IR Readings

Allison "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis"

3 models outlining domestic reasons for war Neorealism, unitary actor theory--rational cost/benefit calculation Organizational process--standard operating procedure of organizations gets in the way of considering alternatives Bureaucratic politics--whoever's more persuasive and whoever can best "play" the game of politics will get their idea chosen Just because states often act rationally, doesn't mean their behavior is based on a rational model They could do or not do something for random reasons that happen to be rational outcomes that were chosen for irrational reasons

Jeffry Sachs, "The Development Challenge"

2002 U.S. and international community adopted Monterrey Consensus--multi-faceted strategy to promote private sector in developing countries by opening trade with them and increasing official development assistance (ODA) US haven't followed through much-->the US is seen as a country ready to invest in war, and maybe emergency relief, but not peaceful development; this will cause the number of failed states to increase, thus spreading disorder and threatening global and national security ODA=the sum of grants and sub-market-rate loans made to developing countries to promote economic development and welfare US gives <1% of budget to development assistance USAID says 5 operational goals for foreign aid Promoting transformational development Supporting strategic states Strengthening fragile states Providing humanitarian relief Addressing global challenges i.e. HIV/AIDS and climate change US distinguishes btwn developmental assistance and geopolitical aid Geopolitical aid=aid distributed to strategic countries mostly as Economic Support Funds (ESF) Economic development is side-effect, not objective of this aid Strategic states=developing countries receiving more than half of their US assistance from the ESF or similar funding In many cases, ESP supports corruption or allows government to reduce its own development spending to free up funds for its military ~¼ of US bilateral aid is "debt forgiveness grants" (cancellation of old debts, not the granting of new money) Sometimes this debt cancellation actually results in more debt payments ~½ of US bilateral aid goes toward technical cooperation: payments made primarily to US entities--consultants from government agencies or NGOs--for assignments in recipient nations Mission is useful, in reality, expenditures are not long-term investments in local clinics, schools, power plants, sanitation, or other infrastructure US contributes to proliferation of donor-country pet projects, rather than integrating strategy adopted by the recipient country and supported by the donors 2002 Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) is designed to give grants to low-income countries that demonstrate good governance The President's Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is budgeted to go to certain African and Caribbean countries Private investors only give to countries with basic private-sector-led, market-based economic growth which depends on adequate infrastructure and human capital US often asks ally countries for help on in war on terrorism, but then "pleads poverty" when asked for more development aid because they give much less as % of GNI than other developed countries Low-income countries know, U.S. can be counted on in emergencies, but not to help them break free of poverty U.S. much realize/act like 2 agendas--development assistance and global security--are inexorably linked, not only in substance but in process Gap between US and other donors is going to keep growing U.S. needs to help US understand how little they're currently giving--public thing we give too much

Abrahms "What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy"

7 primary arguments about why terrorists aren't rational and terrorism isn't logical Paper challenges strategic model-->supports natural systems model Terrorism is all about social ties

Megan Mullin, "How did climate change initiatives do in the midterms? Some lost -- but some won"

A majority of proposed legislation that would aid in mitigating climate change were denied in midterm elections While rejecting most measures aimed at slowing the advance of climate change, voters supported measures to adapt to climate change impacts When communities invest in adapting to climate change they benefit in two direct ways Investing in adaptation can help communities survive natural disasters and other climate change effects Adaptation efforts may offer value for communities in a direct way, providing jobs and lowering temperatures The reason people like to approve climate change adaptation laws is because politicians don't have to argue whether or not people are changing the climate This is a start to evolving legislation on climate change, but more efforts need to be made in order to make a greater effect

NYT, "Global Trade After the Failure of the Doha Round"

After 14 years of talks, members of the WTO gave up on the Doha round of negotiations (2016) Countries had hoped the talks would substantially lower trade barriers, contribute to development in poor nations, and tackle difficult issues like agricultural subsidies that were not revolved in earlier pacts Most countries had become so frustrated with the stalemate of Doha talks that they have been negotiating bilateral and regional trade deals (ex: US, Japan, Vietnam, etc, in Trans-Pacific Partnership) Regional agreements like this can be useful but they threaten to segregate the world into overlapping trading blocs with different rules for things like labor rights, environmental protection, and access to medicine. They also exclude the least developed countries.

