Neither one nor the other model fully explain the international system or why actors behave the way that they behave. Laffey/Weldes and Goldstein/Keohane posit two separate approaches to the behaviors of actors. Goldstein and Keohane push the rationalist approach, while Laffey and Weldes push a more constructivist idea.
The rationalist model is all well and good for making very generalized predictions about actor behavior. It essentially states that states are driven by their interests and moved along a track, but ideas/world views can be the track along which those states are moved. In short, ideas and interests are separate, but ideas can help inform how interests are carried out. As stated before I believe this to be the better of the two in explaining the world, but more because a more accurate model is likely not possible.
In comparison, Laffey and Weldes describe a world where interests ARE ideas, or at least constituted or made up by them. I think that their model is very compelling is actually a better understanding of what is actually going on in the world. However, I would assert that the model is too complex to be applied for predicting behavior. By my understanding of the model, it would essentially mean that from state to state there would be no common interests, but rather ideas/interests unique to them. While I would tend to agree this is essentially true, it's just too much.
The rationalist model is all well and good for making very generalized predictions about actor behavior. It essentially states that states are driven by their interests and moved along a track, but ideas/world views can be the track along which those states are moved. In short, ideas and interests are separate, but ideas can help inform how interests are carried out. As stated before I believe this to be the better of the two in explaining the world, but more because a more accurate model is likely not possible.
In comparison, Laffey and Weldes describe a world where interests ARE ideas, or at least constituted or made up by them. I think that their model is very compelling is actually a better understanding of what is actually going on in the world. However, I would assert that the model is too complex to be applied for predicting behavior. By my understanding of the model, it would essentially mean that from state to state there would be no common interests, but rather ideas/interests unique to them. While I would tend to agree this is essentially true, it's just too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment