Graham Tillett Allison Jr.
Graham Tillett Allison Jr. is an American political scientist whose work has profoundly influenced how philosophers, theorists, and policymakers think about state agency, rationality, and the ethics of war. Trained in philosophy, politics, and economics at Oxford and in political science at Harvard, Allison became widely known for "Essence of Decision" (1971), a seminal study of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In it he proposed competing models of state behavior—rational actor, organizational process, and bureaucratic politics—thereby challenging the assumption that states act as unified, rational agents. This framework reshaped debates in philosophy of social science, political philosophy, and international relations theory. As founding dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a senior security official in the U.S. Defense Department, Allison bridged normative theory and practical judgment. His later work on nuclear terrorism and U.S.–China rivalry, particularly the notion of a "Thucydides Trap," engages enduring philosophical questions about historical determinism, prudence, and moral responsibility in great‑power politics. Though not a philosopher by profession, Allison’s models and concepts have become indispensable tools for contemporary political philosophers, ethicists of war and peace, and theorists of collective agency.
At a Glance
- Field
- Thinker
- Born
- 1940-03-23 — Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
- Died
- Active In
- United States, United Kingdom
- Interests
- Foreign policy decision-makingBureaucratic politicsInternational securityU.S.–China relationsNuclear proliferationThe ethics of war and peaceState agency and rationality
Graham Allison’s central thesis is that state behavior cannot be adequately explained or normatively assessed by treating the state as a single, fully rational actor; instead, foreign policy decisions emerge from a complex interplay of goal-seeking leaders, semi-autonomous organizations, and competing bureaucratic coalitions operating under constraints of limited rationality, institutional routines, and structural pressures—yet within this web of determinants, prudent human agency retains a fragile but morally significant capacity to avert catastrophe, including great‑power war and nuclear disaster.
Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
Composed: 1967–1971
Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
Composed: 1990s–1999
Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe
Composed: early 2000s–2004
Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
Composed: 2010s–2017
Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material
Composed: mid-1990s
Where you stand depends on where you sit.— Graham Allison and Morton Halperin, often summarized in discussions of the bureaucratic politics model (e.g., Allison, Essence of Decision, 1971).
A maxim capturing the bureaucratic politics insight that an official’s policy preferences are shaped by their institutional role and organizational position, with implications for theories of practical reason and responsibility in government.
Government leaders do not control events; they respond to them.— Graham Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971).
Expresses Allison’s challenge to the image of omnipotent, fully rational leaders, emphasizing constraints, uncertainty, and organizational processes in decision-making, and thereby informing more modest, context-sensitive accounts of political agency.
In international affairs, as in life, the fact that something has happened before does not mean it must happen again.— Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (2017).
Articulates his view that historical patterns create pressures but not iron laws, leaving conceptual room for prudence, learning, and moral responsibility in avoiding great‑power war.
Thucydides’s Trap is the dangerous dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one.— Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (2017).
Defines the central concept of his later work, which has shaped philosophical and IR debates on structural causes of conflict, determinism, and possibilities for strategic restraint.
Nuclear terrorism is a preventable catastrophe, not an inevitable fate.— Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe (2004).
Summarizes Allison’s normative stance that, despite daunting structural and technical challenges, human agency and wise policy can significantly reduce existential risks, reinforcing an ethic of proactive responsibility.
Formative Education and Interdisciplinary Training (1960s)
During his studies at Harvard and Oxford, Allison absorbed analytic philosophy, classical political thought, and empirical social science. The PPE curriculum at Oxford exposed him to normative and positive approaches to politics and economics, while his Harvard doctoral work pushed him toward rigorous case-study methodology. This period laid the groundwork for treating state action as a problem in both explanation and practical reasoning.
Essence of Decision and Decision-Making Models (late 1960s–1970s)
While analyzing the Cuban Missile Crisis, Allison formulated his influential tripartite framework: the rational actor model, the organizational process model, and the bureaucratic politics model. This phase focused on conceptualizing alternative ontologies of the state and decision-making, explicitly questioning unitary rationality and thickening the notion of political responsibility by locating it within institutional structures and processes.
