Friday, August 30, 2013

Sandler, Terrorism and Game theory



Todd Sandler
Terrorism and Game theory
2003

1)      Theory
Terrorism explained by game theory:1) terrorists’ choice of target, 2) government’s choice between preemption and deterrence, 3) gov concessionary policy when terrorists are hadliners and moderates.

2)      Method
Game theory. Positivism. Rational choice

3)      Evidence
-          Gov to choose between preemptive/proactive and reactive -> generates game theory between govs.
-          Terrorist to choose who to attack. Game tree for target(business or tourist)
-          Possibility of adverse selection(상대 고르기) increasese with hardliner’s demands. Cost of violence goes up, this likelihood goes down. When gov’s and hardliner’s preference converges, cost of violence(V) = sole determinant of adverse-selection equilibrium. (??)
-          -> this is why diaspora are essential in perpetuating violence, although they need a solution. It generates perpetuating hostilities.
-           
4)      Conclusion
5)      Critique


Use of game theory and model necessary? You still need to interprete the model.

Pape, Strategic logic of Suicide Terrorism



Robert A. Pape
Strategic logic of Suicide Terrorism
2003

1)      Theory
Rational choice

2)      Method
Large N case study: 188 suicide terrorism worldwide from 1980-2001.

3)      Evidence/argument
Suicide terrorism cannot be explained by religious fanaticism nor psychological explanation. Rather, when analyzing 188 cases, this study chose that suicide terrorism follows a strategic logic, to make significant territorial concessions from liberal democracies.
-          Target: modern liberal democracies
-          Purpose: territory
More gains after the resort to suicide operations.


4)      Conclusion
Lesson learned: Western democracies should improve homeland security, and teach terrorist that the lessons of 1980-90s no longer hold.

5)      Critique

>> Strategic calculation means trade-offs between gain and lose.
How can judge/compare the life of human and the territory gained? Can we set a certain number of people died is worthy for a certain amount of territory? The suicide terror attack is based on totalitarianism, an entity comes first then individual, and the individuals can sacrifice in the name of whole. There is not much strategic calculation: it is just gain territory or not.

è Snider! 


[lecture]
Pape is example of explanation
Revealed preferences.
Condition to be Rational(snidal), :
1) goal seeking/ max utility
2) rank preferences

3) Transitive a>b b>c a>c

Neufeld, “Interpretation and the science of IR” 1993

Mark Neufeld
“Interpretation and the science of IR”
1993

1)      Theory
Distinguish ‘interpretive’ approach from traditional, positivist approach and find their common ground

2)      Method

3)      Evidence

l  2 camps in positivist social scientists: 1) strict behavioralism 2) meaning-oriented behavioralism
-          subjective meanings’ by Weber
1.      Strict behavioralists hold that subjective meanings is not sufficien for scientific validation nor scientific accounts. Because it is not empirical eidnee.
-          Verstehen == a technique oriented toward ‘empathetic identification’ (이해, 양해, 공감능력) or interpretive skills. Strict behavioralist does not employ such interpretive techniques to the logic of social inquiry.

-          2. Meaning-oriented behavioralists: importance of subjective meanings and social action can be accommodated when having ‘causal adequacy’.

l  Beyond Positivism – interpretive theorists
Interpretive theorists contest that behavioral regularities exist independently of time and place. ‘Subjective meanings’ is an adequate conceptualization of human consciousness in social life.

l  ‘web of meaning’ and the sum-total of individual ‘subjective meanings’
-          Meaning-oriented: web of meaning = sum of individual subjective meanings
-          Interpretive: Not, web of meaning = ‘intersubjective meanings’, product of the collective self-interpretations and self-definitions.

l  Interpretive: international politics is a realm which is not ‘given’ but ‘made’. Therefore, capable of being ‘remade.’ It allows to change both ‘within the form of life’ (institutions) and ‘of the form of life’ (global order itself).
-           
4)      Conclusion

Given the predominance of positivist approaches, alternative provided by interpretive social science is given serious attention. The combination of two needed!


5)      Critique

Defensive vs. Offensive realism

Defensive realism

Actor: States as socialized players who are the primary actors in world affairs, anarchy. 
- domestic politics can influence a state's foreign policy (<> black box)

Goal: Security, Status quo
- Anarchy on the world stage causes states to become obsessed with security. 
- This results in security dilemmas because security is zero sum.

