Scintific Forecasting in Internanional Relations

¶ … Scintific Forecasting in Internanional Relations Problems of Scientific Forecasting in International Relations With the advent of globalization, the field of international relations is gaining incremental momentum. And scientific forecasting plays a tremendous part in ensuring successful relations among the international players. Yet, the adequate scientific forecasting of international relations is impeded by the occurrence of several problems. According to John R. Freeman and Brian L. Job (1979), the very first problem is given by the lack of a universal understanding of forecasting, and forecasting in the context of international relations.

Secondly, the authors argue that more often that not, predictions are not constructed to take into considerations the differences observable among international players. "Contemporary analyses of international relations forecasting contain conceptual and epistemological errors. Alternative definitions of forecasting are contradictory; programs for developing scientific forecasts of international phenomena fail to acknowledge important epistemological difficulties" (Freeman and Job, 1979, p.113). A third problem is raised by the background in which the predictions of international relations are made.

These predictions can only be constructed on a sound historical background which explains the relations among two or more international players and which reveals several particularities of the respective international players. In other words, it is necessary for the predictions to be constructed on a past that reveals clear contexts and repeatable situations. Additionally, it is necessary for the scientific researcher to clearly understand the past and be able to make informed predictions based on them.

In the absence of a clearly understood historical past and in the absence of repeatable events, "all attempts at forecasting and prediction would be reduced to random guessing" (Lynn-Jones and Miller, 1993, p.325). Another issue is raised by the selection of the adequate theory on which to construct the prediction. Throughout the years, the academicians have produced a series of theories to explain international relations.

Some of the theories are constructed on observations of the fundamental principles of the global political world; others are constructed on realism and legalism, whereas other center on the human element and base the arguments of social behaviors (Lynn-Jones and Miller, 1993). In this particular context, Freeman and Job (1979) argue that, based on their research, events can be generalized to lead to predictions for the future. Yet, system-based changes cannot be extrapolated and predictions constructed on observations of system changes are unsound.

A relevant example is offered by the advent of the economic crisis, which can be understood and predicted as an event. After years of research however, a conclusion has been reached that each model reveals both advantages and disadvantages and that the ultimate selection of the model for predictions should be adapted to the unique features of the situation assessed as well as the unique features which characterize the international players in discussion.

In other words, the various dimensions of causality are to be integrated in a complete international relations forecasting exercise. Nazli Choucri (1974) identified three primary problems in scientifically forecasting international relations. The first set of problems is given by the necessity to reason and rationalize the context; the second set of problems is generated by the imperative necessity of reducing uncertainties and the third set of problems is determined by the existence of bounded speculation.

The author argues that these issues are adequately addressed through the gradual completion of four distinctive sets of goals, as follows: The complete understanding of the unknown The ability to control the future results The understanding of the entire system with the purpose of comprehending present conditions, and fourth The development of an action plan for the immediate future (Choucri, 1974). A next set of problems is given by the fact that forecasting international relations takes more variables into consideration, which subsequently increases the complexity of the process.

"Because of the nature of the problems analyzed, the data used, and the constraints on rationality examined, the task of forecasting in international relations may be more challenging. Uncertainty is higher at certain times in the foreign policy experience than is likely, for example, in the stock market […]. In foreign policy, the elements of surprise, secrecy, and pressure, associated with the highest of staked (national security) make the calculation of risk more difficult that in the setting of the economic marketplace" (Bobrow, 1999, p.17).

The author subsequently identifies the lack of linearities in the forecasting of international relations, element which in turn implies increased forecasting complexities. In other words, as history has shown, linearity does not characterize the international context as different countries will react to different situations in different manners. And these individual reactions and contexts are determined by different causalities, which define the context of.