Politics is too important to be left to political scientists: A critique of the theory–policy nexus in International Relations
| Author | Lorenzo Zambernardi |
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115580137 |
European Journal of
International Relations
2016, Vol. 22(1) 3 –23
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066115580137
ejt.sagepub.com
E
JR
I
Politics is too important to be
left to political scientists: A
critique of the theory–policy
nexus in International Relations
Lorenzo Zambernardi
University of Bologna, Italy
Abstract
Albeit fashionable in some academic circles, the idea that International Relations theory
should influence practice is based on the problematic view that scholars allegedly have
a privileged epistemological standpoint making them more qualified than laymen and
decision-makers alike to understand how international politics works. The present
article tries to show why this assumption is mistaken and suggests that the so-called
theory–practice gap should not be bridged. The fact that International Relations
theory should not directly influence policy does not mean, however, that students of
international politics are of no political use. Their work can be justified not in terms of
the direct application of their findings, but rather by virtue of its indirect and unintended
consequences on policymaking. Relying on a liberal view of political knowledge, the
article claims that the role of International Relations scholars is not to suggest to
policymakers what action to take, but rather to prevent foreign policy being formulated
in the absence of rival theoretical conclusions.
Keywords
Applied science, epistemology, International Relations, policy relevance, theory and
practice, unintended consequences
they that have no Science, are in better, and nobler condition with their naturall Prudence; than
men, that by mis-reasoning, or by trusting them that reason wrong, fall upon false and absurd
generall rules. For ignorance of causes, and of rules, does not set men so farre out of their way,
Corresponding author:
Lorenzo Zambernardi, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, Bologna, 40125, Italy.
Email: lorenzo.zambernardi3@unibo.it
580137EJT0010.1177/1354066115580137European Journal of International RelationsZambernardi
research-article2015
Article
4 European Journal of International Relations 22(1)
as relying on false rules, and taking for causes of what they aspire to, those that are not so, but
rather causes of the contrary. (Hobbes 2012 [1651]: 74)
Introduction
A considerable number of International Relations (IR) theorists have recently lamented
the discipline’s lack of practical relevance and urged political scientists to address funda-
mental real-world issues (Jentleson and Ratner, 2011; Mearsheimer and Walt, 2013; Nau,
2008; Nye, 2008; Reus-Smit, 2013; Sil and Katzenstein, 2010a, 2010b; Walt, 2012).
Although scholars largely disagree over what constitutes valuable knowledge and on
how to generate it, a common theme runs through their studies: one of the most important
justifications of IR lies in the production of knowledge with concrete bearing on foreign
policy issues and international problems. Put differently, political scientists have an obli-
gation to engage in work that is not merely intellectually interesting, but also implies
questions that are important for human affairs.
While the urge for a politically relevant scholarship seems reasonable and is perfectly
consistent with the traditional study of politics — indeed, all great works of political
theory, from Aristotle’s Politics to Hobbes’s Leviathan, were not intended as knowledge
for its own sake, but aimed to intervene ‘in a concrete political situation with the purpose
of change through action’ (Morgenthau, 1970: 257) — the crucial question is concerned
with the nature of the relationship between scholarship and policy. In particular, there is
a major problem with the idea that IR theory should directly influence policy — that is,
with what I call the theory–policy nexus: the belief that scholars have a privileged epis-
temological standpoint in devising the correct policy for the social and political problem
of the day. Challenging this idea, I would argue that such an understanding of the theory–
policy relationship is patently mistaken.
The argument proceeds along three main steps. First, I will outline the epistemologi-
cal approach underlying the theory–policy nexus, what in the context of the philosophy
of social science is termed ‘naturalism.’1 As the so-called ‘critical’ approaches generally
reject the option of problem-solving theories and look for more radical emancipatory
changes, the present discussion will be mostly confined to naturalist-oriented scholar-
ship.2 This section will also show that although a naturalistic notion of social science
does not imply a scientist or technocratic view of politics, the theory–policy nexus is still
a typical feature of many of those scholars who share the naturalistic orientation. Second,
I will contend that the privileged epistemological standpoint of IR scholars is based on
shaky foundations. In fact, supporters of the theory–policy nexus are not in a position to
advise decision-makers on what action to take. Finally, this article suggests that the fact
that IR theory should not be directly applied does not mean that scholars in this field are
of no political use. Their work can be justified not in terms of the direct application of
their findings, but rather by virtue of the indirect and unintended consequences on the
policymaking process. In particular, IR may play two important roles. The first one con-
cerns the function of theory in the intellectual development of policymakers. The second
one, instead, refers to IR’s influence on those ideas that shape the policy and public
debate on foreign policy decisions. Here, the role of theory is not the ‘heroic’ one of
providing scientifically derived knowledge by which foreign policy may be guided, but
To continue reading
Request your trial