Towards a “Second Great Debate” in Russian IR

The article contains a critical analysis of previously published article in the journal International Trends “Statistics Against History” by Alexey Fenenko with critics of quantitative methods and formal models in International Studies. Discussion with Alexey Fenenko in some way could be compared to 1950s – 1960s Second Great Debate in international relations, but in Russian intellectual environment. The author concludes that this debated showed gradual development of International Studies in Russia . The place of IR in Political Science and History is shown, differences in methodology are discussed, as well as role of ideology in social sciences is emphasized. The author talks about development of quantitative methodology in the American Political and IR Sciences and outlines whether it is possible for other countries, including Russia to successfully adopt quantitative methodology in IR as a part of modern social science. Limits and assumptions of game-theory model within interdisciplinary approach is presented along with prospects of using other mathematic methods such as system dynamics models and agent-based modelling (ABM) as examples of simulations which help to provide forecasts of international relations. International ratings and indexes of national power are discussed highlighting their methodological weaknesses. The author also provides some alternative to A. Fenenko’s article indexes using the same methodology but that more adequately reflect international politics. He compares the methodology of major ‘cold war’ power indexes, soft power indexes (incl. Country Brand Index or Happy Planet Index) of unipolar world and modern complex indicates like Foreign Bilateral Influence Capacity (FBIC) index, elaborated by Denver University. In conclusion, the author supposes that quantitative methods help international studies uncover implicit and counterintuitive patterns.

1. (2015). Prikladnoy analiz v amerikanskoy mezhdunarodno-politicheskoy nauke (interv'yu s B. Braumyullerom, direktorom magisterskikh programm Departamenta politicheskikh nauk Gosudarstvennogo universiteta Ogayo (SSHA) [Applied Analysis in American International Political Science (Interview with B. Braumuller, Director of Master;s Programs as the Departmnet of Political Science, Ohio State University (USA)]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 198–202.

2. Akayev A.A., Korotayev A.V., Malinetskiy G.G., Malkov S.YU. (eds) (2012). Modelirovaniye i prognozirovaniye global'nogo, regional'nogo i natsional'nogo razvitiya [Modeling and Forecasting of Global, Regional and National Development]. Moscow: Librokom. 488 p.

3. Akhremenko A.S. (2006). Politicheskiy analiz i prognozirovaniye [Political analysis and forecasting]. Moscow: Gardariki. 333 p.

4. Alekseeva T.A., Degterev D.A. (2017). Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya: spor o nauke i metode [International Relations: A Dispute About Science and Method]. Vestnik RAN. No. 9. P. 848–857.

5. Andriole S., Hopple G. (1984). The rise and fall of event data: From basic research to applied use in the US Department of Defense. International Interactions. Vol. 10. No. 3–4. P. 293–309.

6. Barkin S., Sjoberg L. (eds) (2017). Interpretive Quantification. Methodological Explorations for Critical and Constructivist IR. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 290 p.

7. Black C. (1970). Government-Sponsored Research in International Studies. World Politics. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 582–596.

8. Bondareva O.N. (1963). Nekotoryye primeneniya metodov lineynogo programmirovaniya k teorii kooperativnykh igr [Some applications of linear programmingto the cooperative game-theory]. Problemy kibernetiki. Vol. 10. Moscow: Fizmatlit. P. 119–139.

9. Bull H. (1966). International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach. World Politics. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 361–377.

10. Buzan B. (2012). Nauka o mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh – udel izbrannogo kruga gosudarstv… [Internationa Relations Science is the Destiny of Certain States]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 3. P. 73–82.

11. Chechevishnikov A.L. (2016). 40 let IMI: ot Problemnoi laboratorii k Institutu mezhdunarodnykh issledovanii [40th Anniversary of Institute of International Studies: from a Problem Laboratory to the Institute of International Studies]. Vestnik MGIMO. No. 2. P. 234–241.

12. Cline R. (1975). World Power Assessment. A Calculus of Strategic Drift. Boulder: Westview Press. 173 p.

13. Degterev D.A. (2015). Kolichestvennyye metody v mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniyakh [Quantitative Methods in International Studies in Russia and Abroad]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 35–54.

14. Degterev D.A. (2016). Rasprostraneniye kul'turnykh norm i tsennostey: agentnoye modelirovaniye [Dissemination of Cultural Norms and Values: Agent-Based Modeling]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. Vol.16. No. 1. P. 141–152.

