For Bueno de Mesquita, getting his methodology accepted by the policy-making establishment remains somewhat of an uphill slog. The most pointed criticism of rational choice has been that, unlike with more traditional political scientists, very little cross-pollination takes place between rational-choice academics and government policy-makers. Bueno de Mesquita says it’s just a matter of time before that changes. “Because people who are in a position to appoint people weren’t trained in this way, they don’t feel as comfortable as with people who were trained in what I would describe as a less rigorous form of study of politics. And, so, the folks who do more rigorous work typically don’t get invited in,” he says. Of course, the same was true of economics 40 years ago when nontechnical types like John Kenneth Galbraith dominated the field. Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman changed all that, and Bueno de Mesquita sees himself playing the same role for politics.
To what degree would you agree that BDM is political science's Samuelson or Friedman?
4 comments:
Of the two, I would say that BdM is a lot closer to Samuelson then Friedman. If you're accepting third-party candidates, BdM is closer to an Alfred Marshall then anything. But the truth is, I don't believe in comparing contemporary political scientists to economists.
The point was to compare an individual's (potential) impact on the field in terms of its methods.
I would concur that BDM is closer in that regard to Samuelson. Friedman was much more of an empiricist than he was a theoretician, while Samuelson pushed the mathematics of the discipline. That's a project that BDM has certainly embraced whole-heartedly.
On a side note: Leaving a name is always nice when posting; but nameless posts with substance are appreciated nonetheless.
I think BDM is legit, in fact I believe his War Trap book from 1981 is still one of the best examples of political science research to this day. The interesting thing is his 'new approach' was actually done almost 15 years earlier by William Riker at Rochester. Riker developed the Expected Utility theory of voting and since BDM was a colleague of Riker during his time at Rochester he simply took the model and applied it to IR conflict. So, technically, will riker is the Samuelson/Friedman of political science.
Good point Victor. And, of course, BDM would acknowledge that in a heartbeat. I think he called Riker "the greatest inventor in political science since Machiavelli."
Post a Comment