A theory must explain overall outcomes, the standard neorealism fails.

Evidence

This article began with a striking anomaly: six years after events that most observers agree heralded the end of the cold war, the key Western security institution was still functioning and even expanding—even though most theories about alliances would predict that it should be on its deathbed. While no theory, especially a structural one, can explain every event or policy decision, a good theory should explain the overall direction of outcomes and should identify causal mechanisms that must be present if the theory is to work. By this criterion, neorealism falls short. Nonetheless, I aim here to supplement neorealist arguments about alliances, not dismiss them. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 149

Categorization

• SEED: The framing ‘survives because it didn’t depend on the threat alone’ is an essay structure the reader could borrow for institutional persistence pieces.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: NATO stayed cohesive despite neorealist predictions of its collapse — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 57; Neither neorealism nor institutionalism explains domestic support, an unwarranted omission. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 139; Philosophy’s highest concepts fail precisely through their claim to totality — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2540

Related

• Theories should be judged by explaining outcomes and causal mechanisms, which neorealism fails at (similarity 0.93)
• Theoretical frameworks beyond realism are needed to explain NATO’s survival. (similarity 0.91)
• Explaining alliance persistence requires nonrealist unit-level theory. (similarity 0.88)
• Neither neorealism nor institutionalism explains domestic support, an unwarranted omission. (similarity 0.87)
• NATO survived the cold war’s end due to institutionalization, not merely threats (similarity 0.87)
• An institutionalist view holds alliances survive only while states value their benefits. (similarity 0.86)
• NATO stayed cohesive despite neorealist predictions of its collapse (similarity 0.85)
• NATO’s institutionalization beyond mutual defense explains its persistence after its founding threat vanished. (similarity 0.85)
• Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations (similarity 0.85)
• Alliances can persist and expand purposes after their founding enemy disappears (similarity 0.84)
• Theories predicting alliance demise need testable time frames for their claims. (similarity 0.84)
• Alliance theory predicts collapse once threats vanish. (similarity 0.84)
• High institutionalization distinguishes NATO from traditional alliances. (similarity 0.83)
• Alliance theory has neglected why alliances persist and what happens when they become obsolete (similarity 0.83)
• All realists hold that external threats are necessary for alliances to form and persist (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Philosophy’s highest concepts fail precisely through their claim to totality #complicates (0.75) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2540