Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:53:20.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John A. Vasquez
John A. Vasquez*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several analysts argue that, despite anomalies, the realist paradigm is dominant because it is more fertile than its rivals. While the ability of the realist paradigm to reformulate its theories in light of criticism accounts for its persistence, it is argued that the proliferation of emendations exposes a degenerating tendency in the paradigm's research program. This article applies Lakatos's criterion that a series of related theories must produce problemshifts that are progressive rather than degenerating to appraise the adequacy of realist-based theories on the balancing of power advanced by neotraditionalists. This research program is seen as degenerating because of (1) the protean character of its theoretical development, (2) an unwillingness to specify what constitutes the true theory, which if falsified would lead to a rejection of the paradigm, (3) a continual adoption of auxiliary propositions to explain away flaws, and (4) a dearth of strong research findings.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 899 - 912
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

Banks, Michael. 1985. “The Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In A Handbook of Current Theory, ed. Light, Margot and Groom, A. J. R.. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Boswell, Terry, and Sweat, Mike. 1991. “Hegemony, Long Waves, and Major Wars: A Time Series Analysis of Systemic Dynamics, 1496–1967.” International Studies Quarterly 35(06):123–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. “Risk, Power Distributions, and the Likelihood of War.” International Studies Quarterly 25(12):541–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, Inis L. Jr. 1962. Power and International Relations. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Christensen, Thomas J., and Snyder, Jack. 1990. “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity.” International Organization 44(Spring):137–68.Google Scholar
Dehio, Ludwig. 1961. The Precarious Balance. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review 80(12):1151–69.CrossRefGoogle 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. “History vs. Neorealism: A Second Look.” International Security 20(Summer):182–93.Google Scholar
George, Jim. 1994. Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gulick, Edward V. 1955. Europe's Classical Balance of Power. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst B. 1953. “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?” World Politics 5(04):442–77.Google Scholar
Hollis, Martin, and Smith, Steve. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1978. “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30(01):167–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegley, Charles W. Jr., ed. 1995. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Raymond, Gregory A.. 1994. A Multipolar Peace? Great-Power Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. [1983] 1989. “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Keohane, Robert O.. International Institutions and State Power. Boulder, CO: Westview.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert O.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kissinger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1978. Defending the National Interests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kupchan, Charles. 1994. The Vulnerability of Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 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.Google Scholar
Lapid, Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33(09):235–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch. 1991. “Bandwagon Images in American Foreign Policy: Myth or Reality?” In Dominoes and Bandwagons, ed. Jervis, Robert and Snyder, Jack. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ned, Lebow Richard, and Risse-Kappen, Thomas, eds. 1995. International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1984. “The Offensive/Defensive Balance of Military Technology: A Theoretical and Historical Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly 28(06):219–38.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1990/1991. “Preferences, Constraints, and Choices in July 1914.” International Security 15(Winter):151–86.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S., and Barnett, Michael N.. 1991. “Domestic Sources of Alliances and Alignments: The Case of Egypt, 1962–1973.” International Organization 45(Summer):369–95.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S., and Barnett, Michael N.. 1992. “Alliance Formation, Domestic Political Economy, and Third World Security.” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 14(12):19–40.Google Scholar
Masterman, Margaret. 1970. “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War.” International Security 15(Summer):5–56.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. [1948] 1978. Politics among Nations. 5th rev. ed. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Niou, Emerson, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Rose, Gregory F.. 1989. The Balance of Power: Stability in International Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 1988. “Neorealism and Neoliberalism.” World Politics 40(01):235–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 1993. Understanding International Conflicts. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Olson, William C., and Groom, A. J. R.. 1991. International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation. London: Harper Collins Academic.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K. 1958. World Politics. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K., and Kugler, Jacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Rosecrance, Richard. 1995. “Overextension, Vulnerability, and Conflict.” International Security 19(Spring):145–63.Google Scholar
Rosecrance, Richard, and Lo, Chih-Cheng. 1996. “Balancing, Stability, and War: The Mysterious Case of the Napoleonic International System.” International Studies Quarterly 40(12):479–500.Google Scholar
Rosecrance, Richard, and Stein, Arthur, eds. 1993. The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rosecrance, Richard, and Steiner, Zara. 1993. “British Grand Strategy and the Origins of World War II.” In The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy, ed. Rosecrance, Richard and Stein, Arthur. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Paul W. 1994a. “Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory.” International Security 19(Summer):108–48.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Paul W. 1994b. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Paul W. 1995. “History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look, The Author Replies.” International Security 20(Summer): 193–5.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1992. “Domestic Structure and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific?” World Politics 44(01):235–69.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19(Summer):72–107.Google Scholar
Simowitz, Roslyn, and Price, Barry. 1990. “The Expected Utility Theory of Conflict: Measuring Theoretical Progress.” American Political Science Review 84(06):439–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965.” In Peace, War and Numbers, ed. Russett, Bruce. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
Smith, Steve. 1995. “The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory.” In International Relations Theory Today, ed. Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack, and Jervis, Robert, eds. 1993. Coping with Complexity in the International System. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Spiezio, K. Edward. 1990. “British Hegemony and Major Power War, 1815–1935: An Empirical Test of Gilpin's Model of Hegemonic Governance.” International Studies Quarterly 34 (06):165–81.Google Scholar
Strauss, Barry S. 1991. “Of Balances, Bandwagons, and Ancient Greeks.” In Hegemonic Rivalry: From Thucydides to the Nuclear Age, ed. Lebow, Richard Ned and Strauss, Barry S.. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R., and Zuk, Gary. 1986. “World Power and the Strategic Trap of Territorial Commitments.” International Studies Quarterly 30(09):249–67.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1984. “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War.” International Security 9(Summer): 58–107.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1990/1991. “Primed for Peace: Europe after the Cold War.” International Security 15(Winter):7–57.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1983. The Power of Power Politics: A Critique. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1992. “World Politics Theory.” In Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, ed. Hawkesworth, Mary and Kogan, Maurice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1993. The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1995. “The Post-Positivist Debate: Reconstructing Scientific Enquiry and International Relations Theory after Enlightenment's Fall.” In International Relations Theory Today, ed. Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1996. “When Are Power Transitions Dangerous? An Appraisal and Reformulation of Power Transition Theory.” In Parity and War, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. N.d. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1986. “The Theory of Games and the Balance of Power.” World Politics 38(07):546–76.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wayman, Frank W., and Diehl, Paul F., eds. 1994. Reconstructing Realpolitik. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alex. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46(Spring):391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.