Institution-Building and Normative Engagement (1977–1990s)
As founding dean of the Kennedy School and later a high-level Defense Department official, Allison emphasized policy analysis as a form of applied ethics and practical reasoning. His academic-practitioner role deepened his interest in how institutional design, expertise, and bureaucratic conflict shape the pursuit of security and justice, influencing public philosophy about governance and democratic accountability.
Nuclear Risk, Terrorism, and Existential Threats (1990s–2000s)
Allison’s work on nuclear terrorism and proliferation expanded his decision-analytic framework to global catastrophic risks. This phase engaged explicitly with moral questions about prevention, preemption, and intergenerational responsibility, intersecting with philosophical debates on consequentialism, just war theory, and global justice in the context of existential threats.
Thucydides Trap and Great-Power Rivalry (2010s–present)
By articulating the "Thucydides Trap" in the context of U.S.–China relations, Allison foregrounded structural causes of war and the tension between historical patterns and human agency. His work in this phase stimulates philosophical reflection on determinism versus prudence, structural realism versus ethical choice, and the possibility of moral learning in international politics.
1. Introduction
Graham Tillett Allison Jr. (b. 1940) is an American political scientist best known for reshaping how scholars and practitioners understand state decision‑making, bureaucratic politics, and great‑power competition. Working primarily within international relations and security studies, he introduced a set of influential analytical models that challenged the assumption that “the state” acts as a single, rational calculator of national interest.
Allison first gained prominence with Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971), which offered three different lenses—rational actor, organizational process, and bureaucratic politics—for explaining a single historical episode. This work became a touchstone across political science and neighboring disciplines because it systematically juxtaposed alternative explanations of state action and highlighted how institutional structures, routines, and internal bargaining shape foreign policy outcomes.
Later in his career, Allison extended his analysis to nuclear security, terrorism, and the changing structure of the international system. His discussions of nuclear terrorism and loose nuclear materials framed these as preventable yet potentially catastrophic risks, inviting reflection on prudence, prevention, and responsibility. With Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (2017), he popularized the term Thucydides Trap to describe the structural stress that often accompanies power transitions between a rising and a ruling state.
Across these domains, Allison’s work is frequently cited in debates about collective agency, bounded rationality, and the ethics of war and peace. While many of his concepts remain contested, they have become standard reference points for analyses of foreign policy behavior and the dilemmas confronting leaders in nuclear‑armed great‑power rivalries.
2. Life and Historical Context
Allison’s life and career unfold against the backdrop of the Cold War, its end, and the emergence of a more diffuse, multipolar order. Born in 1940 in Charlotte, North Carolina, he came of age as nuclear weapons and superpower rivalry became central features of international politics. His education at Harvard and as a Marshall Scholar at Oxford in the early 1960s coincided with formative crises such as the Berlin standoff and the Cuban Missile Crisis, events that later became focal points of his analytical work.
Academic and Policy Milieu
Allison’s early professional years at Harvard overlapped with the consolidation of behavioral social science, the rise of formal rational choice approaches, and debates between realist and liberal theories of international relations. His questioning of unitary rational‑actor models arose within this methodological and theoretical contestation.
His tenure as founding dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (1977–1989) took place during late Cold War transformations: détente, renewed U.S.–Soviet competition, and emerging concerns about nuclear stability and arms control. The Kennedy School itself was part of a broader movement to professionalize public policy education and to bridge academic research with practical governance.
Engagement with U.S. Security Policy
Serving as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans (1993–1994) during the Clinton administration, Allison worked in a post‑Cold War environment marked by questions about NATO’s future, Russian nuclear security, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. His subsequent focus on “loose nukes,” nuclear terrorism, and post‑Soviet nuclear management reflected these concerns.
