Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:55:57.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Expected Utility Theory of Conflict: Measuring Theoretical Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Roslyn Simowitz  and
Barry L. Price
Roslyn Simowitz
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Arlington
Barry L. Price
Affiliation:
Tarleton State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the “progressivity” of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's theory of conflict as originally developed in The War Trap and as extended later. Bueno de Mesquita offers the progressivity of the expected utility theory relative to other theories and approaches to conflict as his major defense in responding to critics. Bueno de Mesquita essentially relies on Imre Lakatos' definition of theoretical progress in presenting his argument. A review of the literature addressing the concept of theoretical progress indicates that Bueno de Mesquita's application of Lakatosian criteria is incomplete and that Lakatos' criteria are themselves flawed. We review the philosophy of science literature dealing with theoretical progress or rational criteria for theory choice and evaluate the progressivity of the expected utility theory of conflict in light of criteria other than Lakatos'. While we do recommend further elaboration of Bueno de Mesquita's theory, we do not find it more progressive than its rivals.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 439 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

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

Agassi, J. 1964. “The Nature of Scientific Problems and Their Roots in Metaphysics.” In Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, ed. Bunge, Mario. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Altfeld, M., and Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de. 1979. “Choosing Sides in Wars.” International Studies Quarterly 23: 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, Bruce. 1983. “Realignment in International Treaty Organizations.” International Studies Quarterly 27: 77–96.Google Scholar
Berkson, William. 1974. Fields of Force: The Development of a World View from Faraday to Einstein. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Berkson, William. 1976. “Lakatos One and Lakatos Two: An Appreciation.” In Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 39, ed. Cohen, Robert S., Feyerabend, Paul K., and Wartofsky, Marx W.. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Brace. 1980. “An Expected Utility Theory of Conflict.” American Political Science Review 74: 917–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Brace. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1983. “The Costs of War: An Expected Utility Approach.” American Political Science Review 77: 347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1984a. “A Critique of A Critique of the War Trap.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28:341–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1984b. “Theory and the Advancement of Knowledge about War: A Reply.” Review of International Studies 10: 65–75.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1984c. “Forecasting Policy Decisions: An Expected Utility Approach to Post-Khomeini Iran.” PS 17: 226–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1985a. “The War Trap Revisited: A Revised Expected Utility Model.” American Political Science Review 79: 156–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1985b. “Toward a Scientific Understanding of International Conflict: A Personal View.” International Studies Quarterly 29: 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1987. “Conceptualizing War: A Reply.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 31: 370–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1986. “Reason and War.” American Political Science Review 80: 1113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Brace, Newman, David, and Rabuska, Alvin. 1985. Forecasting Political Events: The Future of Hong Kong. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1970. “Consolations for the Specialist.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1978. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Knowledge. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1985. “Pluralistic Rigor: A Comment on Bueno de Mesquita.” International Studies Quarterly 29: 145–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khong, Yuen Foong. 1984. “War and International Theory: A Comment on the State of the Art.” Review of International Studies 10: 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1985. “Toward Understanding in International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 29: 137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1976. Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Vol. 1. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Lawrence. 1977. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Luterbacher, Urs. 1984. “Last Words about War?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28: 165–82.Google Scholar
Majeski, Steven, and Sylvan, Donald J.. 1984. “Simple Choices and Complex Calculations: A Critique of The War Trap.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28: 316–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J. Donald. 1975. “The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives.” In Handbook of Political Science: Scope and Theory, vol. 1, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W.. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1985. “A Continuous Outcome Expected Utility Theory of War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29: 473–502.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1986. “A Spatial Model of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 80: 1131–50.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 1974. “The Objectivism of Popper's Epistemology.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, ed. Schilpp, Paul A.. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 1976. “Method or Madness?” In Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 39, ed. Cohen, Robert S., Feyerabend, Paul K., and Wartofsky, Marx W.. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, David. 1982. “Security and Alliances.” Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Michael. 1983. The Scientific Analysis of Social Behavior: A Defense of Empiricism in Social Science. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Michael. 1987. “The Conceptual Bases of The War Trap.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 31:346–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard. 1953. From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James, ed. 1973. In Search of Global Patterns. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, John, and Morgenstern, Oskar. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Harrison R. 1984. “War and Expected Utility Theory.” World Politics 36: 407–23.Google Scholar
Zagare, Frank. 1982. Review of The War Trap by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. American Political Science Review 76:738–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.