The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative vs.

Progressive Research Programs: an Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltzs Balancing Proposition by Vasquez Pg. 906 907 Buck-passing and Chain-ganging Christensen and Snyder try to correct a gap in Waltzs explanation by introducing another variable (from Jervis): Chain-ganging and buck-passing in a multipolar system
C+Ss argue that states will either engage in buck-passing or chain-ganging under multi-polarity Vasquez argues that this is an admission that states often fail to balance in the way Waltz says they must C+S use this to explain away historical periods such as the 1930s where C+S see a failure to balance: a critical case (according to Vasquez) that Waltzs theory should have predicted

Probability of falsification is lowered (degenerative under Lakatoss fourth indicator)

If under bipolarity there is, according to Waltz, a tendency to balance (internally, i.e., through military buildups), and under multipolarity there is, according to Christensen and Snyder, a tendency to pass the buck or chain-gang, then when exactly do we get the kind of alliance balancing that we attribute to the traditional balance of power Waltz has decreed as a law? C+S s analysis result in realism being confirmed if state balance internally or externally, chain-gang or buck pass or bandwagon According to fourth indicator (Lakatos) this is degenerative: probability of falsification becomes much lower Degenerative b/c new theories by C+S hide rather than deal with the anomalies they are trying to handle A theory whose main purpose is to explain balancing cannot stand if balancing is not the law it says it is

Progressive Research on Degenerate Alliances by Christensen and Snyder Do not consider themselves neorealist: Only borrow from that paradigm
They also consider domestic politics, perceptions, ideology and other factors. And believe that these factors can override the considerations of power and logic of anarchy that is central to neorealism. Also all factors interact with each other and mediate each others effects We think that our borrowing s form neorealism for that specific purpose [looking into the problem that concerned them the conditions that lead to chain-ganging vs. buck-passing] yielded valid insights, when employed in the context of our overall research design. (919)

Vasquez misunderstands and misrepresents them Regarding their main point: Their argument had a large perceptual aspect
Their argument had a large perceptual aspect ignored by Vasquez it was not a purely structural account intended to save Waltzian neorealisms arguments Far from hiding lacunae in the realist account about multipolar instability, we ourselves uncovered and explained them using perceptual variables that orthodox neorealists typically underrate the problem that interested [them] could be viewed as largely irrelevant to Waltzs concerns It is uniquely concerned with differences within multipolarity, NOT a comparison of uni and multipoliarity

Regarding their historical analysis: NOT either/or

Vasquez takes things as either/or when C+S argued that multiple things were happening and interacting: Both appeasing and balancing at the same time Both slow to balance and buck-passing (Britain, France, Russia in late 1930s) Vasquez tries to oversimplify what they describe as complex, interrelated processes and events with many relevant factors and outcomes

They do meet all of Lakatoss standards

Lakatoss fourth indicator: whether the modifications to the original theory introduce assumptions that contradict the theorys core logic. They claim they meet this.