Thucydides "The Melian Dialogue"

Athenians invading b/c it's necessary nature of man-->classical realism Melians say "you do what's just and fair and moral" Athenians say there's no morality in that situation-->realist world doesn't have morality; it's simply human nature to act this way "Might makes right" Athenians vs. Melians Melians would not submit to the Athenians Brought to small council not the entire people The Melians assert that though they are weaker than the Athenians they will prevail against them with the help of the gods because the Athenians are unjustly abusing their power Athenians: gods and men only respect power Political realists (Athenian) vs. Political Idealists (Melians) "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" Athenians beat the Melians in the end Peloponesian war

Lawrimore, Trellace, and Vreeland, "Aid as a Building Bloc: Australia and the Bretton Woods Institutions"

Australia has dramatically reduced its aid to developing countries This affects its leadership position in international financial institutions Results say Australia gives up to 10X as much aid to bloc-members (those part of voting bloc) than other developing countries Uses aid to further foreign policy objectives Study focuses on subset of Pacific island countries that get disproportionately large amounts of aid These countries happen to support Australia's power in the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs)--The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Australia is elected onto the executive boards of the BWIs by group of developing countries Voting power at the BWIs is determined by the size of a country's contribution, which in turn is supposed to reflect relative economic power Executive directors serve as representatives for all of their bloc members Countries care about their BWI constituencies and are willing to trade aid for political support Australia has power-sharing arrangement with Korea and New Zealand so they still get a voice at the table re. Things like proposed projects, major debt negotiations, bailouts etc. AusAID focuses regionally b/c they say ⅔ of world's poor are in Asia Pacific--BUT 70% of these people are in India and China and Australia doesn't allocate aid to them Countries with more international economic exchanges with Australia receive more foreign aid Australia gives ~2X as much aid to open rather than close economies--rewarding trade-promoting policies but every country has been seen to do this, Australia just does it with a regional bias to create a larger/concentrated sphere of influence IV=member or non-member of Australia's BWI bloc 44% of Australia's aid goes to member of bloc, which makes up <4% of the world's population Control variables: natural log of GSP per capita, population, geographic region, bilateral trade with Australia Conclusions: Australia gives more aid... To more populous countries with low levels of economic development To countries within Oceania To countries with whom it engages in higher levels of trade Australia gives less aid... To countries when they are acting as the alternate director Data shows steep drop in overall aid with the formation of Abbott government (new Prime Minister), but only a modest decrease in aid to bloc members

Lake "Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations for the Iraq War"

Bargaining Theory The current dominant approach in conflict studies Directs attention to the inherently strategic nature of all wars. Given the inevitable costs of fights, the theory forces analysts to explain why states use the inefficient mechanism of war to settle disagreements (most important) It highlights problems of credible commitment and asymmetric information that lead conflicts of interest, ubiquitous in international relations, to turn violent. Not an adequate explanation for the Iraq War The bargaining failures central to the conflict were not those expected by the theory Core idea is that because war is costly, there must exist a negotiated outcome that will leave both sides better off than if they actually fight. In this way, war is a failure of bargaining, an inefficient outcome that all parties would avoid in the absence of bargaining imperfections. Four factors that challenge bargaining theory Postwar governance costs of imposing one's will on the defeated enemy must be incorporated into the victor's cost of fighting, and thereby, into the larger conflict process. More than two-players Special interests are present Cognitive and decision making biases from each side

Allison "The Thucydides Trap"

Brings forth 5 "Cold War Lessons" War with nuclear powers (China included) means mutually assured destruction Leaders must be willing to risk war they cannot win-- "Leaders in Washington must be willing to think the unthinkable in order to deter adversaries such as China" Modern guidelines that account for the technological advancements of recent times (cybersecurity and surveillance practices must be agreed upon) Domestic growth is important (China is seeing a rise in nationalism and economic growth while the U.S. is seeing a downturn in civic engagement and production) Current perceptions of how to deal with China are unrealistic and not based in effective strategic thinking

Beardsley and Schmidt "Following the Flag or Following the Charter?"

Claims that UN interventions adhere to the humanitarian and stability mission, NOT just as a hand of the P-5 Critiques Mearsheimer However, in Mearsheimer's defense... He'd say the UN interventions are in accordance with UN mission AND the self-interest of P-5, so they aren't mutually exclusive-->realism prevails still!! Two principal motivators of UN intervention efforts: (i) the parochial - i.e., purely private - interests of the five veto-holding members of the UN Security Council and (ii) the extent to which a conflict poses a challenge to the UN's organizational mission of promoting international peace and security

Wendt "Anarchy is What States Make of It"

Claims that realism and liberalism focus too much on exogenous things Necessary to study how interests evolve in order to understand how states behave Constructivism! → interests and identities are what cause behavior and define motivations Self-help (or not) is defined by the process of interacting; it's not a permanent structural status

Stephen Knack, "Does Foreign Aid Promote Democracy?"

