Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T12:48:47.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models-As-Fables: An Alternative to the Standard Rationale for Using Formal Models in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2020

James Johnson Open the ORCID record for James Johnson [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists invoke the standard rationale to justify making and using formal models. It goes like this: (1) we rely on formal models to generate predictions, (2) we treat these predictions as empirical hypotheses, and (3) we seek to test these hypotheses against evidence derived from the “real world.” I show that this interpretation of formal models as directly empirical is inadequate just insofar as it fails to capture the way we actually use them. I then offer an alternative rationale for making and using formal models. Specifically, I argue that we use models, like we use fables, for conceptual purposes.

Type
Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 874 - 889
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper has had an extremely long gestation. In 2016 I presented an initial, half-baked version at the Department of Political Science. University of Geneva (April). I presented a revised version in 2017 on a panel at the Midwest Political Science Association meetings (April) and at a workshop: “What to Make of Highly Unrealistic Models?” at the University of Helsinki (October). In 2018 I presented re-revised versions at the Departments of Political Science, Trinity College, Dublin. (April) and University of California, San Diego (June) and then in the Blalock Lecture Series, at the ICPSR Summer Program in Quantitative Methods of Social Research (July). The folks who arranged all of those events know who they are and how grateful I am for the opportunities they afforded me. To everyone who criticized and questioned my views during one of these events, thank you.

Starting in the fall of 2018 the manuscript was desk rejected by editors at several journals. Those folks know who they are too. No hard feelings. Here at Perspectives on Politics, I want to thank Michael Bernhard for his willingness to take an intellectual risk, for his patience with my glacial revision pace, and for coordinating a rigorous review process. I also want to thank four referees for their frank, skeptical comments. In particular I want to thank Referee #3 for their deep, abiding disagreement. I really do hope you will argue back.

