explanatory power, or stability would arise from the exogenous variables, not
from the relationship itself.
The result of three centuries spent pondering these questions is an
orthodoxy that is not sure whether there is a relationship between growth and
conflict or not, that focuses narrowly on current policy, and seeks the causes
of growth and conflict as separate, unrelated phenomena. While their
respective disciplines have much to say, and many powerful theories and
explanations to offer, about either growth or conflict, neither economists nor
political scientists seem prone to answer clearly the many vexing questions
about both growth and conflict that arise as nations struggle with the search for both peace and prosperity:
If there is a growth-conflict relationship, what is it?
If there isn't one, why not?
If there is one, what can people do about it?
If there isn't one, what should people do about it?
Is some intervening variable really more significant than either growth, the
independent variable, or conflict, the dependent variable?
If so, what is it, and how can people manage it?
How can analysts or policy-makers predict whether an action, policy, or
phenomenon will bring growth, stagnation, conflict, or cooperation?
Martin Wight, International Theory. The Three Traditions, edited by
Brian Porter (Leicester & London: Leicester University Press for the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, 1991).
A third sort of intervening "behavioral" variables had some currency briefly after World War II. Reflecting sociological and psychological theories of individual
behavior, these explanations offered little beyond noting that decisions depend on
At least one contrary strand of an inchoate "post"-neorealism is trying to
resurrect David Hume's eighteenth-century concept of "moral sciences," which referred
to efforts to understand the human condition and free humanity from ignorance,
superstition, and oppressive social relations. See Peter Hamilton, "The Enlightenment
and the Birth of Social Science," Stuart Hall &
Bram Gieben, eds., Formations of
Modernity ( Oxford: Polity, 1992), 18-58. What Ken Booth has named "Global Moral
Science" hopes to shift the focus of realism from "accumulating knowledge about
relations between states . . . to thinking about ethics and applied ethics on a global
scale . . . the study of security and the good life of the world." Ken Booth, "Human
Wrongs and International Relations," International Affairs 71 January 1995), 111.
Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations ( Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987), 3-4.
John H. Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism ( Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1951); Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and
the Plroblems of Peace, 1812-1822 ( New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964); Hans J.Morgenthau