Suchergebnisse

Many economists working within the framework of behavioral economics (BE) label the conventional way of modeling as unrealistic, and consider their own approach as more realistic than the standard practice. However, a criterion for realism is lacking in behavioral economics literature. This paper offers a simple criterion for predicating realism to economic models, and provides an illustration of such criterion at work on a particular BE model.

The academic study of international relations can be considered a debate about realism. Realism provides a foil against which many other schools of thought define themselves and their contributions. Take realism out of the picture and the identities of these other schools as well as the significance of their arguments become much less clear. The study of international politics thus is in an important sense inexplicable without a grounding in realism. Gaining such a grounding, however, is harder than it seems. Precisely because realism is so influential, it is also systematically misunderstood. Whether favourably or unfavourably disposed toward realist ideas and theories, scholars face powerful incentives to make realism into something it is not. As a result, many of the most popular criticisms of realism miss the mark. This article attempts to set the record straight. It argues that the notion that realism can and should be reduced to a single, internally consistent, and logically coherent theory is the taproot of the greatest misunderstanding.

This article argues that community-building efforts across borders are motivated by traditional realist concerns about security rather than idealistic beliefs in universal principles. The creation of sustainable, cross-border institutions will come about because governments recognize that they are unable to meet basic challenges without increased cooperation. The emergence of common norms comes about through cooperation in coping with global challenges, not via the imposition of political systems or the exercise of hegemonic power.

Security First (Etzioni, 2007) is a weighty and worthy addition to the growing debate on how to redefine U.S. foreign policy post-Iraq. In seeking to reintroduce clarity and prioritization into U.S. strategic thinking while retaining a place for morality, Etzioni's ideas have much in common with America's 20th-century classical realist tradition. Although it does good service by restating some sound principles, the Security First model still faces some uncertainties regarding its coherence and workability. These center on its assertion that morality and interests are complementary, its apparent assumption of the legitimacy and feasibility of neoimperial oversight in the international system, and its implicit avoidance of the hardest choices thanks to fragile assumptions concerning the ultimate inevitability of democracy's triumph. Meanwhile, its prescription of a new strategic outlook for Americans seems likely to fall foul of the resistance of American political culture to change against which realists have been railing for generations.