Alternative Explanations and Theoretical Scope of the Transaction Costs Framework

Abstract

This chapter pursues four objectives, which are addressed in the two following sections. First, it closes the circle left open in Chapter 2, where I critically reviewed the internal consistency of standard IR programmes, by completing the ‘Lakatosian check’ in terms of external consistency (Lakatos 1970: 116–22, 133–4). Second, alternative explanations are indispensable for strengthening the plausibility of a novel approach, such as the transaction costs framework promoted here. In short, they are an integral step in “case studies and theory development” (George and Bennett 2005: 117–9). Third, while the study’s transaction costs framework explained most preference formation of the ESDP, it could not account for every single aspect. Crucially, the empirical analysis revealed a few indeterminacies which need to be dealt with. Finally, the case selection was primarily based on the requirement to achieve variation in the dependent variable (George and Bennett 2005: 23). The result was, however, that we examined only large and allied states. For a better assessment of the theoretical scope of the argument, I will conduct a brief ‘plausibility probe’ of a small and neutral country, Ireland (Eckstein 1975: 118–23). When we finally achieve these four objectives, the transaction costs framework will have gained substantial explanatory leverage and plausibility as a mid-range theoretical approach to the study of preference formation regarding security institutions.