Common argument: aid may contribute to democratization through 3 ways Technical assistance focusing on electoral processes, strengthening of legislatures and judiciaries as checks on executive powers, and promotion of civil society organizations (ex. Free press) Conditionality Improving education and increasing per capita incomes, which research shows are helpful to democratization Other common argument: foreign aid can undermine democratic government Can obstruct civil liberties Goes to the government, which gives them strength over private sector Weakens governmental accountability Reinforces executive dominance Encourages coup attempts and political instability, by making control of government more desirable because it comes with control of aid-->reduces prospects for democratic governance 2 democracy ratings (DV) 1 using extent of political freedoms and civil liberties Another uses Polity IV data to judge the level of democracy--results are same with both indexes 2 measures of aid intensity of dependency (IV) "Official development assistance" (ODA) as a % of GNP ODA as a % of government expenditures Some evidence that democratization happens in waves→ "third wave" of democratization is when a country democratizes because its neighbors start to i.e. Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Caribbean Dummy variables for each of these country groups are included as regressors in data His regression says that there's no significant data saying aid promotes democracy Economic growth is positively related to democratization, though-->but stats aren't significant Endogeneity of aid is a serious problem/obstacle in studying the impact of aid on democratic transition Setup of regression is a bit problematic-->lots of methodology errs/potential spurious variables/exogenous factors

Sechser "Are Soldiers Less War Prone than Statesman?"

Conservatism vs militarism Conventional wisdom is the civilians are more belligerent Concludes that the military is actually more likely to resort to active violence//war Holds a lot of things constant to try to find distinct correlation/causation of civilian control (IV) and war (DV)

Walt "Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning"

Defensive realist exploring reaction to hegemons Balance (allying against growing power) vs. bandwagoning (allying with growing power in hopes of protection) Claims that balancing is more common-->thus trying to become hegemon is not safest (offensive realism theory)

Daniel Kono, "Optimal Obfuscation"

Democracies are shifting to non-tariff barriers Focuses on 2 types of NTBs Core (non technical) and quality (technical) Democracies are more likely to impose quality NTBs, but also likely to impose core NTBs (all opposed to tariffs) Because quality barriers are more "sneaky" than core

Farber and Gowa "Polities and Peace"

Don't include lots of covariates like O'Neal and Russet Simpler but potentially less complete/accurate FINDING: democracy leads to less war, but only during certain time periods They code a conflict by onset, not duration as O'Neal and Russett do Ex. 3 years of war="1" in code Conscious decisions to treat each conflict in isolation (don't account for the notion that conflicts are usually caused/affected by previous conflicts)-->okay, but must be conscious and cognizant of that decision to methodology

Lawrence Broz and Jeffry Frieden, "The Political Economy of Exchange Rates"

Exchange rates affect everything else 2 matters for political economists Global actions and how that related to international monetary system How national actions related to government policies about their exchange rates 2 ideal types of international monetary regimes Fixed rate system--currencies are tied to each other at publicly announced rates Free floating system--currencies shift due to changes in supply and demand It's in everyone's best interest to coordinate currencies with each other Coordination in international monetary relations Fixed rates The more countries participating, the more they each benefitted Most fixed rate regimes grow when countries join because it benefits them both and the others in the system But, when countries leave, others often leave too, which hurts those who stay in it Floating rates Members can benefit (alone or together) by committing to common standard of payments and exchange restrictions Like fixed rates, more countries that join, the more that they benefit--especially those who are regional trade partners Cooperation in international monetary relations Several welfare gains from interstate collaboration Reduced currency volatility increases trade and investments Fixed rates usually stabilize domestic economies Predictable currencies reduce trade conflicts Fixed rates Can give governments the incentive to cheat or devalue currency for competitive purposes (ex. China with US) Better abled countries agree to distribute the costs of adjusting to fixed regime so they're more likely to be honest on it Puts pressure on country's currency that everyone else if fixing theirs to Rely on intergovernmental cooperation Fixed rate regimes rely heavily on two basic types of pressures for or against international coordination First, exchange rate policies involve trade-offs and losers may be inclined to deny being a part of the regime Second, there are electoral implications from FR regimes Two fundamental currency decisions confront policy makers Policy makers must decide whether to heed external signals and join the regime Policy makers must decide at what rate to fix or float their currency Fixed rate regimes have two main national benefits Promote trade and investment by reducing exchange rate risk Fixed rates promote domestic monetary stability Politicians may prefer a floating regime since they can more easily influence the economy in election years in order to gain greater preference in the election and retain their office Non-democracies are more likely to adopt a fixed regime than democracies When deciding what regime to install policy makers need to decide whether they want a relatively appreciated or a relatively depreciated currency Positives and negatives of appreciation Increases purchasing power of local residents by lowering the relative cost of foreign goods Reduces the competitiveness of domestic exports Depreciation Lowers purchasing power of domestic imports Increases competitiveness of domestic exports Different products are insulated and/or uninsulated from changes in exchange rates Preferences of different countries will depend on how specialized their economy is and how sensitive that economy is to volatile exchange rates There is a strong influence on policy decisions by interest groups and elections Exchange rate policy is closely related to trade policy and export subsidy policy and can be used to stimulate such industries

