Abstract
An observer discovering RAND and its environment would be struck, even disoriented, by the number of people he could talk to. Through the interviews, conferences, and meetings the researcher sees a mosaic appearing that is coherent but initially difficult to perceive other than through an empirical verification. As a gigantic administration, the US Department of Defense has multiple organizations gravitating around it that evolve in distinct sectors, of which strategic studies—like aeronautic or electronic engineering—is only one among many others. Following the American principle of balance between political actors, we see this multiplicity of organizations entering into competition with each other. This chapter aims at distinguishing between them, emphasizing how each one intends to occupy a specific position. From far-flung universities to consultants belonging to the industrial world, the field has progressively found its own sense of cohesion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
On the general evolution of strategic studies, see Hedley Bull, “Strategic Studies and Its Critics,” World Politics, 20, 1968; Colin Gray, Strategic Studies and Public Policy: The American Experience (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1982); Philip Green, “Science, Government and the Case of RAND: A Singular Pluralism,” World Politics, 20, 1968; Richard Lebow, “Interdisciplinary Research and the Future of Peace and Security Studies,” Political Psychology, 9, 1988; Stephen Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Studies Quarterly, 35 (2), June 1991.
See on this subject Stanley Hoffmann, “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus, 106, Summer 1977; more recently Pascal Vennesson, “Les relations internationales dans la science politique aux Etats-Unis,” Politix, 41 (11), 1998, pp. 176–194;
Steve Smith, “Hegemonic Power, Hegemonic Discipline” in James Rosenau (ed.), IR Voices: Dialogues on a Discipline in Flux (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), pp. 55–82.
Helga Haftendorn, “The State of the Field. A German View,” International Security, 13 (2), 1988, p. 179. Quoted in Vennesson, “Les relations internationales dans la science politique aux Etats-Unis,” art. cit., p. 177.
For an overview of this debate on the divide between scholars and practitioners, see among the prolific literature: Erik Albaek, “Between Knowledge and Power: Utilization of Social Science in Public Policy Making,” Policy Science, 28 (1), 1995; Peter Feaver, “The Theory-Policy Debate in Political Science and Nuclear Proliferation,” National Security Studies Quarterly, 5 (3), 1999; Christopher Hill and Pamela Beshoff (eds.), The Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London: Routledge, 1994);
Robert Jervis, “Security Studies: Ideas, Policy, and Politics” in Edward Mansfield and Richard Sisson (eds.), The Evolution of Political Knowledge: Democracy, Autonomy and Conflict in Comparative and International Politics (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004); Joseph Lepgold, “Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and Policy Relevance,” Political Science Quarterly, 113 (3), 1998;
Miroslav Nincic and Joseph Lepgold (eds.), Being Useful: Policy Relevance and International Relations Theory (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).
Richard Betts, “Should Strategic Studies Survive?,” World Politics, 50 (1), October 1997, p.10.
Stephen Walt, “The Relation between Theory and Policy in International Relations,” Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 2005, p. 37.
See, for instance, John Hattendorf, Mitchell Simpson, and John Wadleigh, Sailors and Scholars: The Centennial History of the U.S. Naval War College (Providence: Naval War College, 1984).
For a concise introduction to these problematics and the actors involved, see Jean-Pierre Maulny, La Guerre en réseau au XXIe siècle: Internet sur les champs de bataille (Paris: Le Félin, 2006).
For an introduction to this literature, see Donald E. Abelson, American Think-Tanks and their Role in US Foreign Policy (New York: Macmillan Press, 1996);
Paul Dickson, Think Tanks (New York: Atheneum, 1971);
James Allen Smith, The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (New York: Free Press, 1991); Emanuel Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control,” International Organisation, 46 (1), Winter 1992; Peter Haas, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization, 46 (1), 1992; Raymond J. Struyk, “Transnational Think Tank Networks: Purpose, Membership and Cohesion,” Global Networks, 2, 2002; Diane Stone, “Introduction: Global Knowledge and Advocacy Networks,” Global Networks, 2, 2002;
Diane Stone, Andrew Denham, and Mark Garnett (eds.), Think Tanks across Nations (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998);
Diane Stone and Andrew Denham (eds.), Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004);
Diane Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process (London: Frank Cass, 1996).
Figure quoted by Donald E. Abelson, Do Think Tanks Matter? Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), p. 3.
Thomas Medvetz, “Hybrid Intellectuals: Think Tanks and Public Policy Experts in the United States,” University of Berkeley, Research Paper, 2006, p. 2.
Matthew Taylor, “Think Tanks, Public Policy and Academia,” Public Money & Management, 31 (1), January 2011, p. 10.
Robert Orr (ed.), Winning the Peace: An American Strategy for Post-Conflict Reconstruction (Washington: CSIS Press, 2004).
Anthony Bertelli and Jeffrey Wenger, “Demanding Information: Think Tanks and the US Congress,” British Journal of Political Science, 39 (4), December 2008, p. 231.
Peter Feaver, “The Right to Be Right: Civil-Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision,” International Security, 35 (4), Spring 2011, p. 101.
Kevin Kosar, The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2007).
Department of the US Navy, From the Sea (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992).
James McGann, Responding to 9/11: Are Think Tanks Thinking Outside the Box? (Foreign Policy Research Institute: Research Paper, 2003).
Harlan Ullmann and James Wade, Shock & Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (Arlington: NDU Press, 1996).
Laurent Murawiec, La Guerre au XXI e siècle (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2000), p. 256.
Copyright information
© 2012 Jean-Loup Samaan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Samaan, JL. (2012). The Competitive Dynamics of the Strategic Field. In: The RAND Corporation (1989–2009). The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137057358_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137057358_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-34368-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-05735-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)