How States Think

The Rationality of Foreign Policy

De: John J. Mearsheimer, Sebastian Rosato

Narrado por: Mack Sanderson

Duración: 8 h y 2 m

Resumen del Editor

A groundbreaking examination of a central question in international relations: Do states act rationally?

To understand world politics, you need to understand how states think. Are states rational? Much of international relations theory assumes that they are. But many scholars believe that political leaders rarely act rationally. The issue is crucial for both the study and practice of international politics, for only if states are rational can scholars and policymakers understand and predict their behavior.

John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato argue that rational decisions in international politics rest on credible theories about how the world works and emerge from deliberative decision‑making processes. Using these criteria, they conclude that most states are rational most of the time, even if they are not always successful. Mearsheimer and Rosato make the case for their position, examining whether past and present world leaders, including George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, have acted rationally in the context of momentous historical events, including both world wars, the Cold War, and the post-Cold War era.

By examining this fundamental concept in a novel and comprehensive manner, Mearsheimer and Rosato show how leaders think, and how to make policy for dealing with other states.

©2023 John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato (P)2023 Yale Press Audio

States think rationally !!

This is a very informative book that argues that states think rationally for survival reasons using logic and empirical records to validate their theories.

2hours of content crammed into 8 hours of listening

I side with the authors proposition about evaluating the rationality of international states and their leadership.
I particularly valued the review of historical case studies. in fact, that was the best aspect of the book

however, the book cries for a publisher editor who's tasked to weed out repetition, remove duplication, avoid redundantcy. how many times must the authors restate the two-plank definition and criteria for rational actions and goals? I lost count at 15.

the book cries for a publisher editor who's tasked to weed out repetition, remove duplication, avoid redundantcy. how many times must the authors restate the two-plank definition and criteria for rational actions and goals? I lost count at 15.

sorry, poor humor in repeating this twice. but you get the idea. I wonder if the book was a compilation of papers, each one a chapter in the book and each one needing to state the thesis so it might stand alone?

if the book was made half the length but retained all the content, I would rate it 5 stars.

Sound theoretical analysis

Some topics were not covered throughly. More was required on the invasion of Iraq. There should have been more cases on the Middle East.

Clear framework

Realism is such a refreshing theoretical framework because it manages to analyse all people and states through a common lens. It offers a way of explaining the world without resorting to categorical differences like democracy vs autocracy, or rational vs irrational behaviour. It shows that all states seek to ensure their own survival above all else, and that whether democratic or autocratic, the behaviour of most states most of the time is rational. This commonality amongst different peoples of the world is refreshing because it contrasts with most of the common ideologies we’ve all grown up with, whether political, religious, or other, that serve to divide people along their various categorical lines (democracy vs communism, Islam vs Judeo-Christian ‘values’). The book provides strong argument that in all cases the fundamental units of action, and the rationales and motivations of the actors, are a lot more similar than they’re different, The world needs more ideas that unite us at this time, and so I think this book is very timely.