Patrick Egan and Megan Mullin, "Climate Change: US Public Opinion"

Find that the US public is as deeply polarized on climate change as they are on political beliefs Two broad policy suggestions have emerged to solve this problem Interventions designed to mitigate the production of greenhouse gases with the goal of slowing and eventually halting the advance of climate change Adapt to the effects of climate change with the goal of reducing the damages caused in the present and the future. Three main problems with solving Climate Change People debate whether or not it exists at all The invisibility of climate change and having trouble attributing it to any severe weather effects The idea of climate change as a distant phenomenon that won't affect us directly Countries that produce more greenhouse emissions often have higher rates of climate change denial Gender, trust in scientists and officials and personal experience all play into an individuals ability to believe in or not believe in climate change Local weather and temperature play a role in people's belief systems as well. More than any of the above reasons for people developing belief systems around climate change is that of political affiliation Republicans are far less likely to believe in climate change than liberals are. People have little interest in being right on the issue because the perception is that climate issues do not directly affect them. This polarization has gotten worse over time Republicans actively advocate for climate change skepticism and to bolster opposition to policies that would limit greenhouse gases Americans attach a low level of salience to this issue and as such pay little attention to the science and/or their own opinion on the matter They end with discussing four options that could potentially solve this problem Linking climate change to extreme weather This would allow people to see the direct costs of climate change Climate disasters receive a lot of news coverage and if linked to climate change it could increase people's beliefs on the issue Adaptation as well as mitigation of the effects If the link between climate change and extreme weather is made people will start to have more conversations about the ways to mitigate the effects and that will lead to greater public awareness Focusing on tangible consequences Focusing on tangible ways that climate change affects people, like increased asthma and lung cancer, may induce greater levels of care on the issue Subnational policy corresponds with Opinion Certain states, California, New York and Texas, have such large economies that they can begin to induce climate change by themselves Some states, like California and New York, already have the public opinion necessary to instill change in climate policy

Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Ken Schultz, "Ch. 7: International Trade" 287-298

Importance of cooperation in trade International economic conditions have a strong influence on policies a country may pursue E.g. a collapse in world economy will drive inward policies Policies of individual gov't can have enormous impact e.g. india + china on other developing countries Strategic Interaction: When creating trade policy, countries take into account how other countries will react e.g. when a country raises tariffs, other countries may create barriers to their exports Regional trading area (e.g. NAFTA) rely on strategic interaction w/ other nations International trade negotiation can mimic a prisoner's dilemma: both sides would be better off cooperating, but there is concern either side will cheat Logicially, unilaterally removing trade barriers would be most beneficial economically, but countries often want concessions from other countries in return for their own Hard to agree when unsure if other countries will commit Issue of dumping: selling goods below cost of production to drive out competitors Overcoming problems of strategic interaction: Small numbers make it easier to monitor governments behavior + avoid free riding — make it easier to liberalize trade Extreme example is hegemonic stability — hegemonic power can solve issues for the world as a whole Information as many failures are due to fears of hidden actions — transparency may lead to cooperation Repeated interaction — especially relevant in terms of trade, as it is supposed to go on indefinitely Linking concessions This can relate to the world as a whole; yet when there is concern for the intentions of great powers, issues can arise Governments have created international institutions to overcome the variety of collective action and other strategic problems in international trade relations International Institutions in International Trade: International organizations = systematic attempts at helping w/ intl trade relations — setting in which cooperation can occur, set standards of behavior, expectation of repeated interaction, Reciprocity: a concession granted by one government is met by another—linkage politics that binds agreements MFN (most favored nation) status: countries that confer MFN status on one another agree to extend to each other the same concessions that they provide to all other nations WTO: started in 1995, more formalized + structured than GATT w/ same goal of encouraging the expansion of an open international trading system — reducing barriers of trade amongst nations Series of "rounds" btwn countries — series of negotiations Monitors compliance through 1) safeguards clause 2) filing complaints Regional Trade Agreements Conflicts between developed + developing nations: Doha Round (2011) Developing nations accused developed countries as ignoring their concerns — demand for liberalizing agricultural trade was blocked by politically powerful farmers in developed countries Developed countries want greater liberalization in services POWER ASYMMETRIES SOURCE OF CONFLICT