From the 2000s onward, his work on U.S.–China relations has been shaped by the growth of Chinese economic and military power and debates about whether the 21st century will be defined by cooperation, rivalry, or conflict between Washington and Beijing.
| Period | International Context | Relevance to Allison |
|---|---|---|
| 1940s–1960s | Early–mid Cold War, nuclear emergence | Formative education and interest in crisis decision‑making |
| 1970s–1980s | Institutionalization of IR theory, late Cold War | Development of decision‑making models, policy school leadership |
| 1990s | Post‑Cold War unipolarity, Russian transition | Work on nuclear security and defense policy |
| 2000s–2020s | Terrorism, rising China, renewed great‑power rivalry | Focus on nuclear terrorism and Thucydides Trap |
3. Intellectual Development
Allison’s intellectual trajectory can be divided into several phases, each marked by a distinctive set of questions and interlocutors, yet linked by a continuous concern with how states actually make decisions under conditions of risk.
Formative Interdisciplinary Training
At Harvard and Oxford in the 1960s, Allison encountered analytic philosophy, classical political thought, and empirical social science. The Oxford PPE curriculum exposed him to normative political theory and economic reasoning, while his Harvard PhD training emphasized rigorous case studies and comparative analysis. This dual exposure encouraged him to treat foreign policy as both an explanatory puzzle and a problem of practical judgment.
Development of Decision‑Making Models
In the late 1960s, while analyzing the Cuban Missile Crisis, Allison worked out the three models that structure Essence of Decision. This period was marked by engagement with rational choice theory, organization theory (including Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality and James March’s work), and studies of bureaucratic behavior. He synthesized these strands into a comparative framework that presented alternative “pictures” of the state.
Institutional and Policy Engagement
As founding dean of the Kennedy School and later as a senior defense official, Allison’s research interests increasingly reflected his institutional roles. He became preoccupied with how governmental structures, incentives, and inter‑agency conflicts shape security policy. Proponents see this phase as refining his earlier theoretical insights through policy experience; some critics argue it drew him toward more pragmatic, policy‑oriented writing at the expense of formal theorization.
Focus on Nuclear Risk and Power Transitions
From the 1990s onward, Allison’s attention shifted to nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and, later, the strategic implications of China’s rise. His concept of the Thucydides Trap grew out of comparative historical work on power transitions. This turn linked his earlier micro‑level interest in decision‑making processes with macro‑level questions about structural pressures and the conditions under which catastrophic wars occur or are avoided.
4. Major Works
Allison’s major works cluster around three themes: decision‑making models, nuclear security, and great‑power rivalry. The following table summarizes key publications and their primary concerns.
| Work | Period | Main Focus | Notable Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis | 1971 | Competing models of state action | Introduces Models I–III; in‑depth case of 1962 crisis |
| Essence of Decision (2nd ed., with Philip Zelikow) | 1999 | Updated account of Cuban crisis | Incorporates new archival evidence; refines models |
| Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy (with others) | mid‑1990s | Post‑Soviet nuclear security | Analyzes “loose nukes” risk and policy responses |
| Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe | 2004 | Threat of nuclear terrorism | Argues risk is grave but preventable; policy prescriptions |
| Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? | 2017 | U.S.–China relations and power transitions | Popularizes Thucydides Trap; surveys historical cases |
Essence of Decision
This work is widely regarded as Allison’s most influential contribution. It presents three analytic models—Rational Actor (Model I), Organizational Process (Model II), and Bureaucratic Politics (Model III)—and applies each in turn to explain the Cuban Missile Crisis. The original edition helped shift attention away from purely systemic explanations toward intra‑governmental processes. The revised edition, co‑authored with Philip Zelikow, integrates new documentation and clarifies the scope and limits of each model.
Nuclear Security and Terrorism
In Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy and Nuclear Terrorism, Allison and co‑authors examine the security of nuclear materials, especially in the former Soviet Union, and the possibility that non‑state actors might acquire nuclear weapons. These works draw on detailed policy analysis, intelligence assessments, and scenario planning. They have been influential in discussions about cooperative threat reduction and global nuclear governance.
Destined for War and the Thucydides Trap
Destined for War surveys sixteen historical cases in which a rising power challenged a ruling power, drawing on Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War as a framing device. The book introduces the term Thucydides Trap and argues that such power transitions have frequently led to major war, while also exploring cases where conflict was avoided. It has sparked considerable debate about the determinants of war and the prospects for U.S.–China relations.
