcome Vasquez's attempt to apply Lakatosian metatheory to international relations theory, and we hope that this conversation will encourage others to follow his lead.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 923 - 926
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blaug, Mark. 1976. “Kuhn versus Lakatos or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics.” In Method and Appraisal in Economics, ed. Latsis, Spiro J.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1992. The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1984. “A Critique of ‘A Critique of The War Trap.’“ Journal of Conflict Resolution 28(06):341–60.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Krasner, Stephen, and Jervis, Robert. 1985. “Symposium: Methodological Foundations of the Study of International Conflict.” International Studies Quarterly 29(06): 121–36.Google Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 1988. “On Novel Facts: A Discussion of Criteria for Non-ad-hoc-ness in the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 19(2): 205–31.Google Scholar
de Marchi, Neil. 1991. “Introduction: Rethinking Lakatos.” In Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programs, ed. de Marchi, Neil and Blaug, Mark. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin. 1996. “Horses for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies 6(Autumn):7–53.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 1995. “Correspondence: History vs. Neorealism: A Second Look.” International Security 20(Summer):182–93.Google Scholar
Frankel, Benjamin. 1996. “Restating the Realist Case: An Introduction.” Security Studies 5(Spring):ix–xx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph M. 1995. “The Maastrich Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union and the Neorealist Research Programme.” Review of International Studies 21(01):21–40.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 1991a. “The Problem of Excess Content: Economics, Novelty and a Long Popperian Tale.” In Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programs, ed. de Marchi, Neil and Blaug, Mark. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 1991b. “Reply to Hamminga and Maki.” In Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programs, ed. de Marchi, Neil and Blaug, Mark. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter, ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert O.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1971a. “Replies to Critics.” In In Memory of Rudolf Camap, ed. Buck, Roger C. and Cohen, Robert S.. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 8. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1971b. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In In Memory of Rudolf Camap, ed. Buck, Roger C. and Cohen, Robert S.. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 8. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre, and Zahar, Elie. 1975. “Why Did Copernicus' Research Program Supersede Ptolemy's?” In The Copernican Achievement, ed. Westman, Robert S.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994/1995. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19(Winter):5–59.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1988. Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 1974. “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25(03): 1–23.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 1976. “Method or Madness? Can the Methodology of Research Programmes be Rescued from Epistemological Anarchism?” In Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, ed. Cohen, R. S., Feyerabend, P. K., and Wartofsky, M. W.. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 39. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Nunan, Richard. 1984. “Novel Facts, Bayesian Rationality, and the History of Continental Drift.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15(4):267–307.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1986. “Lakatosian Consolations for Economics.” Economics and Philosophy 2:127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Paul W. 1994. “Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory.” International Security 19(Summer):108–48.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Paul W. 1995. “History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look: The Author Replies.” International Security 20(Summer):193–5.Google Scholar
Simowitz, Roslyn, and Price, Barry L.. 1990. “The Expected Utility Theory of Conflict: Measuring Theoretical Progress.” American Political Science Review 84(06):439–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition.” American Political Science Review 91(12):899–912.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46(Spring):391–425.Google Scholar
Worral, John. 1978. “The Ways in Which the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Improves on Popper's Methodology.” In Progress and Rationality in Science, ed. Radnitzky, Gerard and Andersson, Gunnar. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Zahar, Elie. 1973. “Why Did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's? (I)” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24(06):95–123.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.