Mean: Balance of Power

Features:
- States may signal their intentions to one another. If a state can communicate that its intentions are benign to another state, then the security dilemma may be overcome.
Prominent defensive realists include Stephen Walt, Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Van Evera, and Charles Glaser.


Offensive realism

Actor: Great powers (state as black boxes, no internal politics)
Goal: Survival, Maximizing relative power ahead of all other objectives
- depicting great powers as power-maximising revisionists privileging buck-passing(책임전가) over balancing strategies in their ultimate aim to dominate the international system.
Tenets:
  1. Great powers are the main actors in world politics and the international system is anarchical
  2. All states possess some offensive military capability
  3. States can never be certain of the intentions of other states
  4. States have survival as their primary goal
  5. States are rational actors, capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival
John J. Mearsheimer as fully developed in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Source: Wikipedia

Monday, August 26, 2013

Snidal, "Rational Choice in IR," 2002



Duncan Snidal,
"Rational Choice in IR" in Handbook of International Relations
2002.

1) theory

Defending Rational Choice theory

2) methods (iv = ... dv = ...)

present definition (already favorable to rational choice), critiques(counter-argument), and arguments

3) evidence (detail 버리고 argument에 초점)

* Definition of rational choice (according to Snidal)
- Rational choice==individual goal-seeking under constraints
- goals not restricted to material interest or self-regarding but could include normative and ideational goals. 
- most often used as a positive theory, but can be used as a normative theory to evaluate how actors behave and how they should behave.
>> This is only Snidal's argument. Rational choice is not about ideational goals (because ideal goal is different for each person. Rational choice base on 'given the same condition, the same decision/outcome.') nor normative theory.
Normally, Rational choice can be explained 2-folds: First, humans are self-interested utility maximizers; and second, humans are choosing rationally on the basis of a consistent (transitive) preference ranking. 

- Goal-seeking/being rational does not cover all human behavior  There are other researches in IR: psychological/cognitive limits of decision-makers(Jervis), identity/culture(Katzenstein), role of appropriateness for behavior(Finnemore), etc.

- a methodology incorporating general theoretical assumptions but it is widely open to specific substantive content. 
- realism, neorealism, neoliberalism in IR make easy to confuse the limits of these approaches as inherent limits of rational choice. But rational choice limitations are not inherent. It represent tactical methodological choices to facilitate analysis. 
>> Isn't rational choice a mere assumption for simplify theoretical models? Easy to analyze?  "Assume that people are rational..." Rational choice is not a theory but a meta-theoretical framework.
What is being rational? Utility maximization? seeking for power and wealth? Is this the only criteria?

- formalization is not a necessary feature of rational choice but has played an indispensable role in its development.
- but non-math approaches have been equally central
- formal and soft approaches are highly complementary, not competitive
>> Point taken. Yet, scientist should choose methods, and they are competing each other in terms of popularity.

* 3 major critiques against rational choice
- Internal critiques (2)
a. Formalization: mathematical technique overwhelmed the substance. Worst case: even argument highly compatible with rational choice but not couched in its technical garb, have not been appreciated. (If cannot prove math, then discard)
b. Little empirical evaluations: theoretical speculations be found little support, increasingly irrelevant.

- External critique
c. Skewed emphasis (by constructivist): Rational choice emphasizes certain  problems and sets aside other issues by assumption. Unable to answer big questions such as 1) who the key actors are, 2) explaining their interest, 3) explain the origin of institutions, 4) explain how these change. 
>> Why not explained? I think rational choice can. Snidal simplified the critique from the constructivists. 

Constructivist says, "Identity is also central for the sociological critique of rational choice approaches, which assumes that this socially constructed identity is causally prior to the definition of interests."(STEFANO GUZZINI, "A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations") They think rational choice are too egoistic, and people usually do not move solely by egoism.

>> Proponents of rational choice insist that the formula ‘value-maximization’ does not at all exclude altruistic preferences (Keohane, 1984: 74) 
But this lessens the predictability of rational actor, the merit of rational choice.


