Not Everyone Will Be Taken into the Future? The Role of Forecasting in International Relations Theory
https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-2-36-56
Abstract
The 2010s witnessed intensified debates in international academia on the relationship between theory and forecast, but Russian scholarship remained detached from these discussions. This article intends to examine the contribution of theory to forecasting in IR, identifying prospects for combining the prescriptive, explanatory, interpretive and predictive functions of science. It reveals the origins of both theoretical skepticism about prediction and the countercriticism of futile theorizing. The article reveals the limitations of both the hypothetico-deductive model of scholarship, which dominates the discipline, and the statistical inductivism that opposes it. The analysis begins by identifying the different classes of theories in international relations studies. It demonstrates that the basic assumptions of normative, deconstructive, and interpretive theorizing are poorly compatible with prediction. The article further scrutinizes the ambivalent attitude of explanatory theories towards the matter, claiming the fundamental unpredictability of social interactions. It explores the growth in expectations since the late 2000s that the accumulation of big data and the advancement of methods for processing them will provide predictions without relying on explanatory inferences. Nevertheless, the value of scholarship for foreign policy practice requires a combination of theoretical explanations and predictive studies. This article suggests that for theory to play a major role in forecasting, forecasts must play a major role in theorizing. In this sense, reluctance to test their logical inferences with predictions exemplified by scholars poses a barrier to the development of IR studies.
About the Author
I. А. Istomin
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Igor A. Istomin, PhD (Polit. Sci), Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Applied International Political Analysis
76, Vernadsky avenue, Moscow, 119454
References
1. Bogaturov, Alexey D. “The Notion of World Politics in Theoretical Discourse.” International Trends, no. 1 (2004): 16–33 [In Russian].
2. Bacon, Francis. Novum Organum. Moscow: RIPOL klassik, 2019 [In Russian].
3. Inozemtsev, Nikolay N. Foundations of the International Relations Theory: the Record of Institute of World Economy and International Relations in the 1970s. Moscow: Aspekt press, 2022 [In Russian].
4. Kant, Immanuel. Zum Ewigen Frieden. Ein Philosophischer Entwurf. Moscow: RIPOL klassik, 2019 [In Russian].
5. Kokoshin, Andrey A. Methodological Challenges of Forecasting in the Interests of National Security of Russia. Moscow: Institute of Oriental studies, 2014 [In Russian].
6. Kosolapov, Nikolay A. et al. “About an Attempt to Create International Relations Theory in Institute of World Economy and International Relations in the 1970s.” World Economy and International Relations, no. 4 (2021): 80–91 [In Russian].
7. Marx, Karl. “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” Marx Karl, and Fridrich Engels. Works. Second edition. Vol. 8. Moscow: State Publishing House for Political Literature, 1957 [In Russian].
8. Newest Philosophical Dictionary. Edited by Alexander A. Gritsanov. Minsk: V.M. Skakun, 1999 [In Russian].
9. Pozdnyakov, Elgiz A. System Approach and International Relations. Moscow: Science, 1976 [In Russian].
10. Popper, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Moscow: AST, 2004 [In Russian].
11. Safranchuk, Ivan A., and Fyodor A. Lukyanov. “Modern World Order: Structural Realities and Competition Among Great Powers.” Polis. Political Studies, no. 3 (2021): 57–76 [In Russian].
12. Podberyezkin, Alexey I., Aleksandrov, Mikhail V. Strategic Forecasting of International Relations. Moscow: MGIMO University, 2016 [In Russian].
13. Podberyezkin, Alexey I. Strategic Forecasting and Planning in Foreign and Defense Policy. Volume 1. Theoretical Foundations of the System of Analysis, Forecasting and Planning Foreign and Defense Policy. Moscow: MGIMO – University, 2015 [In Russian].
14. Thucydides. History. Saint Petersburg: Science, 1999 [In Russian].
15. Khrustalev, Mark A. Analysis of International Situations and Political Expertise. Moscow: NOFMO, 2008 [In Russian].
16. Cherkasov, Pyotr P. Institute of World Economy and International Relations. History Essay. Moscow: Whole World, 2016 [In Russian].
17. Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Moscow: Eksmo, 2019 [In Russian].
18. Alley, Richard B., Kerry A. Emanuel, and Fuqing Zhang. “Advances in Weather Prediction.” Science 363, issue 6425 (2019): 342–344. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aav7274.