Mearsheimer "The False Promise of International Institutions"

Institutions don't matter-->states will ultimately do what they want His issues with liberal institutionalism Ignores relative gains theory-->this affects decision making and motivations Thus institutions can't make everyone better-->institutions don't make sense because it's a zero-sum world His issues with collective security Against human nature to trust people and other states no one cares about others' security, only their own People cooperate NOT because they trust each other, but because it's strategic His issues with constructivism They have no argument/explanation for HOW states change their identities and behaviors Says history is evidence to realist views; constructivists' "evidence" is simply "well this could happen...thus this is a valid theory"

David Vogel, "Trading Up and Governing Across: Transnational Governance and Environmental Protection"

International institutions can also push countries to have better standards "California effect"-->if higher standards are in place with larger market, other trade partners will raise their standards so they can continue to trade, and they'll adjust their standards so their competition that doesn't or cant be regulated to same extent are pushed out of market So companies will actually advocate for higher standards to expel competitors unable to afford raising their standards Limits to effect Costs to meeting standard must be < benefits of getting rid of competition Need wealthy-enough consumers to actually still have a market Process v. product--?can set standards for either processes or products BUT WTO says process can't be held to standards internationally Only works in products are actually traded (i.e. btwn different states or countries)

O'Neal and Russett "The Kantian Peace: THe Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations"

Kant's 3 variables relevant to peace Interdependent via trade International institutions Democracy IV are lagged variables to confirm/ensure endogeneity "X causes Y, not Y causes X because X was from T-1 and Y was at T" Couldn't control from all confounders-->the cause of certain things isn't what they assumed it to be (spurious relationship) IVs are interconnected thus colinearity is an issue Clear causal claim can't really be made if they're collinear-->but sometimes that too hard in non-experimental methodology

"Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma" by Robert Jervis

Lack of an international sovereign permits wars because there are no institutions or authorities that can make and enforce international laws, the policies of cooperation that will bring mutual rewards if others cooperate may bring disaster if they do not Rousseau's Stag Hunt 1. Cooperate and trap the stag (the international analogue being cooperation and disarmament) 2. Chase a rabbit while others remain at their posts (maintain a high level of arms while others are disarmed) 3. All chase rabbits (arms competition and high risk of war) 4. Stay at the original position while another chases a rabbit (being disarmed while others are armed) Unless each person thinks that the others will cooperate, he himself will not The Point: Although actors may know that they seek a common goal, they may not be able to reach it. Even when there is a solution that is everyone's first choice, the international case is characterized by three difficulties not in the Stag Hunt Security dilemma: many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security decrease the security of others OFFENSE-DEFENSE BALANCE Offense has the advantage (it is easier to destroy the other's army and take its territory than it is to defend one's own) Status-quo powers must then act like aggressors Defense has the advantage (easier to protect and to gold than it is to move forward, destroy, and take) Status quo states can make themselves more secure without gravely endangering others The security dilemma is at its most vicious when commitments, strategy, or technology dictate that the only route to security lies through expansion. Status-quo powers must then act like aggressors

Cletus Coughlin, "The Controversy Over Free Trade: The Gap Between Economists and the General Public"

Majorities of Americans think freer trade will generate benefits like lower prices, increased product variety, and more innovation, others think trade results in fewer jobs and lower wages for certain segments of the labor force Survey respondents tend to emphasize costs of free trade more than benefits Reduction of trade barriers--PROS Specialization and exchange according to comparative advantage Increasing returns to scale from larger markets Exchange of ideas through communication and travel Spread of technology by means of investment and exposure to new goods Ratio of production costs for 2 goods is different in 2 countries-->this determines comparative or absolute advantages Different relative prices provide basis for both countries to gain from international trade Heckscher-Ohlin of international trade--country will produce a good at a lower cost if its production requires larger proportion of abundant resources Countries differ from each other in person of their productive resources Goods are produced using different proportions of those resources Stolper-Samuelson theorem says free international trade benefits country's abundant resource and harms country's scarce resource Gains from trade As market expands, there are gains associated with decline of per-unit production costs Reduction of monopoly power of domestic firms who face increased pressures from foreign competitors to produce output demanded by consumers at lower costs Consumers enjoy increased product variety and lower costs Static gains--one-time benefits of reducing trade barriers that arise as national (domestic) prices move closer to global prices Causes productive resources to be reallocated and consumption patterns to change which result in gains from specialization and exchange Free trade contributes to economic growth as a whole which is source of gains (dynamic gain) Liberalizing trade in highly protected industries is likely to yield gains Protection received by an industry is higher when it is labor-intensive, low-skill, low-wage-->suggests individuals are willing to support trade restrictions to improve job and income prospects for low-income workers Short-run adjustment costs from changing trade policy may also create initial opposition Higher standards would serve the interests of those being harmed by important from low-cost competitors; countries with low standards view the proposal to link labor standards as protectionist because proposals would tend to eliminate some of the cost advantages of firms in these countries 3 approaches to move public opinion toward supporting free trade Increase economic education on free trade Reduce the costs borne by those who are harmed by the implementation of free trade policy Expand agenda encompassed by trade negotiations such as concern to labor and environmental issues that may be affected Trade ultimately affects the distribution of jobs, but not the number of them Some say the government could compensate those who become unemployed as direct result of more free trade policies

