IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v58y2014i3p547-560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Models Among the Political Theorists

Author

Listed:
  • James Johnson

Abstract

Political theorists rely on models in ways that typically are neglected. They do so for largely the same reasons other political scientists do. Those reasons have little to do with the standard rationale political scientists advance, namely, that they use models to deduce predictions that, treated as hypotheses, can be tested against the “real world.” Starting from Thomas Schelling's view of models, I show how John Rawls and Michel Foucault each rely on a model in ways that conform to his characterization. I then draw a comparison between Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Arrow to illuminate the value of formalization. I conclude by sketching a view of models not as devices for making predictions but as tools for conceptual exploration. On that basis, I argue that the standard rationale turns out to be deeply problematic.

Suggested Citation

  • James Johnson, 2014. "Models Among the Political Theorists," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 547-560, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:58:y:2014:i:3:p:547-560
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12114
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12114?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Enzo Lenine, 2020. "Modelling Coalitions: From Concept Formation to Tailoring Empirical Explanations," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, November.
    2. James Johnson, 2021. "Remarks on Paul Dragos Aligica’s Public entrepreneurship, citizenship and self-governance," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 401-408, September.

    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:wly:amposc:v:58:y:2014:i:3:p:547-560. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.