The Utility of IR Theories

One question that is frequently posed to any student of international relations is what theories of IR are good for. For many, the study of international politics is of little value. But this line of thought is wrong. IR theories help us not just to understand previously obscuring things, but can help us to make good foreign policy decision, too. Reason enough to study them, or not?

The fundamental aim of social science is to develop useful information about human social behavior. The specific utility of IR theories is to make sense of a bunch of international political activities. Traditionally, interstate relations received the most attention, but since recently, intrastate and transnational activities have become more important, and rightly so. The immediate utility of this research is the knowledge it generates. IR theories allow us to understand previously unrelated, perplexing, unexplored or misunderstood behavior.

Theory and policy are inextricably linked:

Each day, policy makers try to figure out which events merit attention and which items or issues can be ignored, and they must select objectives and choose policy instruments that will achieve them. Whether correct or not, they do this on the basis of some sort of theory (Walt 2005: 28).

The theoretical exploration of international politics thus is not just intellectually satisfying, but important for the practical conduct of foreign policy, as well. Wrong theories lead to bad foreign policy decisions. Good theories lead to good foreign policy decisions.

One example that illustrates these two points is the opinion that a show of force leads states to bandwagon with threatening countries. This is what George W. Bush got wrong when invading Iraq. Instead of the Middle East bandwagoning with the United States, a spread of democracy and the defeat of Islamic terrorism, pretty much the opposite became true. It is not the only instance of this misunderstanding. One major cause for the outbreak of the First World War, Admiral von Tirpitz’s “risk theory” that a German battle fleet would deter Great Britain from opposing German force, was rooted in the same logic. The study of IR theories could have helped both these leaders not to make these mistakes. Structural realist theories clearly show and explain why weaker countries do not bandwagon with, but in the opposite balance the power of actors that pose an immediate threat to them.

A side-debate in the discussion about the utility of IR theories is whether formal theories are superior to informal theories, as some scholars suggest. If IR theories want to achieve their above defined central aim – to make sense of previously unrelated behavior – they have to be precise and consistent, original, and empirically valid. The main virtue of formalization lies in its contribution to logical consistency and precision. The empirical validity of both formal and informal theores is roughly the same. Formal approaches thus generate precise, consistent, and empirically valid theories. This does, however, not guarantee that the generated insights advance our knowledge about international politics. In terms of originality, formal theories lag behind. For the most part, formal approaches take arguments from other scholars and formalize them or test them using mathematical methods. This is an important contribution to the field of International Relations. The main insights the field has generated, however, derive from informal approaches. This is due to the fact that formal approaches are method-driven, while informal approaches are problem-driven.

In sum, IR theories allow us to make sense of previously unrelated behavior and to use this knowledge to formulate good foreign policies. Reason enough to study them, don’t you agree?

Literature
–
- Walt, Stephen M. 1999. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies”. International Security 23(4): 5-48.
- Walt, Stephen M. 2005. “The Relationship Between Theory and Policy in International Relations”. Annual Revue of Political Science 8: 23-48.