International Relations’ Nomological Machines: The Neo-Neo Synthesis’s Tale of Law-Like Explanations
No. 117 (2024-01-01)Author(s)
-
Enzo LenineUniversidade Federal da Bahia (Brasil)ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5280-4252
-
Mariana LyraUniversidade da Integração Internacional da Lusofonia Afro-Brasileira (Brazil)ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6519-9469
Abstract
Objective/context: This article introduces debates on Nancy Cartwright’s concept of nomological machines applied to international relations theory. What the neo-neo synthesis claims as the essence of the international system is a set of conditions imposed upon international phenomena for the latter to fit into the theories themselves. It argues that the law-like explanations tailored by neorealism and neoliberalism are by no means a representation of the world as it is, but rather a predication of the world as these theories want it to be. Methodology: It critically reviews the foundations of neo-neo theories, suggesting a philosophical methodology by reframing the ontological terms of neorealism and neoliberalism based on the concept of nomological machines. Conclusions: This article contends that neo-neo theories could benefit from a capacities-oriented approach, which offers a less categorical understanding of how explanations of international phenomena are tailored, allowing alternative principles to provide invaluable insights about the international system. Originality: This paper innovates by intersecting the ideas of nomological machines with the metatheoretical debate on international relations, thus enabling theoretical improvement.
References
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, Robert, and Robert O. Keohane. 1985. “Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38 (1): 226-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010357
Baldwin, David A. 1993. “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics.” In Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, edited by David A. Baldwin, 3-25. New York: Columbia University Press.
Banks, Michael. 1985. “The Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory, edited by Margot Light and A. J. R. Groom, 7-26. London: Frances Pinter.
Bergman, Theodore L., Adrienne S. Lavine, Frank P. Incropera, and David P. Dewitt. 2011. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (7th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley & Sons Inc.
Burchill, Scott, and Andrew Linklater. 2001. “Introduction.” In Theories of International Relations (3rd ed.), edited by Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True, 1-28. New York: Palgrave.
Cartwright, Nancy. 1998. “Capacities.” In The Handbook of Economic Methodology, edited by John B. Davis, D. Wade Hands, and Uskali Mäki, 45-48. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167093
Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618758
Chernoff, Fred. 2007. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230606883
Chernoff, Fred. 2014. Explanation and Progress in Security Studies: Bridging Theoretical Divides in International Relations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dowding, Keith. 2016. The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. London: Palgrave. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57270-7
Farr, James. 1995. “Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science.” In Political Science in History, edited by James Farr, John Dryzek, and Stephen Leonard, 198-224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fearon, James, and Alexander Wendt. 2006. “Rationalism vs. constructivism: a skeptical view.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 52-72. London: SAGE Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608290.n3
Gintis, Herbert. 2009. Game Theory Evolving (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Griecco, Joseph M. 1993. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” In Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, edited by David A. Baldwin, 485-507. New York: Columbia University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027715
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2015. “Contending Conceptions of Science and Politics: Methodology and the Constitution of the Political.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 27-49. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315703275-3
Hédoin, Cyril. 2014. “Models in Economics Are Not (Always) Nomological Machines: A Pragmatic Approach to Economists’ Modeling Practices.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (4): 424-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112458715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112458715
Herrmann, Richard K. 2006. “Linking Theory to Evidence in International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 119-136. London: SAGE Publications.
Hindmoor, Andrew, and Brad Taylor. 2015. Rational Choice (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-42744-1
Holsti, K. J. 1985. The dividing discipline: hegemony and diversity in international theory. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Jervis, Robert. 1999. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate.” International Security 24 (1): 42-63. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560040
Kaplan, Morton. 1969. “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations.” In Contending Approaches to International Politics, edited by James Rosenay, 39-61. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400886005-004
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Reciprocity in International Relations.” International Organization 40 (1): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004458
Keohane, Robert O. 1994. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph Nye Jr. 2012. Power and Interdependence (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Kirkpatrick, Evron. 1962. “The Impact of the Behavioral Approach on Traditional Political Science.” In Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics, edited by Austin Ranney, 1-30. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 2017. A estrutura das revoluções científicas (13th ed.). São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Kurki, Milja. 2008. Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491481
Kurki, Milja, and Colin Wight. 2021. “International Relations and Social Science.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 13-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0001
Lamy, Steven. 2008. “Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, 124-141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lapid, Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2014. Constructing Cause in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107256538
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2022. The Quest for Knowledge in International Relations: How do we know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009106573
Lebow, Richard Ned, and Thomas Risse-Kappen. 1996. “Introduction: International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.” In International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, edited by Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen, 6-19. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lenine, Enzo. 2018. “Explanation as prediction: The raison d’être of formal models in political science.” Revista Política Hoje 27 (1): 152-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51359/1808-8708.2018.234392
Lenine, Enzo. 2020. “The pulse-like nature of decisions in rational choice theory.” Rationality and Society 32 (4): 485-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463120961578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463120961578
Nicholson, Michael. 1992. Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598739
Mearsheimer, John J. 2021. “Structural Realism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 51-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0003
Nye Jr, Joseph. 1988. “Neorealism and Neoliberalism.” World Politics 40 (2): 235-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010363 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010363
Powell, Robert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691213989
Quirk, Joel, and Darshan Vigneswaran. 2005. “The construction of an edifice: the story of a First Great Debate.” Review of International Studies 31 (1): 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006315 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006315
Shapere, Dudley. 1964. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Philosophical Review 73 (3): 383-94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183664 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183664
Smith, Steve. 1996. “Positivism and Beyond.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 11-44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.003
Smith, Steve. 2021. “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 1-12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0018
Snyder, Glenn H. 1971. “‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and ‘Chicken’ Models in International Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 15 (1): 66-103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3013593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3013593
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2021. “Neoliberalism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 89-107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0005
Suganami, Hidemi. 1996. On the Causes of War. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273387.001.0001
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. London: Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2008. Realism and International Politics. New York: Routledge.
Wæver, Ole. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 149-185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009
Wæver, Ole. 2021. “Still a Discipline After All These Debates?” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 322-343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491764
Wight, Colin. 2013. “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations (2nd ed.), edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 29-56. London: SAGE.
Wilson, Peter. 1998. “The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate.’” Review of International Studies 24 (5): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210598000011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210598000011
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Enzo Lenine, Mariana Preta Oliveira de Lyra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.