Koshy Mathai, "Back to Basics: What is Monetary Policy"

Monetary policy is adjusting the supply of money in the economy to achieve some combination of inflation and output stabilization In the long run output is fixed, so any changes in the money supply only cause prices to change In the short run, because prices and wages usually do not adjust immediately, changes in the money supply can affect the actual production of goods and services. Generally conducted by central banks such as the federal reserve and the european central bank Aggregate demand= Total demand for goods and services in an economy Aim is usually to achieve a combination of inflation and output stabilization Adjusting money supply to do so Balance price and output objectives Economists think that monetary policy is best conducted by an independent bank separated from the central bank Monetary policy as conducted by a central bank separated from the gov't Issue of inflation bias—would promote low inflation but expand the money supply How to change monetary policy? Change money supply Quantitative easing: Purchase large quantities of financial instruments from the market Injects new cash into the economy Fed sets an amount for amount of currency that banks have to hold in reserve Banks then set a higher interest rate on loans etc in order to make a profit If interest rates are low, banks are willing to give 'riskier loans' Which leads to businesses hiring workers—spending more money and prices go up—equivalent to prices of the dollar going down (inflation) If fed thinks inflation is too high, fed interest rates go up, banks have higher interest rates and lower riskier loans, fire workers,

Faisal Ahmed, "The Perils of Unearned Foreign Income: Aid, Remittances, and Government Survival"

More autocratic governments can strategically channel unearned government and household income (in the form of foreign aid and remittances) to finance patronage, which extends their tenure in political office Neither aid nor remittances alone give statistically significant results, but together they reduce risk of government turnover Unearned foreign income received in autocratic countries... Reduces likelihood of government turnover Citizens get $$ elsewhere so government doesn't have to worry about services ex. welfare Regime collapse Outbreaks of major political discontent But...this doesn't necessarily help citizens...2 effects are magnified in authoritarian-regimes Governments direct some foreign aid to finance patronage goods (income effect) Governments respond to shocks in unearned and largely non taxable household income (ex. remittances) by diverting expenditures from the provision of welfare goods in favor or patronage goods (substitution effect) Negative correlation btwn country's unearned income inflows and its POLITY score (democracy basically) Autocratic governments use aid and remittances to finance patronage and neglect certain civil services i.e. welfare Foreign aid represents slack resources that a government can use at its discretion--less accountability to its citizens and therefore an adverse effect on human development They may give these services to key individuals or groups in return for political support, but not the general public Dependent variables: political survival, measured as "years in office"--Binary variable for turnover Binary variable, "regime collapse" Independent variables: Unearned foreign income (sum of ODA and remittances) Country's level of institutionalized autocracy Civil war and low internal discontent positively correlated with government turnover Oil prices is an instrument variable--3 potential channels through which higher oil prices could affect political stability Higher oil prices incite anti-government protests Effect of outward migration on political activism in the home country Effect of a country's trade flows (which may covary with oil prices) on governance **no statistical significance Religion of country is an instrument variable **no statistical significance Unearned foreign income received in more autocratic states has a greater effect in reducing a government's share of expenditures on welfare payments Thus freeing resources to finance government patronage Conclusion is similar to "resource-curse"--unearned or untaxed income reduces government incentive to provide civil services, and the social contract between government and people is weak

Fortna "Does Peacekeeping Keep the Peace?"