15. Degterev D.A. (2017). Teoretiko­igrovoy analiz mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [Game-theory Analysis of International Relations]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 352 p.

16. Degterev D.A. (2020a). Otsenka sovremennoy rasstanovki sil na mezhdunarodnoy arene i formirovaniye mnogopolyarnogo mira [The Current Balance of Power Evaluation in the International Arena and Formation of a Multipolar World]. Мoscow: Knorus. 320 p.

17. Degterev D.A. (2020b). Replitsiruyemost' issledovaniy po mezhdunarodnym otnosheniyam: mirovye trendy [International Relations Research Replicability: global trends]. Vestnik RAN. No. 12. P. 59–72.

18. Degterev D.A., Istomin I.A. (2015). Sistemnoye modelirovaniye mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [Systemic Mode ling of International Relations]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. No. 11. P. 17–30.

19. Deopik D.V. (2011). Kolichestvennyye metody v izuchenii istoricheskoy informatsii: «proveryayemaya istoriya» [Quantitative Methods in the Study of Historical Information: “verifiable history”]. M.: Vostochnaya literature. 551 p.

20. Deriglazova L.V. (2010). Asimmetrichnyy konflikt v sovremennoy amerikanskoy politologii [Asymmetric Conflicts on Contemporary American Political Thought]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 2. P. 51–64.

21. Ericson R., Zeager L. (2015). Ukraine Crisis 2014: A Study of Russian-Western Strategic Interaction. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 153–190.

22. Evreinov E.V., Kosarev Yu.G., Ustinov V.A. (1961a). Issledovanie drevnikh rukopisei maiya s pomoshch'yu elektronnoi vychislitel'noi mashiny. Predvaritel'nye rezul'taty [Study of ancient Mayan manuscripts using electronic computer. Preliminary results]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 58 p.

23. Evreinov E.V., Kosarev Yu.G., Ustinov V.A. (1961b). Primenenie elektronnykh vychislitel'nykh mashin v issledovanii pis'mennosti drevnikh maiya [The use of electronic computers in the study of the manuscripts of the ancient Mayans]. Volume 1. Madridskaya rukopis' [Madrid manuscript]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 372 p.

24. Evreinov E.V., Kosarev Yu.G., Ustinov V.A. (1961c). Primenenie elektronnykh vychislitel'nykh mashin v issledovanii pis'mennosti drevnikh maiya [The use of electronic computers in the study of the manuscripts of the ancient Mayans]. Volume 2. Drezdenskaya rukopis' [Dresden manuscript]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 364 p.

25. Evreinov E.V., Kosarev Yu.G., Ustinov V.A. (1961d). Primenenie elektronnykh vychislitel'nykh mashin v issledovanii pis'mennosti drevnikh maiya [The use of electronic computers in the study of the manuscripts of the ancient Mayans]. Volume 3. Svodnyi sistematizirovannyi katalog ieroglificheskikh znakov [Consolidated systematic catalog of hieroglyphic signs]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 364 p.

26. Evreinov E.V., Kosarev Yu.G., Ustinov V.A. (1969). Primenenie elektronnykh vychislitel'nykh mashin v issle dovanii pis'mennosti drevnikh maiya [The use of electronic computers in the study of the manuscripts of the ancient Mayans]. Volume 4. Metody issledovaniya pis'mennosti drevnikh maiya s pomoshch'yu elektronnykh vychislitel'nykh mashin [Methods of studying the manuscripts of the ancient Mayans with the help of electronic computers]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 325 p.

27. Fenenko A.V. (2016). Real'nost' i mify «myagkoy sily» [Reality and Myths of Soft Power]. RSMD. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/realnost-i-mify-myagkoy-sily/ (accessed: 17.08.2019).

28. Fenenko A.V. (2018a). Statistika protiv istorii. Razmyshleniyakh o kolichestvennykh metodakh v mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniyakh [Statistics Versus History: On Quantitative Methods in International Studies]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 56–83.

29. Fenenko A.V. (2018b). Istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy 1648–1945 [History of International Relations. 1648–1945]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 784 p.

30. Fenenko A.V. (2019). Sovremennaya istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. 1991–2018 [Modern History of International Relations. 1991–2018]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 456 p.

31. Fomin I.V., Kokarev K.P., Ananyev B.I., Silaev N.Yu., Sushentsov A.A., Chekov A.D. (2018). Akademicheskie praktiki prognozirovaniya v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh: metodologicheskie determinanty i nereshennye problemy [Forecasting Practices in Academic IR: Methodological Mainstream and Unsolved Problems]. Vestnik MGIMO. No. 6. P. 159–193.