* Argument for each critiques
a'. formalization is not essential condition of rational choice but only a tool. Skeptics should appreciate the power of formal approach which established meaningful results.
b'. Rational choice is driven by empirical considerations and plays a central role in a empirical work.
On quantitative side, example would be Bruce Bueno Mesquita's 'expected utility theory of war'
On qualitative side, historical and comparative case studies (such as Jeffry Frieden, Gilpon, Joanne Gowa, Grieco, etc.)
c'. Rational choice might seem ineffective for studying change, because of the concept 'equilibrium.' To incorporate dynamics and change, there are dynamic IR rational choice analysis. e.g. Power transition theory (Gilpin) . Rational choice analysis of cooperation and institutions -> possibility of broader change in IR.
- fixed preference and endogenous actor problem: rational choice has actors and interests fixed/static. If hot, changing preferences lead to untestable arguments. But in reality, preference changes and sometimes actors deliberately seek change in their national preference.  
- normative analysis problem: along the utilitarian line, which point is the best?(normative question) > rational choice cannot answer yet. Cannot explain 'international legalization.' 
But rational choice already contains some normative elements (e.g. what is the best choice? cooperation for a superior equilibrium, etc). 

>> Not sure if those are normative elements.


4) conclusion

Rational choice to be broadened and incorporate shortcomings!

5) critique
  - Questions
  - Other evidence? Alternative explanation?
  - Potential Ideas (for my paper)
  - Destroy/murder paper


* C.f. Bourdieu
Bourdieu explicitly tries to avoid different reductions inherent in rational choice approaches or functionalist approaches, by offering a theory around the concept of a field(champ), a social subsystem. A field stands both for a patterned set of practices which suggests competent action in conformity with rules and roles, and for the playing (or battle) field in which agents try to advance their position. The starting point is the relationship between structure and field (champ).

In Bourdieu, structure is conceived as the product of collective history. In the widest sense, structures are social, not natural phenomena.

Literature Review format

Literature Review format

1) theory
2) methods (iv = ... dv = ...)
3) evidence (detail 버리고 argument에 초점)
4) conclusion
5) critique
  - Questions
  - Other evidence? Alternative explanation?
  - Potential Ideas (for my paper)
  - Destroy/murder paper


Hollis & Smith, Explaining and Understanding IR



Martin Hollis & Steve Smith,
Explaining and Understanding International Relations,
1990

[Summary]


* Social sciences thrive on 2 intellectual traditions: 1) national science and 2) history.


1) Natural science = Explaining = Quantitative methods = (Actor=system, structure) = Outside approach = Holist = causal theory = top-down(from system to unit) = Realism


2) History = Understanding =  Qualitative methods = (Actor=individual) = Inside approach = individualist = Bottom-up(from unit to system)


* 3 layers of the level-of-analysis: (top-down or bottom-up)

a. International system
b. Nation state
c. Bureaucracy
d. Individual

a vs. b: 1st debate

b vs. c: 2nd debate
c vs. d: 3rd debate

* Approaches

a. Realism:
- Scientific, materialistic view of nature, national interest, (by Carr and Morgenthau),
-  'Teleology(notions of purpose; system as having a grand purpose built into it)': Notions of equilibrium (balance of power), patterns, self-interest...
- Causation: Causes compel their effects. David Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature lay the foundations for a complete system of the sciences relying only on 'experience and observation.' Events are regular and predictable, whenever the same conditions hold.

b. Idealism: Human will, institution, normative, idea, risen after WWI


c. Positivism:  (by Comte, Durkheim, Marx, Weber)

- Can include Realist approach.
- Experience, observation, testing, justification, hypothesis, quantitiative analysis, behaviouralism
- To detect the regularities in nature, 1) propose generalization/hypotheses/assumptions, 2) deduce what it implies; 3) observe whether this prediction succeeds; 4) conclude that the theory is consistent or inconsistent (by R.E. Lipsey).
- Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations(추측과 논박)": on the logic of validation, what counts is not 'confirmation' but 'falsification.' True scientist would abandon his theory to accept a refutation.
("all swans are white" <> finding black swan instead of keep looking at white swans)

>> This "falsification" supplements the inductive method.

cf. inductive method: observe-pattern-generalize-test for new instances

     deductive method:

- Analytic/synthetic distinction: logical positivists sees this distinction exclusive and exhaustive. (A statement si either analytic or synthetic)

E.g. James Rosenau's "Pre-theory": Facts do not speak for themselves, and analysts need a pre-theory or conceptual apparatus to articulate their significance. e.g. to define a matrix for FP, Rosenau uses 3 types of states, 2 analytical dimensions, etc.
E.g. Milton Friedman's "The Methodology of Positive Economics"

d. Refutation of Positivism I : Pragmatism (실용주의)