19. Andersen, Holly. “Mechanisms: What are They Evidence for in Evidencey Based Medicine?” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18, no. 5 (2012): 992–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01906.x.
20. Angell, Norman. The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to Their Economic and Social Advantage. London: W. Heinemann, 1910.
21. Ashley, Richard K. “Political Realism and Human Interests.” International Studies Quarterly 25, no. 2 (1981): 204–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600353.
22. Beger, Andreas, Richard K. Morgan, and Michael D. Ward. “Reassessing the Role of Theory and Machine Learning in Forecasting Civil Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 65, no. 7–8 (2021): 1405–1426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720982358.
23. Benjamin, Daniel M., et al. “Hybrid Forecasting of Geopolitical Events.” AI Magazine 44, no. 1 (2023): 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12085.
24. Bernstein, Steven, et al. “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems: Adapting Social Science to an Unpredictable World.” European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (2000): 43–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006001003.
25. Blair, Robert A., and Nicholas Sambanis. “Forecasting Civil Wars: Theory and Structure in an Age of “Big Data” and Machine Learning.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 64, no. 10 (2020): 1885–1915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720918923.
26. Booth, Ken. “International Relations: The Story So Far.” International Relations 33, no. 2 (2019): 358–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819851.
27. Born M., Einstein A. The Born-Einstein Letters. London: Macmillan, 1971.
28. Brandt, Patrick T., John R. Freeman, and Philip A. Schrodt. “Real Time, Time Series Forecasting of Inter-and Intra-State Political Conflict.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 28, no. 1 (2011): 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894210388125.
29. Braumoeller, Bear F. Only the Dead: The Persistence of War in the Modern Age. Oxford University Press, 2019.
30. Carr E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan, 1939.
31. Chadefaux, Thomas. “Conflict Forecasting and Its Limits.” Data Science 1, no. 1–2 (2017): 7–17. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-170002.
32. Choucri, Nazli. “Forecasting in International Relations: Problems and Prospects.” International Interactions 1, no. 2 (1974): 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050627408434390.
33. Choucri, Nazli, and Th. W. Robinson. Forecasting in International Relations: Theory, Methods, Problems, Prospects. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1978.
34. Colaresi, Michael, and Zuhaib Mahmood. “Do the Robot: Lessons from Machine Learning to Improve Conflict Forecasting.” Journal of Peace Research 54, no. 2 (2017): 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316682065.
35. David Mermin, N. “What’s Wrong with This Pillow?” Physics Today 42, no. 4 (1989): 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963.
36. D’Orazio, Vito. “Conflict Forecasting and Prediction.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.514.
37. Einstein, Albert, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47, no. 10 (1935): 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
38. Finnemore M. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.
39. Foucault, Michel. Dits et Écrits 1954–1988 (IV: 1980–1988). Gallimard, 1994.
40. Freeman, John R., and Brian L. Job. “Scientific Forecasts in International Relations: Problems of Definition and Epistemology.” International Studies Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1979): 113–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600276.
41. Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1996.
42. Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, and Michael D. Ward. “Forecasting is Difficult, Especially About the Future: Using Contentious Issues to Forecast Interstate Disputes.” Journal of Peace Research 50, no. 1 (2013): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343312449033.
43. Goes, F. R., et al. “Unlocking the Potential of Big Data to Support Tactical Performance Analysis in Professional Soccer: A Systematic Review.” European Journal of Sport Science 21, no. 4 (2021): 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1747552.
44. Goldstone, Jack A., et al. “A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability.” American Journal of Political Science 54, no. 1 (2010): 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00426.x.
45. Gunning, David, et al. “XAI—Explainable Artificial Intelligence.” Science Robotics 4, no. 37 (2019): eaay 7120. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120.
46. Guyatt, Gordon, et al. “Evidence-Based Medicine: A New Approach to Teaching the Practice of Medicine.” Jama 268, no. 17 (1992): 2420–2425. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032.
47. Hegre, Håvard, et al. “ViEWS: A Political Violence Early-Warning System.” Journal of Peace Research 56, no. 2 (2019): 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319823860.
48. Hegre, Håvard, et al. “Introduction: Forecasting in Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 54, no. 2 (2017): 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317691330.
49. Hegre, Håvard, Paola Vesco, and Michael Colaresi. “Lessons from an Escalation Prediction Competition.” International Interactions 48, no. 4 (2022): 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2022.2070745.