5. Core Ideas and Models of State Action
Allison’s core conceptual contribution lies in his three models of governmental behavior. These models offer contrasting ways of understanding what a “state” is and how its actions come about.
Model I: Rational Actor
The Rational Actor Model treats the state as a unitary, purposive actor that identifies goals, evaluates options, and chooses the course of action that best advances its interests. In Essence of Decision, this model explains U.S. and Soviet behavior in the Cuban Missile Crisis as rational responses to strategic incentives and constraints. Proponents argue that it captures overarching patterns and is indispensable for strategy and deterrence theory. Critics contend that it obscures internal politics, information failures, and misperceptions.
Model II: Organizational Process
The Organizational Process Model views government behavior as the output of large organizations operating according to standard operating procedures (SOPs), established routines, and bounded rationality. Under this model, what a government does in a crisis often reflects what its military and bureaucratic organizations are already programmed to do. Supporters see this as highlighting the importance of institutional design and path dependence; skeptics argue that it can underplay leadership and strategic adaptation.
Model III: Bureaucratic Politics
The Bureaucratic Politics Model presents foreign policy outcomes as the result of bargaining, compromise, and conflict among multiple actors with divergent preferences shaped by their organizational roles—captured in the aphorism, “where you stand depends on where you sit.” Proponents hold that this model explains why policies sometimes appear inconsistent or sub‑optimal and links political power to institutional position. Critics worry that it risks descriptive richness at the expense of predictive power and may make responsibility diffused or opaque.
Interrelation and Uses
Allison emphasizes that these are analytic lenses, not mutually exclusive descriptions of reality. Subsequent scholars have used them to structure case studies, test hypotheses about decision‑making, and explore issues of accountability and agency. Some interpreters propose integrating the models, while others suggest they are best seen as heuristic “pictures” for different research questions.
6. Methodology and Philosophy of Social Science
Allison’s methodological stance combines empirical case study analysis with explicit attention to competing explanatory frameworks. His work is often cited in discussions of how social scientists should conceptualize and study states and decisions.
Comparative Modeling Approach
In Essence of Decision, Allison does not simply present a single theory; he systematically compares three models applied to the same case. Methodologists note that this procedure:
- Clarifies the assumptions underlying each model (e.g., unitary rationality vs. organizational routines).
- Highlights how different “pictures” of the state pick out different variables as salient.
- Illustrates that the adequacy of an explanation depends on the questions being asked (strategic, organizational, or political).
This comparative modeling is seen by some as a form of analytic pluralism in social science.
Ontology of the State and Agency
Allison’s models embody different ontological commitments. Model I aligns with a more holistic conception of the state as a unitary actor. Models II and III move toward a more disaggregated picture, in which organizations and individuals within the state have distinct preferences and capacities. Philosophers of social science use this framework to illustrate debates about methodological individualism, collective agency, and the levels at which causal explanations should be pitched.
Case Study and Evidence
Allison’s work relies heavily on detailed process‑tracing of specific historical episodes, drawing on archival documents, memoirs, and interviews. Supporters regard his approach as exemplary for integrating qualitative evidence with explicit theoretical models. Critics sometimes argue that the models are insufficiently formalized or that the Cuban case cannot easily be generalized.
Normative Neutrality and Policy Relevance
Although Allison’s models are primarily explanatory, they have been widely used in policy analysis. Some commentators praise this as demonstrating how social science can inform practice by exposing hidden assumptions and organizational constraints. Others caution that close ties to policymaking may encourage a focus on “how governments work” at the expense of critical reflection on underlying moral and legal norms, a point developed further in discussions of his impact on ethics of war.
7. Thucydides Trap and Great-Power Rivalry
The Thucydides Trap is Allison’s term for the structural tension that arises when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, potentially increasing the risk of war. The concept is inspired by Thucydides’ remark about the Peloponnesian War, often paraphrased as attributing the conflict to the rise of Athens and the fear it instilled in Sparta.
