Does anyone else think "The Village Bicycle: Everyone Gets a Ride" by Joe Mama has a chance at this?
Political Science Job Rumors » Everything Else
ISA Best Book of the Decade
(232 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I second the nomination of _The Logic of Political Survival_. It has its flaws, as indicated in a recent APSR piece, but it has been hugely influential.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ Flaws? More like absurdly massive errors that boggle the mind: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/03/data_molesters_1.html
Posted 1 year ago # -
^Look, the book is primarily theoretical in nature. It is incredibly difficult to operationalize the concepts in the selectorate theory in order to provide an empirical test. Rather than leave the model as a theory as many economists do, though, the authors try to come up with some kind of operationalization (which they note is extremely rough). You can criticize the empirical tests, but if you really want to make a contribution you have to come up with a better operationalization. I'm sure the authors would welcome that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^The book is indeed mainly theoretical. Even the harshly critical review posted above (^^) concludes with positive comments about the theoretical argument. The point is not that this is a perfect book--Social Theory of International Politics wasn't either, God knows--but rather that it is provocative and influential.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"I hate to break it to they who mentioned Kalyvas' work... but in reality, while a good book (TONs and tons of work there... holy cow) theoretically it was predicated almost entirely off of some articles written (and tested) back in the early 90s and late 80s by others."
such as?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Actually -- and I am no big fan of the selectorate model -- Kling's critique is the worst kind of methodological pedantry, worthy of an upper division undergrad, which is not surprising given that it comes from a high school statistics teacher. It howls about methods unblessed by a high priests, without focusing on or even asking whether it makes any difference whatsoever for the results. Methods critics should show the critique's relevance for the results or shut the hell up. Otherwise they are simply implying the irrelevance of their specialty for the substance of the issue.
And, seriously, I teach methods at a top 10 department.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Okay, so one ignorant dope never heard of Ikenberry's book, and then a bunch of people said the same thing just to be funny...right? Right, guys? Please tell me I'm right...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yep, it's weird. I mean, c'mon, even Drezner has it at #2 on his list. But it is amusing to watch supposedly intelligent people resort to the frat-boy herd defense when someone points out their ignorance.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Anybody mention "Producing Security" yet? That's a good one...
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's hard to imagine anyone beyond his or her second year in an IR graduate program who hasn't at least heard of After Victory. It and the Tragedy of Power Politics are both possible contenders. Both advance the discipline, are well written, and influential. I also find it odd that most folks beat up on Mearsheimer without fully understanding his book and why it is important. Before you bash it, I suggest you read it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Robert Pape, Dying to Win.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^ the "Tragedy" is not that hard to understand. Its importance is kind of obvious. Those little folks just want to bash him.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^ Seriously?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I haven't heard of it this "After Victory" either. Disclaimer: I am well beyond my second year of grad school, and also study international relations. Because of that, I can also tell you that "offensive realism" did not move the field to the extent you all are saying it has. Do you all honestly contend that realism is that critical to the discipline? Even more so, that one addition to that paradigm is that important?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm an IR person past my second year at a top 5, and I've never heard of After Victory either...
Posted 1 year ago # -
surely something by james l. gibson can win this award
Posted 1 year ago # -
What exactly has 'Tragedy' done for the field? How is it right? Has anyone really done work to advance it positively besides Elman, who uses the Louisiana Purchase to advance the argument? The whole freaking point of the book was that great powers will constantly fight and minor powers don't matter. So that one sure worked out for him. Just the theory worked for Waltz. Is he still waiting for the balance to come? I won't even discuss the 'Lobby" and my fav, the Time piece where he said everyone should have nukes. Disgusting stuff. Everyone should be ashamed. Realism is dead, let it die. Sometimes books are read and cited because they are just so bad (in terms of ideas, writing is well done).
IR prof, heard of and may even own 'After Victory' but I have certainly never felt compelled to read it or heard it mentinoed by another collegue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So BdM's Logic is valuable but cannot be tested empirically? Then, um, how do you know it is valuable? Because it just 'sounds' right? (i.e. tells a good story)
p.s. the errors pointed out in the empirical part of the book are not about measurement error; they are far more serious.
Posted 1 year ago # -
as for the Mearsheimer thing: I really liked his writing (not necessarily his specific arguments, but how he builds an argument), but he nevere appeared in our IR introductory seminar in graduate school (other than in footnotes of some readings).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mearsheimer should get it just for the size of his balls. The 90s pummeled realism. Yet, Mearsheimer is not the least bit intimidated. He comes back with a goddamn tome that says, "Fuck you, you're all wrong, and I'm going to tell you why using VERY SIMPLE LANGUAGE." There is no clearer, more logically coherent statement of structural realism. He had the balls to take Waltz's arguments to their logical end, in the middle of a very anti-realist climate, and he stands by it. Very big balls.
His arguments are wrong, in my opinion. But, really, given the dearth of good IR books lately, is there anything else you'd rather read? He writes good stuff. It's provocative. He mixes in historical examples well. Etc. I can't think of a better IR book.
Also, quick comment: I'm absolutely baffled by the so-called IR students (professors?) who've not heard of "After Victory." There is no excuse for that. Ikenberry's book is basically the liberal counterpart to Mearsheimer's. It's no coincidence they were published in the same year. Aren't these books on the reading lists for your comps or something? Regardless, I'll be on an IR search committee this fall (top 10 R1!), and I will now be asking every candidate about their opinion on "After Victory."
Posted 1 year ago # -
For the IR students who say they've never heard of After Victory, I'm curious: what would you consider the best IR book of the decade? I'm very interested in what IR students are learning these days.
(Let's take Mearsheimer off the table for this question, given his inexplicable "popularity.")
Posted 1 year ago # -
In response to ^: Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles. It's almost like a textbook (if you already have some basic knowledge), in that you stumble over almost all of the important arguments made in the past by other authors. Also, while certainly a lot of pages, very fluently written, and a nice overview over the last couple of centuries. We did not read it in class, though (but it was mentioned).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Producing Security could have been good. But it isn't.
Posted 1 year ago # -
given how important terrorism has been this decade, yes, I think the most comprehensive study of it (pape) should be a serious contender.
Posted 1 year ago #