Response to Randall Stone

Steven Brams ()

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2001, vol. 45, issue 2, 245-254

Abstract: Randall Stone's critique of theory of moves (TOM) is motivated by a desire to purge game theory of TOM's alleged “backsliding†and restore its superior orthodoxy. But Stone's indictment is marred by serious misunderstandings of TOM and unfortunate misconceptions about what constitutes a scientific theory and how it should be applied and tested. The author rebuts Stone's charges and briefly discusses a new area for which TOM seems especially well suited—the study of path dependence—suggesting how TOM can contribute to the understanding of when actors make seemingly irrational choices that lead to immediately worse outcomes.

Date: 2001
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002701045002005 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:jocore:v:45:y:2001:i:2:p:245-254

DOI: 10.1177/0022002701045002005

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Conflict Resolution from Peace Science Society (International)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().