The+Benefits+of+a+Social-Scientific+Approach+to+Studying++International+Affairs

International Affairs The focus of this essay is on rational choice approaches to the study of IR that rely upon game theory. Why game theory? · Game theory is a body of reasoning designed explicitly to attend to the logic of strategic interaction · Game theory provides tools that can help integrate important knowledge derived from structural, behavioral and psychological approaches · Game theory has enjoyed particular success in the area of prediction · Author believes in the benefits of a **scientific approach** to international relations as the o Explanation of a phenomenon must be based on logically consistent and explicit arguments o Empirical evaluation of an argument must rely on **testable, falsifiable claims** whose assessment is replicable by independent researchers · Rational choice is not inherently more or less scientific than other theories; science address issues on how to evaluate arguments and evidence; the scientific method is agnostic with regard to method · ** Strategic Interaction ** is when decision-makers select a course of action taking into account expectations about how others will respond o Game theory rarely makes assumptions that eliminate strategic maneuvering o Author believes that non-game-theoretic models often assume away or greatly simplify the most interesting features of strategic interaction in international affairs · ** Integrates Structural, Behavioral and Psychological Theories ** o Structure – choices are constrained by the situation in which decision-makers find themselves o Behavioral – game theory provides a means to examine attitudes, perceptions, uncertainties and learning on the part of decision-makers o Psychological – game theory provides a systematic means of analyzing and predicting behavior across large classes of events (sincerity, bluffing etc.) · ** Prediction ** : structural, behavioral and psychological perspectives haven’t come up with any clear and detailed predictions of important events while game theory has. · Differ in the emphasis placed on and the interpretation of context, sequence and meaning and in the methods used o ** Historians ** – focused on particular events, culturally and temporally bounded interpretations, unique § Internal Validity: discourse, meaning, context and complexity § Path Dependence crucial (how one set of events influences another) o ** Social Scientists ** – believe in broadly applicable generalizations. Cultural, temporal or contextual considerations are embedded within theoretical constructs in which they serve as variables. More concerned with how variables relate to each other than with explaining particular events or actions. Test theoretical propositions about causation § External Validity: regularities, replication and parsimony § Path Dependence important because they help us understand endogeneities – how logic of the situation leads decision-makers to choose strategically the values on key variables
 * Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, “The Benefits of a Social-Scientific Approach to Studying **
 * Scientific Approach **
 * Game Theory **
 * Social Scientists vs. Historians **

· Endogeneity is a central theme in rational choice arguments that assume individuals are motivated to do as well as they //believe// they can o Endogeneity implies that **path dependence** is important and evolutionary processes are essential elements in understanding how circumstances, nations, alliances and the like change o Path dependence of social interaction is consistent with the approach to international affairs that emphasizes strategic interaction and rational choice · Constructs are NOT a given – but can be explained by the motivations behind individual choices and the logic of the context within which such choices are made o Choices are forward looking o Choices are designed to gain advantages over competitors · ** Nash Equilibrium ** : a set of strategies for all players such that no player can improve his or her expected welfare by a unilateral switch in actions at any choice point in the game. · How you select your cases is very important; otherwise you run the risk of drawing incorrect inferences from empirical observations IF you do not take into account the impact that strategic interaction has on behavior · Example: Nation A, who has an enemy (B), and B’s ally (C) o If A attacks B, C does not help B – the alliance seems unreliable o BUT according to author, this inference does not necessarily follow from empirical observation o Have to think of it like this: if A thinks the alliance is reliable, then A will not attack B (and C). If A thinks the alliance ISN’T reliable, then A will attack B.   § SO cannot judge an alliance solely on the attacks – this fails to test the reliability of alliances properly. Therefore the most reliable alliances do not get tested because they succeed in deterring attacks § Can’t just study what really happened · Do not choose cases where a particular outcome has occurred…choose cases where a particular set of variables are relevant
 * Situations and Strategic Choices (Endogeneity) **
 * Selection Effects **

· Error of portraying observations as explanations or even predictions · Deductive modeling as opposed to inductive research is much LESS LIKELY to conflate argument and evidence o Thick analysis – want to do it when want to describe particular events as accurate as possible NOT when want to evaluate an explanation of how variables relate to one another across cases of a social phenomenon o When the objective is to explain general phenomena, the causality implied by a theory of how variables related to each other, thick analysis serves to distort and mislead · Need to distinguish carefully between the evidence from which the inference is derived and evidence suitable for testing the proposition
 * Independence between Arguments and Evidence **

· Author with two others established a company that uses game theory models to predict foreign and domestic policy decision-making, to assist businesses in preparing to cope with the strategic environment · How it works: o Experts provide best estimates of data on a few key variables o And then model processes that information, based on a spatial analysis within a limited information game setting, and provides more reliable predictions than do the experts who data have been used · Limitations of Game Theory Models o Inappropriate for predicting market-driven events not governed by political considerations o Imprecise with timing of decisions and outcomes o Needs inputs from area or issue experts o Game theory analyses are abstract – great simplifications of reality o Terminology driven
 * Prediction and International Relations **

· Game theory serves as a tool for discovering the logical implications of the researcher’s assumptions in an environment of strategic interaction
 * Conclusion **