Natural laws and strategic trade-offs: Implications for research and policy advising Article uri icon

abstract

  • Contrary to what previous research has asserted, our investigation contends that there is no evidence refuting Wickham Skinners strategic trade-offs model. We arrive at this conclusion by analysing Skinners words in light of Karl Poppers falsification theory of scientific knowledge. It is observed that the trade-offs models core principle has natural law-like characteristics, something which makes it deterministic. We also note that past research attempting to refute Skinners ideas have been, by and large, inadequate and erroneous. This is because those studies have been performed mainly on the basis of probabilistic hypotheses, methodologies and estimates. These hypotheses, methods and estimates are, strictly speaking, open-ended and imprecise, and, as such, void of empirical content. This means that there is an inconsistency between the nature of Skinners model and the characteristics of the theories, methodologies and evidence that have been proposed as more complete alternatives (e.g. cumulative capabilities model). Therefore, Popperian epistemology would deem as inadequate any attempt to refute a deterministic law/theory/statement by means of probabilistic models, methodologies and evidence. We also elaborate on a new approach and rationale to test the strategic trade-offs models main assertions. It combines deterministic and probabilistic approaches to analyse the data and interpret the results. Implications for research and policy advising are also offered. © 2013 Taylor and Francis.

publication date

  • 2013-01-01