Understanding International Relations, Third Edition

particular situations (or, of course, minimize the losses). This overall
perspective – sometimes termed ‘neo-utilitarian’ – draws much of its
strength from the discipline of Economics, where rational choice assump-
tions are fundamental, and was widely applied in the study of domestic pol-
itics in the US from the 1960s onwards, with electoral, interest group and
congressional politics in the forefront. It encourages the application of tools
such as game theory to the study of politics, and opens up the possibility of
quantitative studies employing regression analysis (and other statistical
techniques largely developed by econometricians). Arguably, both the indi-
vidualism of rational choice theory and its scientific aspirations are particu-
larly congenial to the American psyche, which accounts for the dominance
of this approach in the US, as opposed to its comparative unimportance in
Britain and, until recently, much of the European continent.
Although Waltz’s realism is sometimes described as structural realism,
and structuralism is generally seen as the polar opposite of rational choice
40

---

theory, it is the possibilities opened up by assimilating his approach to
rational choice theory that account for the long-term significance of his
work – and, contrariwise, the bitterest and most sustained critiques of Waltz
have come from opponents of rational choice theory. In effect, Waltz made
possible the integration of IR theory into the dominant mode of theorizing
politics in the US – what remains to be seen is whether this constitutes a
giant leap forward in our abilities to comprehend IR, or a major detour
down a dead-end. The rest of this chapter sets out these alternatives.