IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v91y1997i04p899-912_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition

Author

Listed:
  • Vasquez, John A.

Abstract

Several analysts argue that, despite anomalies, the realist paradigm is dominant because it is more fertile than its rivals. While the ability of the realist paradigm to reformulate its theories in light of criticism accounts for its persistence, it is argued that the proliferation of emendations exposes a degenerating tendency in the paradigm's research program. This article applies Lakatos's criterion that a series of related theories must produce problemshifts that are progressive rather than degenerating to appraise the adequacy of realist-based theories on the balancing of power advanced by neotraditionalists. This research program is seen as degenerating because of (1) the protean character of its theoretical development, (2) an unwillingness to specify what constitutes the true theory, which if falsified would lead to a rejection of the paradigm, (3) a continual adoption of auxiliary propositions to explain away flaws, and (4) a dearth of strong research findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasquez, John A., 1997. "The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 899-912, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:91:y:1997:i:04:p:899-912_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400213063/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yong Soo Park, 2023. "An Appraisal of Power Balancing between India and China," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 11(1), pages 39-49, January.
    2. David L. Rousseau, 2002. "Motivations for Choice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 394-426, June.
    3. T. Clifton Morgan & Glenn Palmer, 2000. "A Model of Foreign Policy Substitutability," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(1), pages 11-32, February.
    4. Jonathan M. DiCicco & Jack S. Levy, 1999. "Power Shifts and Problem Shifts," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 675-704, December.
    5. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    6. Jeremy Garlick, 2016. "Not So Simple," China Report, , vol. 52(4), pages 284-305, November.
    7. Dr. Declan A. Amaraegbu, 2015. "Contextualising the Syrian Crisis against Realism and Security Competition in the 21st Century," Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS), , vol. 4(2), pages 795-811, April.
    8. Sean Bolks & Richard Stoll, 2003. "Examining Conflict Escalation Within the Civilizations Context," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(2), pages 85-109, September.
    9. Akan Malici, 2005. "Discord and Collaboration between Allies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(1), pages 90-119, February.
    10. Anne Kokkonen & Pauli Alin, 2015. "Practice-based learning in construction projects: a literature review," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(7), pages 513-530, July.
    11. Brittnee Carter, 2022. "Revisiting the Bandwagoning Hypothesis: A Statistical Analysis of the Alliance Dynamics of Small States," International Studies, , vol. 59(1), pages 7-27, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:91:y:1997:i:04:p:899-912_21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.