| Sumario: | A commentary on Stephen M. Walt's “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies,” which appeared in International Security, vol. 23, no. 4, Spring 1999, pp. 5-48. Walt argues that the central aim of social science is to develop knowledge that is relevant to understanding important social problems, and this requires, among other things, theories that are precise, logically consistent, original, and empirically valid. The writers explore how the rational choice approach to security studies contributes significantly in these ways, and they address some misrepresentations in Walt's article. They outlines some of the advantages of using formal theory to sort through the wealth of ideas that exist in international politics. They demonstrate that Walt at times misrepresents the arguments advanced in papers using formal models, and they outline how Walt's article appears to suffer from some confusion about the scientific enterprise. They agree with Walt that security studies should welcome contributions from formal theory.
|
|---|