Definition and Historical Survey
In Destined for War, Allison defines Thucydides’s Trap as:
“the dangerous dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one.”
— Graham Allison, Destined for War (2017)
He and collaborators survey sixteen historical cases since the 16th century where a rising power challenged a dominant state, including Britain–Germany before 1914 and the U.S.–Soviet rivalry. They classify most as having led to major war, with some peaceful or controlled outcomes.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Structural element | Relative power shift between rising and ruling states |
| Psychological element | Fear, misperception, and status anxiety |
| Political element | Domestic pressures for firmness or prestige |
| Outcome variation | War in many cases, peaceful adjustment in others |
Application to U.S.–China Relations
Allison argues that the contemporary relationship between the United States (ruling power) and China (rising power) exhibits features of the Thucydides Trap: rapid economic and military growth by China and perceived strategic encirclement or containment. He explores scenarios ranging from accommodation to accidental war and stresses that conflict is not inevitable but that structural pressures are grave.
Debates and Criticisms
Scholars and policymakers differ on the utility of the Thucydides Trap concept:
- Supporters see it as a powerful heuristic for highlighting structural dangers, historical patterns, and the need for deliberate restraint and institutional innovation.
- Critics argue that it may overstate determinism, underplay ideology, domestic politics, or economic interdependence, and risk becoming a self‑fulfilling prophecy if policymakers treat war as expected.
- An alternative view suggests that the concept is valuable as a risk‑awareness tool, provided it is coupled with analysis of specific mechanisms (alliances, crises, arms races) rather than treated as an iron law.
8. Nuclear Risk, Terrorism, and Existential Threats
Allison’s work on nuclear security extends his decision‑analytic approach to what are often described as existential risks—events that could imperil large portions of humanity or civilization’s future. He focuses particularly on nuclear terrorism and the security of fissile materials.
Nuclear Terrorism as a Preventable Catastrophe
In Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Allison contends that non‑state actors could, in principle, construct or acquire a nuclear device given sufficient access to materials and expertise. He assesses scenarios involving theft from poorly secured stockpiles, black‑market transfers, or state collapse. Nevertheless, he insists that:
“Nuclear terrorism is a preventable catastrophe, not an inevitable fate.”
— Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism (2004)
Proponents of this view argue that rigorous security of fissile materials, intelligence cooperation, and counter‑proliferation measures can significantly reduce probabilities. Skeptics question the likelihood of terrorists overcoming technical and logistical hurdles, though many accept that even low‑probability risks warrant serious attention due to potential consequences.
Loose Nuclear Materials and Post‑Soviet Security
In Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy and related work, Allison and co‑authors analyze the risk that nuclear weapons or materials from the former Soviet Union could be diverted. They emphasize programs such as the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction initiative as crucial responses. Supporters cite these analyses as influential in shaping U.S.–Russian nuclear security cooperation; critics sometimes argue that Allison’s public warnings may overstate specific dangers or underplay progress made.
Existential Risk and Policy Choice
Allison’s framing of nuclear threats connects with broader discussions of existential risk and intergenerational responsibility. His work emphasizes prevention and risk reduction through concrete policy tools—such as securing stockpiles and enhancing detection—rather than abstract appeals to abolition. Some commentators view this as a pragmatic approach that fits within existing state structures; others argue for more transformative changes, such as rapid disarmament or new global governance mechanisms, which go beyond Allison’s typical recommendations.
9. Impact on Political Philosophy and Ethics of War
Although Allison is not a philosopher by training, his models and concepts have influenced debates in political philosophy, ethics of war, and philosophy of social science.
Collective Agency and Responsibility
Allison’s three models of the state are frequently cited in discussions of collective agency. Philosophers use them to illustrate different ways of attributing intention and responsibility to states:
- Model I supports treating the state as a moral agent with unified interests.
- Models II and III suggest that responsibility is dispersed across organizations and officeholders.
