Stephen M. Walt
Abstract :Policy makers pay relatively little attention to the vast theoretical literature in IR, and many scholars seem uninterested in doing policy-relevant work. These tendencies are unfortunate because theory is an essential tool of statecraft. Many policy debates ultimately rest on competing theoretical visions, and relying on a false or flawed theory can lead to major foreign policy disasters.
Theory remains essential for diagnosing events, explaining their causes, prescribing responses, and evaluating the impact of different policies. Unfortunately, the norms and incentives that currently dominate academia discourage many scholars from doing useful theoretical work in IR. The gap between theory and policy can be narrowed only if the academic community begins to place greater value on policy-relevant theoretical work.
Key Words
policy relevance, academia, policy evaluation, prediction, social science
INTRODUCTION
If the scholarly study of international relations—and especially work on IR theory—were of great value to policy makers, then those charged with the conduct of foreign policy would be in a better position today than ever before. More scholars are studying the subject, more theories are being proposed and tested, and outlets for scholarly work continue to multiply.1
The need for powerful theories that could help policy makers design effective solutions would seem to be apparent as well. The unexpected emergence of a unipolar world, the rapid expansion of global trade and finance, the challenges posed by failed states and global terrorism, the evolving human rights agenda, the spread of democracy, concerns about the global environment, the growing prominence of nongovernmental organizations, etc., present policy makers with problems that cry out for new ideas. These phenomena—and many others—have all been objects of sustained scholarly inquiry, and one might expect policy makers to consume the results with eagerness and appreciation.
Yet despite the need for well-informed advice about contemporary international problems, and the energy and activity being devoted to studying these questions, there has long been dissatisfaction with the contributions of IR theorists (Morgenthau 1958, Tanter & Ullman 1972). According to former diplomat David Newsom, “much of today's scholarship [on international issues] is either irrelevant or inaccessible to policymakers…much remains locked within the circle of esoteric scholarly discussion” (Newsom 1995–1996, p. 66). Another observer declares that “the higher learning about international relations does not loom large on the intellectual landscape. Its practitioners are not only rightly ignored by practicing foreign policy officials; they are usually held in disdain by their fellow academics as well” (Kurth 1998, p. 29). The veteran U.S. statesman Paul Nitze described theory and practice as “harmonic aspects of one whole,” but he believed that “most of what has been written and taught under the heading of ‘political science' by Americans since World War II…has also been of limited value, if not counterproductive as a guide to the conduct of actual policy” (Nitze 1993, p. 15). Similarly, George (2000) reports that policy makers' eyes “would glaze as soon as I used the word theory.” Nor is the problem unique to the United States, as indicated by the Chief Inspector of the British diplomatic service's comment that he was “not sure what the academic discipline of IR—if indeed there be such a thing as an academic discipline of IR—has to contribute to the practical day-to-day work of making and managing foreign policy” (Wallace 1994).
A low regard for theory is also reflected in the organizations responsible for conducting foreign policy. Although academics do work in policy-making circles in many countries, a sophisticated knowledge of IR theory is hardly a prerequisite for employment. In the United States, for example, there is no foreign policy counterpart to the President's Council of Economic Advisors (which is staffed by Ph.D. economists), and being an accomplished IR scholar is neither necessary nor sufficient for appointment to the National Security Council or other similar bodies.2 Instead, senior policy makers are more likely to be selected for their intelligence, loyalty, and/or intimate knowledge of a particular region or policy area. Nor is there much evidence that policy makers pay systematic attention to academic writings on international affairs.
Dissatisfaction with the limited influence of IR has inspired a small but growing literature that seeks to reconnect the worlds of theory and policy (George et al. 1971; George & Smoke 1974; Feaver 1999; Hill & Beshoff 1994; Kruzel 1994; Zelikow 1994; Lepgold 1998; Jentleson 2000, 2002; Lupia 2000; Nincic & Lepgold 2000; Lepgold & Nincic 2001; Siverson 2001). Taken as a whole, these works emphasize several key themes.
First, the literature sees a wide gap between academic theories of international relations and the practical conduct of foreign policy. Most works in this genre deplore this situation and offer various remedies for correcting it, although a few authors warn that greater emphasis on “policy relevance” might be detrimental (Hill & Beshoff 1994, Stein 2000).
Second, these works attribute the gap in part to the complexity of the policy maker's task and the limitations of existing social science theories, but also to the incentive structures and professional ethos of the academic world. In other words, IR theory is less relevant for policy makers because scholars have little incentive to develop ideas that might be useful.
Third, the literature tends to adopt a trickle-down model linking theory and policy. General or basic IR theory is seen as too abstract to influence policy directly, although it can provide overarching conceptual frameworks and thus influence scholars analyzing specific regional developments or applied “issue-oriented puzzles” (Lepgold 2000, Wilson 2000). These latter works will inform policy analyses of specific problems, thereby helping to shape the debate on specific actions and decisions. It follows that the current gap might be narrowed by strengthening the transmission belt linking these different activities, so that academic ideas reach the policy maker's desk more readily.
The present essay explores these themes in greater detail. Can theoretical IR work help policy makers identify and achieve specific foreign policy goals? What are the obstacles that limit its contribution? Given these obstacles, what should be done?
Read the rest in the Link below:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104904
