Review of “How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato

The authors take a position opposed to the majority of international political scholars, who believe that nations often behave irrationally. To support their premise, Mearsheimer and Rosato define rational decision making at both personal and state levels as comprising two components: a credible theory to support a decision; and open deliberation, i.e., including a range of ideas before acting. Armed with their definition or rational decision making, they analyze several examples from recent history and conclude that most decisions are rational; however, they are careful to point out that rational doesn’t mean successful. They also give examples of irrational decisions made by several nations.

I’m not sure that this book actually disagrees with other work because they define credible theory pretty ambiguously as a theory that has been discussed by scholars and shown to be applicable to some historical situations. For example, what if a decision is based on an inapplicable theory? That sounds irrational to me.

The problem of determining whether or not serious and inclusive deliberation is part of the decision-making process is difficult to address because of a lack of credible evidence of what goes on behind closed doors among the decision makers. The authors give several examples where public statements support a vigorous debate, but some of the others aren’t so clear and aren’t well documented in the book. I was appalled more than once at the bold statements they made without in-line citations or footnotes.

They give those who support irrationality in decision making plenty of space, however, explaining their analyses in depth. I appreciate that. However, their arguments refuting this position are sometimes weak and unconvincing. Their arguments often start with a flat statements that their opponents are simply wrong. I’m not convinced by name calling. The book is repetitive but I suppose that can be a good thing; they have a simple message, which I stated at the beginning of this review, and I actually remembered it. Books should have a premise that can be stated in a couple of sentences, and they do that well.

This work also serves as a nice summary of current academic thinking about international politics. It is clearly written although the sentences run a little long, a tendency I’ve noticed in most political writing.

Overall, I wasn’t convinced by their argument, even though they did a good job defining their premises. This is a good example of semantics in perceiving reality; with the right definitions, you can prove that the earth is flat.

Despite remaining skeptical, I agree with the authors that states usually follow a rational path towards decision making and their results shouldn’t be used to judge the process; being rational doesn’t prevent mistakes caused by inexperience or bad judgement. As with all books about politics and international relations, this work should be taken with a grain of salt.