- Quine's article "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
There is no "facts" prior to "interpretation." A test cannot be a pure empirical truth. Just as concepts are entwined with perception, so too theory is entwined with experiment.
(Scientist tries to find the result that he/she wants to see.)

e. Refutation of Positivism II : Paradigm

- Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
a 'paradigm' is 1) a set of broad assumptions whose falsity is almost unthinkable and 2) a set of institutional practices governing the current conduct of science.This recalcitrancy has been built with examples and counter-examples, demanding the theory be amended or discarded.
But when many and large anomalies pile up that the paradigm suddenly collapses. (Einstein>Newtonian paradigm) == scientific revolution
Inter-paradigm debate (e.g. Realism, Structuralism...) is impossible, if we follow Kuhn, in casting doubt on the final scope of Popper's falsifiability criterion.
It is usually possible to live with awkward facts as anomalies awaiting further explanation.

* A theory

task of a theory are to 1) abstract, 2) generalize, and 3) connect. Connect the logic of model with reality.

>> There is no neat assumptions/theory that could explain the whole world. changing perceptions(pragmatism), changing paradigms(paradigm)! it would be more appropriate to say that we are finding a "temporary but long lasting, and well-applicable explanation for current issues"


* Understanding

- Max Weber, " the science of society attempts the interpretative understanding of social action." Distinguishes causal explanation with understanding.
- 2 hermeneutics(interpretation skills): Understanding individual actions through social rules(top-down) vs. understanding collective arrangements thru individual elements(bottom-up). Weber's critical suggestion is to take rationality. Rational actors make the same choices in the same situation.
- Morgenthau's Realism: decision makers act as if they were maximizing utility (maximizing power). international system is conceived along the lines of a market system whose moving force is maximization.
Irrationality is a defective information, defective processing, defective preference.
Value-rational action, where the goal is so dominant for the actor that it drives out all calculation or concern. (e.g. self-sacrifice, heroism)

>> Putting sanctions on Iran along with the US? Sending troops to Afghan at the US's request? Building houses in developing country? Are these altruism and value-rational action, or rational action?


- traditional vs. affective vs. rational actions (Max Weber)

affective action, prompted by instant desire (drinking water)
traditional action, governed by custom <> rational-legal actions (e.g. modern Islam)
- How 'meaning' relates to 'causation'? Weber says, "Without 'adequacy on the level of meaning', our generalizations remain mere statements of statistical probability...On the other hand, even the most certain 'adequacy on the level of meaning' signifies an acceptable causal proposition only to the extent that there is a probability"

* 'Idea' in Social Science


- Wittgenstein: As Wittgenstein put it in the “The Blue Book”: (outside source)


Our craving for generality has [as one] source … our preoccupation with the method of science. I mean the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws; and, in mathematics, of unifying the treatment of different topics by using a generalization. Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness. I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is "purely descriptive."


- Peter Winch: Social relations are expressions of ideas about reality. To understand action we must begin by identifying the intention and motive involved in it.

-> applicable for different ideologies. 

>> But, Hollis and Smith in 1990 describe that superpowers with diff. ideology makes impossible any long-term cooperation or peace, citing example of the US and Soviet Union! Which turned out to be false! Although idea matters, does different moral code necessarily give different guides for state action? (seeking for power, peace and wealth is common value!)



[Example]

[Critique]

Friday, August 23, 2013

[Article] Is Israel the only U.S. ally in the Middle East? An answer in map form



By Max Fisher, Published: February 12 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/12/is-israel-the-only-u-s-ally-in-the-middle-east-an-answer-in-map-form/

During Tuesday night’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to become secretary of defense, Sen. Joe Manchin made a curious assertion. Israel, he said, is the United States’ only ally in “that part of the world,” presumably meaning the Middle East.


Above, I’ve tossed together a map of the countries that we might fairly label U.S. allies in the region (with a couple of caveats). Turkey, Manchin’s most surprising omission, is actually a NATO ally. The U.S. recently deployed some troops to Turkey to help defend the country’s border with Syria, on which the U.S. and Turkey have been cooperating closely.


