Natural laws and strategic trade-offs: implications for research and policy advising

Abstract

Contrary to what previous research has asserted, our investigation contends that there is no evidence refuting Wickham Skinner’s strategic trade-offs model. We arrive at this conclusion by analysing Skinner’s words in light of Karl Popper’s falsification theory of scientific knowledge. It is observed that the trade-offs model’s core principle has natural law-like characteristics, something which makes it deterministic. We also note that past research attempting to refute Skinner’s 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 Skinner’s 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 model’s 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.