Daniel W. Drezner

Maybe us IR types have too much influence

Part IV of a continuing series on the relationship between international relations scholars and policymakers (click here, here, and here for prior posts).  William Easterly is not a political scientist, but he’s a pretty good social scientist, so he gets a turn at FP’s Speaker Corner:  I think academic social scientists have had TOO MUCH influence ...

Part IV of a continuing series on the relationship between international relations scholars and policymakers (click here, here, and here for prior posts). 

William Easterly is not a political scientist, but he's a pretty good social scientist, so he gets a turn at FP's Speaker Corner: 

I think academic social scientists have had TOO MUCH influence on one policy area -- military intervention (with sub-branches Spreading Democracy, Peacekeeping, and Fixing Failed States, formerly known as Nation Building). Economists have used shoddy econometrics and shallow analysis to justify such interventions, while political scientists seem to climb on board for reasons that I don't entirely fathom. Military intervention is such a drastic intervention that the burden of proof lies on those who advocate it, and social scientists have done a lousy job bearing that burden -- not surprising since military stuff is so far away from the traditional areas of knowledge of social science. The politicians and generals that wanted to intervene anyway are delighted to get the spurious cover offered by the amateur military analysts from the social sciences.

Part IV of a continuing series on the relationship between international relations scholars and policymakers (click here, here, and here for prior posts). 

William Easterly is not a political scientist, but he’s a pretty good social scientist, so he gets a turn at FP’s Speaker Corner: 

I think academic social scientists have had TOO MUCH influence on one policy area — military intervention (with sub-branches Spreading Democracy, Peacekeeping, and Fixing Failed States, formerly known as Nation Building). Economists have used shoddy econometrics and shallow analysis to justify such interventions, while political scientists seem to climb on board for reasons that I don’t entirely fathom. Military intervention is such a drastic intervention that the burden of proof lies on those who advocate it, and social scientists have done a lousy job bearing that burden — not surprising since military stuff is so far away from the traditional areas of knowledge of social science. The politicians and generals that wanted to intervene anyway are delighted to get the spurious cover offered by the amateur military analysts from the social sciences.

Incidentally, Easterly how has his own blog called Aid Watch, which is worth checking out — particularly when he wrestles with God Jeffrey Sachs

[Why didn’t you continue the Star Wars theme in this post?–ed.  Because nothing I could ever write, ever, could top this.]

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. He blogged regularly for Foreign Policy from 2009 to 2014. Twitter: @dandrezner

More from Foreign Policy

The Pentagon is seen from the air over Washington, D.C., on Aug. 25, 2013.

The Pentagon’s Office Culture Is Stuck in 1968

The U.S. national security bureaucracy needs a severe upgrade.

The Azerbaijani army patrols the streets of Shusha on Sept. 25 under a sign that reads: "Dear Shusha, you are free. Dear Shusha, we are back. Dear Shusha, we will resurrect you. Shusha is ours."

From the Ruins of War, a Tourist Resort Emerges

Shusha was the key to the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Now Baku wants to turn the fabled fortress town into a resort.

Frances Pugh in 2019's Midsommar.

Scandinavia’s Horror Renaissance and the Global Appeal of ‘Fakelore’

“Midsommar” and “The Ritual” are steeped in Scandinavian folklore. Or are they?