There are also five – five! – countries in the Arab Middle East that are officially labeled as “Major non-Nato Allies.” The U.S. confers that designation on countries with which it cooperates closely on security issues; it’s meant to signal to the world that the U.S. considers that country a strategic partner and, as the name implies, ally. Those five countries are Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and Morocco.


I’ve also labeled a few Middle Eastern countries that coordinate closely with the U.S. on security issues. Saudi Arabia, as was recently reported, hosts a U.S. drone base and has previously hosted U.S. troops. The U.S. has a military base in Qatar. And the United Arab Emirates, where U.S. naval vessels often dock, has been buying many billions of dollars in U.S. military sales.


In all, that’s nine U.S. allies in the Middle East outside of Israel, eight if you exclude Egypt.


Now, the caveats, and they’re significant. President Obama himself recently said that he would not consider Egypt an ally, given the country’s tumult since the 2011 revolution, although the State Department quickly affirmed the country’s official status. Afghanistan and Pakistan are both designated major non-NATO allies, but those relationships certainly don’t look like close or friendly alliances. (I haven’t included these two in my count in the paragraph above.) So the “major non-NATO ally” designation does not mean that the relationship is, in practice, necessarily much of an alliance at all.


Still, Manchin’s apparent insinuation that Israel is the only Middle Eastern ally that counts – whether deliberate or accidental – would be a strange rejection of the eight countries that certainly look like American allies.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The Purpose of Intervention



The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force
by Martha Finnemore
Cornell University Press, 2004


Chapter 1. Purpose of Force

- There is a common understanding of the 'use of force (a.k.a military force or violence)': large-scale force is the prerogative of states. Violence by non-state actors is illegitimate. (국내통치는 정당, 국가 아닌 단체의 무력행사는 외침 또는 불법)


- This volume/book focuses on 1 particular use of force, military intervention. It is the most visible and consequential ways of enforcing standards of conduct, and most costly.

- 책의 목적: Generation of new hypotheses and a sketching of the changing normative landscape on which new rules of intervention are negotiated. 1) Discussion of intervention. intervention lies at the boundary of peace and war. It also defines the outer limits of sovereign control. 2) Empirical investigation on why intervention patterns change. 

- At a behavioral level, this is about what action is permitted and where the boundaries of sovereignty lie.
At the cognitive(인지적) and normative levels(규범적, 기준, 표준적), it is the debates that establish the authority and legitimacy of those rules.

- Military intervention의 목적 변화
Martha는 BOP나 defense-offense balance 때문에 intervention의 양상이 변한 것이 아니다. It's form, meaning, understanding of purpose가 변했기 때문이라고 주장. 
She uses the term "strategic social construction," whereby actors consciously set out to change the perceptions and values of others. 전형적인 constructivist.

democratic states <> militaristic authoritarian states
industrialized <> developing
states more integrated into the global economy <> autarkic, insulated states
--All have different patterns of intervention.

- Military intervention, by its nature, involves violation of 'sovereignty' and 'self-determination.' Sovereignty is a foundational principle of int'l law, and self determination is a central ethical component of int'l community.

- 3 cases of systemic change in intervention behavior
1) to collect debts
2) humanitarian military intervention
3) peace and order

--> Realist & me: but, humanitarian이라고 해도 intervene 안 하는 경우가 있다. 미국의 geographic, economic interest가 없는 경우엔! (예시 찾기)
Realistic/materialistic interest 가 없으면 big cost를 감수해가며 intervene 할 이유 없어. 이것은 명분과 실리의 싸움. (Iran sanction 참고)

Marthy 주장: international value가 변했다. 과거에는 전쟁을 통한 승리, 성공, 영광(success and glory)가 국가의 goal이었다면, 현재는 인권보호(claims about human rights) 등이 주된 가치가 되었다.

--> me: international value and claims are changing. I agree. but materialistic account의 뿌리는 바뀌지 않았을 것.
Strong states became more clever, seeing long-term benefits.
Interest를 short-term과 long-term으로 나눠서 생각해야.

앞서 말한 것과 같이 intervention은 전쟁과 평화의 경계에 있고, 본질상 반드시 주권을 침해하게 되어 있다. 그렇다면, intervention과 war의 차이는 무엇인가?


Different - Youngme Moon (Harvard)

Different 디퍼런트 - 넘버원을 넘어 온리원으로  문영미 (Youngme Moon) Harvard 경영대학원 교수 저 I'm looking for a"difference". The incredible ar...