This has informed debates about who can be held morally or legally responsible for war crimes, unjust wars, or harmful foreign policies. Some theorists draw on Allison to argue for more nuanced accounts of role responsibility and institutional blame; others worry that excessive emphasis on bureaucratic complexity may obscure clear lines of accountability.
Ethics of War, Nuclear Deterrence, and Preventive Action
Allison’s analyses of nuclear crises and terrorism intersect with just war theory and debates about deterrence, preemption, and prevention. His work underscores how decisions about first use, escalation, or preventive strikes are shaped by organizational routines and inter‑agency bargaining, complicating traditional ethical models that presume fully informed, unitary decision‑makers.
Ethicists have used his findings to:
- Question the realism of applying classic just war criteria (such as right intention and proportionality) to complex bureaucratic settings.
- Explore the morality of preventive measures (e.g., securing foreign stockpiles, covert operations) aimed at reducing nuclear risk, balancing sovereignty and human rights concerns.
Structural Pressures and Moral Agency
The Thucydides Trap concept has prompted philosophical reflection on historical determinism and moral agency in international relations. Some interpreters see in Allison’s work a tension between structural constraints and the possibility of prudential choice to avoid war. This tension has been used to interrogate realist claims about the inevitability of conflict, as well as more optimistic liberal views about institutional safeguards.
Overall, Allison’s work serves as an empirical and conceptual resource for philosophers seeking to ground normative theories of war, responsibility, and global risk in realistic portrayals of how states actually function.
10. Legacy and Historical Significance
Allison’s legacy is multifaceted, spanning theory, policy, and public discourse in international affairs. His most enduring impact is widely considered to lie in how scholars and practitioners conceptualize the state and its decisions.
Influence on Political Science and IR
Essence of Decision has become a standard reference in courses on foreign policy analysis, decision‑making, and organization theory. Many later frameworks for understanding government behavior—such as principal‑agent models and two‑level games—have been developed in dialogue with, or as refinements of, Allison’s models. Some commentators credit him with helping to move international relations beyond purely systemic theories toward richer accounts of domestic and bureaucratic processes.
Policy and Institutional Impact
As founding dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School, Allison contributed to establishing public policy as a professional field that integrates social science with practice. His work on nuclear security has been cited by policymakers involved in cooperative threat reduction, nuclear summits, and counter‑terrorism strategy. Supporters see his career as exemplifying productive interchange between academia and government; critics of policy‑oriented scholarship sometimes caution that such engagement can narrow the range of questions asked.
Public Discourse on Great-Power Rivalry and Nuclear Risk
Through Destined for War and numerous articles and interviews, Allison has shaped public and elite conversation about U.S.–China relations and the dangers of power transitions. The phrase “Thucydides Trap” is now frequently invoked in policy debates, think‑tank reports, and media commentary. Some view this as a valuable reminder of historical dangers; others worry that it may simplify complex dynamics or contribute to fatalistic thinking.
Evaluation Over Time
Assessments of Allison’s historical significance vary. Many scholars regard his decision‑making models as canonical, even when they modify or criticize them. His work on nuclear terrorism and great‑power rivalry is seen by some as prescient and by others as overstating certain threats or structural logics. Nonetheless, across these debates, Allison’s concepts and case analyses continue to serve as common reference points for discussions of how states act, why wars occur, and how catastrophic outcomes might be averted.
How to Cite This Entry
Use these citation formats to reference this thinkers entry in your academic work. Click the copy button to copy the citation to your clipboard.
Philopedia. (2025). Graham Tillett Allison Jr.. Philopedia. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/graham-allison/
"Graham Tillett Allison Jr.." Philopedia, 2025, https://philopedia.com/thinkers/graham-allison/.
Philopedia. "Graham Tillett Allison Jr.." Philopedia. Accessed December 11, 2025. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/graham-allison/.
@online{philopedia_graham_allison,
title = {Graham Tillett Allison Jr.},
author = {Philopedia},
year = {2025},
url = {https://philopedia.com/thinkers/graham-allison/},
urldate = {December 11, 2025}
}Note: This entry was last updated on 2025-12-10. For the most current version, always check the online entry.