32. Hughes B., Hillebrand E. (2006). Exploring and Shaping International Futures. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. 238 p.

33. Istomin I.A. (2018). Logika povedeniya gosudarstv v mezhdunarodnoy politike [TheLogic of States’ Behavior in International Politics]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 296 p.

34. Ivanov V.G. (2015). «Charts Power» – «reytingovaya sila» kak instrument myagkoy sily i ekonomicheskoye oruzhiye: tekhnologii ispol'zovaniya i strategii protivodeystviya [Charts Power -Rating Power as Soft Power Instrument and Economic Weapon: Technologies of Use and Counteraction Strategies]. Moscow: Infra-M. 188 p.

35. Katalevskiy D.YU. (2011). Osnovy imitatsionnogo modelirovaniya i sistemnogo analiza v upravlenii [Basics of Simulation and System Analysis in Management]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 304 p.

36. Khudaykulova A.V. (2016). Novoye v upravlenii mezhdunarodnymi konfliktami [Conflict Management in the New Century]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 4. P. 67–79.

37. Koval'chenko I.D. (ed.) (1981). Kolichestvennyye metody v gumanitarnykh naukakh [Quantitative Methods in Humanities]. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta. 206 p.

38. Melville A.Yu., Ilyin M.V., Meleshkina E.Yu., Mironyuk M.G., Polunin Yu.A., Timofeev I.N., Kharitonova O.G., Vaslavsky Y.I. (2007). Politicheskiy atlas sovremennosti. Opyt mnogomernogo statisticheskogo analiza politicheskikh sistem sovremennykh gosudarstv [Modernity Political Atlas. The Experience of Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Political Systems of Modern States]. M.: MGIMO-Universitet. 272 p.

39. Morton R. (2008). Methods & Models. A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 326 p.

40. Moyer J., Sweijs T., Burrows M., Van Manen H. (2018). Power and Influence in the Globalized World. 36 p.

41. Petrovskiy S.A., Petrovskaya L.A. (1974). «Modernizm» protiv «traditsionalizma» v burzhuaznykh issledovaniyakh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [Modernism vs Traditionalism in Bourgeois Studies of International Relations]. Voprosy filosofii. No. 2. P. 39–54.

42. Petrovskiy V.F. (1976). Amerikanskaya vneshnepoliticheskaya mysl'. Kriticheskiy obzor organizatsii, metodov i soderzhaniya burzhuaznykh issledovaniy v SSHA po voprosam mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy i vneshney politiki [American Foreign Policy Thought. A Critical Review of Organization, Methods and Content of Bourgeois Research in the US on International Relations and Foreign Policy]. M.: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. 336 p.

43. Rapoport A. (1999). Two­Person Game Theory. N.Y.: Dover Publications. 240 p.

44. Singer D. (ed.) (1968). Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence. N.Y.: Free Press. 394 p.

45. Shabaga A.V. (2009). Istoricheskii sub"ekt v poiskakh svoego Ya [Historical subject in search of I]. Moscow: RUDN University. 524 p.

46. Shapley L. (1967). On balanced sets and cores. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 453–460.

47. Soeters J., Shields P., Rietjens S. (eds) (2014). Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies. N.Y.: Routledge. 336 p.

48. Timofeyev I.N. (2010). Formalizovannyye metody issledovaniya v politologii i sravnitel'noy politike: perspektivy politologicheskoy shkoly MGIMO [Formal Research Methods in Political Science and Comparative Politics: The Prospects of MGIMO-University Political Science School]. Sravnitelnaya politika. No. 1. P. 121–129.

49. Tsygankov P.A. (ed.) (2017). Gibridizatsiya mirovoy i vneshney politiki v svete sotsiologii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [World and Foreign Policy Hybridization in the Light of the Sociology of International Relations]. Moscow: Goryachaya liniya-Telekom: 356.

50. Voitolovsky F. (2006) "Proizvodstvo" intellektual’nogo prostranstva mirovoi politiki’ ["Producing Intellect" for World Politics]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 2. P. 100–111.

51. Ward M. (ed.) (1985). Theories, Models and Simulations in International Relations. Essays in Honor of H. Guetzkow. Boulder: Westview Press. 625 p.

52. Zinnes D.A., Gillespie J.V. (eds.) (1976). Mathematical Models in International Relations. N.Y.: Praeger Publishers, 1976. 397 p.