Must look at duration of kept peace Selection bias--are peacekeepers being sent to more serious conflicts? 2 regressions IV=factors of war; DV=peacekeeping IV=peacekeeping; DV=duration of peace Uses hazard model analysis Concludes that peacekeepers go the "harder" cases They're effective at preventing a re-outbreak of war Has a small N (41) because civil wars aren't super common and she's trying to control for a lot of variables Also, there are different types of peacekeeping missions, which further disaggregate data/validity There are soo many factors She's trying to control for a lot but omitted variable bias is always possible

Jervis "The Nuclear Revolution and the Common Defense"

Nuclear weapons have also increased the extent to which the security of the two adversary powers is linked. Thomas Schelling: what is significant about nuclear weapons is not overkill, but mutual kill (winner loser) Nuclear revolution Security of superpowers is great because the chance of war or conquest of the superpowers is unusually slight, but it is also low because if a major war occurred, they would be destroyed. Now both sides share the vital interest of avoiding total war Total war would be worse than maintaining the status quo, worse than suffering a limited loss of influence and, if a modicum of rationality and common sense prevails on both sides, worse than being conquered by the other side. Because the situation is not zero-sum, it must involve bargaining; military power cannot directly provide security or reach many other important goals. Two ways of gaining security through defense (not practical) Development of a defensive shield that could protect our society against nuclear attack. Most people don't think this is very possible. For the US to gain the ability to stage a successful first strike that would eliminate all Soviet strategic forces. Not in the realm of technological feasibility If military victory is impossible, major wars should not occur. This has been the case since the end of 1945. Historically rare Three other possible factors to account this to Even had these weapons not been invented, modern states are so hard to defeat and conventional weapons are so destructive that both sides could have come to the conclusion that meaningful victory was impossible. Modern states might have come to view war as an anachronism (not only are its costs high, but trade offers a more certain route to national economic goals). Bipolarity provides an easy and unambiguous identification of potential enemies which makes peace more likely Credibility Since superpowers are made secure by their second-strike capability and military victory is impossible, the credibility of threats will be both important and difficult. It is the credibility of threats that protects the superpowers' homelands and their vital interests Credibility is also difficult because the threat to trigger mutual devastation is inherently incredible. Two factors to consider Nuclear threats do not have to be highly credible in order to be effective States need not threaten to immediately launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the other in order to deter One of the main functions of building arms is to demonstrate resolve.

Joshua Busby, "Trump says goodbye to the Paris climate agreement. Here's what that means"

Other countries could pull out of the agreement since US did By pulling out, US has less strength/ability to organize global policy initiatives-->bad for US companies who now can't plan ahead/invest in future policies Emphasizes the fact that the agreement is non-bonding. This is an example of how the lack of a governing body leaves "tragedy of the commons" resolution up to countries' individual descretions

Mearsheimer "Power and Fear in Great Power Politics"

Power is about survival--once state is secure, stable, and confident, they'll stop pursuing more power Vs. Melian Dialogue that says a state will never stop seeking power because it's human nature to always want more if you can get it You're a revisionist state until you're secure and then you become a status quo state

2019 "Explainer: Who pays Trump's tariffs, China or US customers and companies?"

Quick summary: Although Donald Trump claims that China pays for U.S. tariffs on its goods, tariffs have various negative impacts on American consumers. Tariffs, paid by US-registered firms, often lead importers to pass on the costs of tariffs to customers who must pay higher prices for products. As US companies are forced to pay higher prices or turn to alternative supplies that cost more, a wipe out of profits and jobs would follow. The US companies disperse the large costs of tariffs in various ways which include reducing wages/jobs, accepting lower profit margins, and deferring potential wage hikes. On the other hand, Chinese exporters will also have to adapt to the costs of tariffs, often offering discounts to US importers in order to maintain their market share. As China retaliates against the US with its own tariffs, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow's statement holds true: "both sides suffer with tariffs." Links to other readings (i.e. what concepts does this piece discuss that relate to the other readings assigned this week): This piece shares a common theme with the other article "More Wealth, More Jobs, but Not for Everyone" as they both focus on the unaddressed adverse effects of trade deals/free trade on the consumers. In the same way that the costs of tariffs are passed on the consumers, the costs of free trade often result in greater profits for corporations while resulting in the unemployment of workers.

Daniel Lim and James Raymond Vreeland, "Regional Organizations and International Politics: Japanese Influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council"

Regional hegemons use their power in regional organization to gain influence at the global level Japan has leveraged its political influence within the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to facilitate favorable loans to countries useful for its broader foreign policy goals at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ADB provides convenient way to obscure domestic and international favors granted to elected UNSC members, given Japan's history of imperialism, this is strategic ABD is an open regional organization--it accepts western countries (US is a privileged voter), but it's logistically funded by, controlled by, and run by the Japanese After WWII, prime minister Yoshida coins "Yoshida Doctrine"--low-key approach to international affairs, basically relying on US in international arena In 1980s, Japan began seeking bigger role for themselves Acting through international organizations allows Japan to reconcile its contradictory activist and low-key goals of leadership without unilateralism Nonpolitical facade for an increased politicized Japan ADB gives more loans to underdeveloped countries when they are members of the UNSC--2 explanations (direction of causal effect can't be determined definitively) Japan uses its power over the ADB to favor these countries to gain influence over UNSC's agenda, debates, and votes Developing country governments may recognize that they hold higher leverage over Japan when they're on UNSC and thus seek favors through the ADB