50. Hempel, Carl G. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
51. Hoffmann, Stanley. Duties beyond Borders: on the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1981.
52. Hossain, KSM Tozammel, et al. “Forecasting Violent Events in the middle East and North Africa Using the Hidden Markov Model and Regularized Autoregressive Models.” The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation 17, no. 3 (2020): 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548512918814698.
53. Howick, Jeremy. “Exposing the Vanities and a Qualified Defense of Mechanistic Reasoning in Health Care Decision Making.” Philosophy of Science 78, no. 5 (2011): 926–940. https://doi.org/10.1086/662561.
54. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. “Causal Claims and Causal Explanation in International Studies.” Journal of International Relations and Development 20 (2017): 689–716. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2016.13.
55. Linklater, Andrew. Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations. London: Macmillan, 1982.
56. Lynch, Cecelia. Interpreting International Politics. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
57. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Research articles
58. Bad for International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320.
59. Morgenthau, Hans J. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago press, 1946.
60. Neufeld, Mark. “Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of International Relations.” Review of International Studies 19, no. 1 (1993): 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500117334.
61. Popper, Karl R. Of Clouds and Clocks: An Approach to the Problem of Rationality and the Freedom of Man. Washington University, 1966.
62. Price, Richard, and Christian Reus-Smit. “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International Relations 4, no. 3 (1998): 259–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004003001.
63. Raghavan, Vasanthan, Aram Galstyan, and Alexander G. Tartakovsky. “Hidden Markov Models for the Activity Profile of Terrorist Groups.” The Annals of Applied Statistics (2013): 2402–2430. https://doi.org/10.1214/13AOAS682.
64. Rein, Robert, and Daniel Memmert. “Big Data and Tactical Analysis in Elite Soccer: Future Challenges and Opportunities for Sports Science.” SpringerPlus 5 (2016): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3108-2.
65. Richardson, Rashida, Jason M. Schultz, and Kate Crawford. “Dirty Data, Bad Predictions: How Civil Rights Violations Impact Police Data, Predictive Policing Systems, and Justice.” NYUL Rev. Online 94 (2019): 15–55.
66. Schneider, Gerald, Nils Petter Gleditsch, and Sabine Carey. “Forecasting in International Relations: One Quest, Three Approaches.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 28, no. 1 (2011): 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894210388079.
67. Schutte, Sebastian. “Regions at Risk: Predicting Conflict Zones in African Insurgencies.” Political Science Research and Methods 5, no. 3 (2017): 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.84.
68. State Sovereignty as Social Construct, edited by T.J. Biersteker, C. Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
69. Tetlock, Philipp E. Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? How Can We Know? Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.
70. Tetlock, Philipp E., and Dan Gardner. Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. Random House, 2016.
71. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. “Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.” Psychological Review 90, no. 4 (1983): 293–315. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293.
72. Ugwudike, Pamela. “Predictive Algorithms in Justice Systems and the Limits of Tech-Reformism.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 11, no. 1 (2022): 85–99. https://doi/10.3316/informit.379473425080819.
73. Vasquez, John A. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition.” American Political Science Review 91, no. 4 (1997): 899–912. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952172.
74. Waltz, Kenneth N. “Evaluating Theories.” American Political Science Review 91, no. 4 (1997): 913–917. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952173.
75. Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
76. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1977.
77. Ward, Michael D., et al. “Comparing GDELT and ICEWS Event Data.” Analysis 21, no. 1 (2013): 267–297.
78. Ward, Michael D. “Can we Predict Politics? Toward What End?” Journal of Global Security Studies 1, no. 1 (2016): 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogv002.
79. Ward, Michael D. “Do We Have Too Much Theory in International Relations or Do We Need Less? Waltz was Wrong, Tetlock was Right.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.301.
80. Ward, Michael D., and Andreas Beger. “Lessons from Near Real-Time Forecasting of Irregular Leadership Changes.” Journal of Peace Research 54, no. 2 (2017): 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316680858.
81. Ward, Michael D., Brian D. Greenhill, and Kristin M. Bakke. “The Perils of Policy by p-value: Predicting Civil Conflicts.” Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 4 (2010): 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309356491.
82. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
83. Wendt, Alexander. “Why a World State is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9, no. 4 (2003): 491–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406610394001.
Review
For citations:
Istomin I.А. Not Everyone Will Be Taken into the Future? The Role of Forecasting in International Relations Theory. Journal of International Analytics. 2024;15(2):36-56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-2-36-56
Views:
584
Email this article 