What are social science theories good for? That when you work with a solid theory, you can predict better than others.
For example, the ban on the export of the most advanced American chips to the Czech Republic, which was announced by the USA a few days ago and which shocked America lovers.
THE THEORY OF CENTRE AND PERIPHERY. Those who work with this theory assumed that the Americans would do everything to prevent us (the Czechs) from having access to the most advanced technologies. Just as they are preventing the Argentines, for example, from accessing technology, and even their ultra-cool president can’t change that. I would have expected that in our case, it would not have taken the form of an outright ban, but rather of quiet sabotage. But that’s a detail.
THE ALLIANCE THEORY, as pushed on us by the big media, assumes that there is a kind of warm relationship between the Czech Republic and the USA and that if we fulfil our allied obligations, they will more or less help us selflessly because they supposedly care about democracy and prosperity. Banning the export of chips is impossible within such a ‘narrative’.
FREE MARKET THEORY, on the other hand, assumes a kind of leveling of the playing field. If one country is rich and the other poor, the poor one will have lower wages, so jobs will move there, thus wages will rise faster and the gap will gradually narrow. This theory assumes that if the technical skills of the personnel are comparable, the most advanced technologies will go for lower wages. This may not be our case, but it is also incompatible with prohibition.
The rational thing to do would be to discard the second and third theories. But of course that’s not going to happen. They will continue to cling to them spasmodically and be surprised time and time again.