• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 779 0

Experience in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy,” in Manus I. Midlarsky, John A. Vasquez, and Paul V. Gladkov, eds., From Rivalry to Cooperation: Russian and American Perspectives on the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), pp. 56-86. One may note also that Khong’s use of psychological theories is limited to certain cognitive theories. He does not attempt to connect his analysis to the phenomenon of “decisional stress” often experienced by decision-makers when they must make important, highly consequential decisions under the three well-known cognitive limits on rationality: inadequate information, inadequate knowledge for evaluating likely outcomes of different options, and lack of a single utility function that encompasses the several values at stake. Resort to historical analogies is one way of coping with decisional stress. In his next to last chapter, Khong explains his failure to address this question by noting that psychological theories have focused mainly on cognitive, not emotional factors. Also, Khong does not clarify how his analogical explanation framework relates to conventional cost-benefit analysis. Finally, it would be perhaps difficult for readers to understand the case Khong makes (pp. 10-11, 48-50) that Vietnam decision-making qualifies as a “most likely” case for testing hypotheses that historical analogies are used by policymakers for justification and advocacy, and as a “least likely” case for hypotheses which hold that analogies actually influence decisions taken.

400

Volker Rittberger, ed., German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001). See particularly pp. 1-7, 299-321.

401

Ibid.

402

Barry R. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984); Aggarwal, Liberal Protectionism; Yoffie, Power and Protectionism; and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The War Trap (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981).

403

This misconception is addressed in more detail in Chapter 1, “Case Studies and Theory Development.”

404

Aggarwal, Liberal Protectionism, p. 16.

405

Christopher H. Achen and Duncan Snidal, “Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies,” World Politics, Vol. 41, No. 2 (January 1989), pp. 143-169. Critical observations of their article made here draw on Alexander L. George and Richard Smoke in their rebuttal of the Achen-Snidal article and were reinforced by George Downs in his characterization of their article as a “weak” version of deterrence theory and emphasizing the requirements for developing a “strong” version. The three articles by Achen and Snidal, George and Smoke, and Downs appear in World Politics, Vol. 41, No. 2 (January 1989).

406

Robert Bates et al., Analytic Narratives (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998).

407

David Collier, “The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change,” in Ada Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 1993), pp. 8-11; 110-112.

408

Charles Tilly, “Means and Ends of Comparison in Macrosociology,” Comparative Social Research, Vol. 16 (1997), pp. 43-53. The quotation is from p. 48.

409

David D. Laitin, “Comparative Politics: The State of the Subdiscipline,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Washington, D.C., September 2000, which appears in Helen V. Milner and Ira Katznelson, eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (New York: Norton, 2002). Quoted material is from pp. 2-5.

410

Jack Goldstone, Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 50-62. Emphasis is in the original.

411

Peter A. Hall, “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Washington, D.C., September 2000, pp. 14, 18.

412

Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: