Theories should be judged by explaining outcomes and causal mechanisms, which neorealism fails at

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. What emerges is a better understanding of the boundaries of traditional realist theory, some potential modifications to realist theory, and an appreciation of the utility of theoretical frameworks not usually applied to alliance behavior. In particular, this effort takes international institutionalist approaches to security seriously and finds them to be worthwhile. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 149

Categorization

Category: Craft and Method

• XREF: The criterion that a good theory explains overall direction and identifies causal mechanisms is a general epistemology of knowledge worth carrying beyond alliance theory.

Related

• Theoretical frameworks beyond realism are needed to explain NATO’s survival. (similarity 0.94)
• A theory must explain overall outcomes, the standard neorealism fails. (similarity 0.93)
• Explaining alliance persistence requires nonrealist unit-level theory. (similarity 0.89)
• An institutionalist view holds alliances survive only while states value their benefits. (similarity 0.87)
• Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations (similarity 0.86)
• Theories predicting alliance demise need testable time frames for their claims. (similarity 0.86)
• NATO survived the cold war’s end due to institutionalization, not merely threats (similarity 0.86)
• NATO’s institutionalization beyond mutual defense explains its persistence after its founding threat vanished. (similarity 0.85)
• Alliance theory predicts collapse once threats vanish. (similarity 0.85)
• Neither neorealism nor institutionalism explains domestic support, an unwarranted omission. (similarity 0.84)
• Realism explains alliance behavior under threat but fails without one. (similarity 0.84)
• Alliances can persist and expand purposes after their founding enemy disappears (similarity 0.83)
• Alliance theory has neglected why alliances persist and what happens when they become obsolete (similarity 0.83)
• Both realism and institutionalism ignore the domestic prerequisites of alliance costs (similarity 0.83)
• Neorealist theories predict alliances collapse once their external threat fades. (similarity 0.83)