References

Aldrich, John. 2011 [1995]. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John, and Alt, James. 2003. “Introduction to the Special Issue.” Political Analysis 1(4): 309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John, Alt, James, and Lupia, Arthur. 2008 “The EITM approach: Origins and Interpretations.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John, and Lupia, Arthur. 2011. “Experiments and Game Theory’s Value to Political Science.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. Druckman, James, Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, 89–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amadae, S.M., and de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno. 1999. “The Rochester School: The Origins of Positive Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 2:269–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1998. “Social Choice Theory, Game Theory, and Positive Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 1:259–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1999. Positive Political Theory I. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 2005. Positive Political Theory II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina. 1988. “Should a Scientist Abstain from Metaphor?” In The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, ed. Klamer, Arjo, McCloskey, Donald, and Solow, Robert. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blackham, H.L. 1985. The Fable as Literature. London: Athelone.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, and Swalve, Tilko. 2020. “Theory Building for Causal Inference: EITM Research Projects.” In SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations, ed. Curini, Luigi and Franzese, Robert. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bueno De Mesquita, Bruce, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 2001. “William Harrison Riker, 1920–1993: A Biographical Memoir.” Biographical Memoirs, Vol. 79. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1995a. “The Rational Choice Theory of Social Institutions.” In Modern Political Economy, ed. Banks, J. and Hanushek, E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1995b. “Rational Actors, Equilibrium and Social Institutions.” In Explaining Social Institutions, ed. Knight, J. and Sened, I.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2010. “Models: Parables v. Fables.” In Beyond Mimesis and Convention. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 262. Ed. Frigg, Roman and Hunter, Mathew. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin, and Primo, David. 2012. A Model Discipline. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contessa, Gabrielle. 2011. “Scientific Models and Representation.” In Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science, ed. French, Steven and Saatsi, Juha. New York: Continuum International Publishing,Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1999. “The Empirical Content of Rational Choice Theory.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 11(2): 147–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 2007. “Majority Cycling and Agenda Manipulation.” In Positive Changes in Political Science, ed. Aldrich, John, Alt, James, and Lupia, Arthur. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Scott. 2005. Computational and Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel. 2014a. “Positive Political Theory.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, ed. Gibbons, Michael. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel 2014b. “Formal Models of Legislatures.” In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, ed. Martin, Shane, Saalfeld, Thomas, and Strøm, Kaare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Krehbiel, Keith. 2003. “Institutionalism as Methodology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(2): 123–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, Keith. 2016. The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, Keith, and Miller, Charles. 2019. “On Prediction in Political Science.” European Journal of Political Research 58(3): 1001–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 2007. “McKelvey’s Democracy.” In Positive Changes in Political Science, ed. Aldrich, John, Alt, James, and Lupia, Arthur. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman, and Hartmann, Stephan. 2012. “Models in Science.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/).Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan, and Varian, Hal. 1978. “Economic Models.” Journal of Philosophy 75 (11): 664–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 2004. “How Models Are Used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science 71:742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald, Bickle, John, and Mauldin, Robert. 2005. Understanding Scientific Reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Granato, Jim, Lo, Melody, and Wong, M.C. Sunny. 2010. “A Framework for Unifying Formal and Empirical Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 783–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granato, Jim, and Scioli, Frank. 2004. “Puzzles, Proverbs, and Omega Matrices: The Scientific and Social Significance of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models (EITM).” Perspectives on Politics 2(2): 313–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1986 [1977]. “Advances in Understanding Rational Behavior.” In Rational Choice, ed. Elster, Jon. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1992a. Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1992b. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan. 2017. Political Games: Mathematical Insights on Fighting, Voting, Lying, and Other Affairs of State. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 2014. “Models Among the Political Theorists.” American Journal of Political Science 58:547–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, James. 2019. “Formal Models in Political Science: Conceptual, Not Empirical.” Journal of Politics 81(1): e6–e10.10.1086/700590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Phillip. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack. 1995. “Models, Interpretations and Theories.” In Explaining Social Institutions. Ed.Knight, J. and Sened, I.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1988. “Spatial Models of Legislative Choice.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13(3): 259–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, Meirowitz, Adam, and Woon, Jonathan. 2005. “Testing Theories of Lawmaking.” In Social Choice and Strategic Decisions, ed. Austen-Smith, David and Duggan, John. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kreps, David. 1990. Game Theory & Economic Modelling. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1996. Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward. 2012. The Craft of Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1977. “Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative and The Philosophy of Science.” The Monist 60(4): 453–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Gerry. 2003. Democracy Defended. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2007. Political Game Theory: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Deirdre. 1998 [1985]. The Rhetoric of Economics. 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. (2002). “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 5(1): 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory 12(3): 472–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard. 1979. “General Conditions in Formal Voting Models.” Econometrica 47(5): 1085–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Burt, Pan, Jennifer, Roberts, Margaret E., Sen, Maya, and Sinclair, Betsy. 2015. “No! Formal Theory, Causal Inference and Big Data are Not Contradictory.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48(1):71–74.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary, and Morrison, Margaret, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Oskar. 1968. “Game Theory I: Theoretical Aspects.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6. Ed. Sills, David. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca. 1999. Methods & Models. A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca. 2009. “Formal Modeling and Empirical Analysis in Political Science.” In Methoden der Vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft, ed. Pickel, Susanne, Pickel, Gert, Lauth, Hans-Joachim, and Detlef Jahn. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca, and Williams, Kenneth. 2008. “Experimentation in Political Science.” The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger. 2004. “Justice, Institutions and Multiple Equilibria.” Chicago Journal of International Law 5:91–107.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger. 2007. Force and Restraint in Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theorist’s Perspective. Strategic Studies Institute. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger. 2009. “Learning from Schelling’s Strategy of Conflict.” Journal of Economic Literature 4794): 1109–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger. 2013. “Fundamentals of Social Choice Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8(3): 305–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Anne. 2004. 95 Theses on Politics, Culture & Methods. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter 1992. A Political Theory Primer. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action.” American Political Science Review 92(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patty, John, and Penn, Elizabeth Maggie. 2014. Social Choice and Legitimacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1977. “The Future of a Science of Politics.” American Behavioral Scientist 21(1): 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William. 1980. “Implications of the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 74(2): 432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William. 1990. “Political Science and Rational Choice.” In Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, ed. Alt, James and Shepsle, Kenneth. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William, and Ordeshook, Peter. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 2005. Philosophy of Science. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 1991. “Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory.” Econometrica 59(4): 909–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 2006. “Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist.” Econometrica 74(4): 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 2012. Economic Fables. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 2013. “How Game Theory Will Solve the Problems of the Euro Bloc and Stop Iranian Nukes.” Frankfurter Allgemeine, March 27. (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/game-theory-how-game-theory-will-solve-the-problems-of-the-euro-bloc-and-stop-iranian-nukes-12130407.html).Google Scholar
Satz, Debra, and Ferejohn, John. 1994. “Rational Choice and Social Theory.” Journal of Philosophy 91(2): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1978. Micromotives & Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1984 [1967]. “What Is Game Theory?” In Choice and Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1978. “Instability of Simple Dynamic Games.” Review of Economic Studies 45(3): 575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2001. “Constitutions, Voting and Democracy: A Review.” Social Choice & Welfare 18:571–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23(3): 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1986. “Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium Institutions.” Political Science: The Science of Politics. Edited by Weisberg, Herbert. Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 2006. “Old Questions and New Answers About Institutions: The Riker Objection Revisited.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, ed. Weingast, Barry and Wittman, Donald. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 2010. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior and Institutions. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Woon, Jonathan. 2012. “Laboratory Tests of Formal Theory and Behavioral Inference.” In Experimental Political Science: Principles & Practices, ed. Kittel, Bernhard, Luban, Wolfgang, and Morton, Rebecca. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar