This paper explores the central problems impeding scientific forecasting in international relations. Drawing on Freeman and Job, Choucri, Bobrow, and Kissane, it identifies five major challenge categories: the lack of universal definitions and frameworks, failure to account for differences among international actors, insufficient historical grounding, difficulties in selecting appropriate theoretical models, and the compounding effect of multiple variables and system interdependencies. The paper argues that successful forecasting requires integrating diverse causal dimensions and adopting techniques from natural sciences to accommodate inherent chaos in the international system.
With the advent of globalization, the field of international relations is gaining incremental momentum. Scientific forecasting plays a crucial role in ensuring successful relations among international players, yet the adequate forecasting of international relations is impeded by several fundamental problems.
According to Freeman and Job (1979), the first problem is the lack of a universal understanding of forecasting and forecasting in the context of international relations. The authors argue that predictions are often not constructed to account for differences observable among international players. As they write, "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 actors. 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 it.
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). Without this foundation, predictions lose their scientific rigor and become mere speculation.
Another issue is raised by the selection of the adequate theory on which to construct the prediction. Throughout the years, academics have produced a series of theories to explain international relations. Some theories are constructed on observations of fundamental principles of the global political world; others are constructed on realism and legalism, whereas others center on the human element and base their arguments on social behaviors (Lynn-Jones and Miller, 1993).
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. 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.
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: the complete understanding of the unknown, the ability to control future results, the understanding of the entire system with the purpose of comprehending present conditions, and the development of an action plan for the immediate future (Choucri, 1974).
"Multiple variables and non-linear international responses"
"Systemic chaos and adopting natural science techniques"
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.