Alan Deardoff and Robert Stern, "What You Should Know about Globalization and the World Trade Organization"

Research question: What is the World Trade Organization [WTO] and what can be done to change it and the public's perception of it? Answer: WTO was created in the Uruguay Round negotiations to be the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], which was formed by governments for the purpose of promoting globalization and preventing countries from doing harm with their trade policies. It is considered a force for increased trade and globalization. Can change public perception of WTO by increasing transparency and including more countries/voices in panels/DSM discussions/etc. Summary: WTO is responsible for overseeing rounds of trade negotiations, and has expanded what kinds of trade it oversees to include trade in services, tariffs on agriculture, and intellectual property protection. WTO has become more controversial because of policy change regarding the dispute settlement mechanism [DSM], which makes it easier for countries to complain, and because of disregard to issues like labor and environmentalism. Also as a force for increasing globalization, it has had negative effects on developed countries while helping developing countries (unsure how true). Objections to WTO: Burden on developed countries. Ex: Micro-Fibre Arrangement [MFA] put in place by GATT to restrict exports from developing countries to developed countries, let developed countries adjust to the new imports in their own markets. But WTO dismantled MFA and influx of cheaper goods from developing countries, which affected producers in developed countries. Lack of transparency. Secret DSM panel meetings. Potentially undemocratic. Few rich countries run the WTO: True, but perhaps by design (and not only rich countries). Director General chooses "green room group" to agree amongst themselves, then bring to larger group for consensus. Need to include more developing countries. Potentially overrules domestic laws/national sovereignty. Doesn't allow countries to restrict imports based on questionable production practices. Big corporations run the WTO: Large corporations do the most trade, have the most input? Incredibly difficult to reach agreements. Ex: Seattle Negotiations failure? (Different needs) What to do to regain public trust: Increase transparency: Include more countries in decisions about WTO policies (developing countries) and NGOs on DSM decisions so there is more to it than government secrecy. Focus on issues of mutual concern; not focus on issues that will benefit developed countries.

Cohen, "The Triad and the Unholy Trinity"

Research question: why is coordinating monetary fixed exchange rates so difficult? Unholy trinity! Aka the triad !! Can only have 2 out of 3 Time inconsistency problem-->commitment problem Today they want to cooperate and fix exchange rates, but tmo in a crisis, government might want to cater to domestic interests Countries can cooperate without concern for commitment if you either give up domestic currency OR have "common sense of destiny" Who benefits from fize exchange rate? International capital holders, exporters, rich ppl who invest in foreign economics Who loses? Those confined to domestic economy Necessary conditions for classical gold standard? Fixed exchange rate Free capital flow THUS--no independent monetary policy-->hurt farmers who had no political power Bretton woods? Fixed exchange rate Independent monetary policy After war, there was little free capital flow @ 1st but then they wanted that and couldn't because triad

Larry Diamond and Jack Msbacher, "Africa's Coming Resources Curse--and How to Avoid It"

Resource curse--global phenomenon in which vast natural resource wealth leads to rapacious corruption, decimated governance, and chronic underdevelopment Discusses natural oil in Equatorial Guinea--president and family are extremely wealthy, majority of country is extremely impoverished President's family still travels, owns assets etc. all around the world, which shows gaps in international accountability and justice Boom of resource discovery results: Fuels inflation Causes massive corruption Distorts exchange rates Entremines the competitiveness of traditional export sectors (ie. agriculture) Preempts the growth of manufacturing Bad news for democracy and rule of law Oil wealth becomes controlled by the government and stifles any emergence of an independent business class or entrepreneurial middle class-->swells power of state Solution to this is handing a sum of the revenue to the people as taxable income= "oil-to-cash system" This would cause development, economic growth, less poverty etc Resource wealth has divergent effect on incentives of citizens and public officials--social contract between population and its government is severed Taxes are binding force of accountability between public officials and constituents-->no taxes in these oil rich countries because government controls resource and doesn't need taxes because it keeps the revenues With foreign aid and revenue from oil, most of African countries' income in nontaxable The heart of the resource curse is weak institutions that fail to prevent public officials from exercising discretion over the revenue from oil and other external rents

Aaditya Mattoo and Arvind Sabramanian, "From Doha to the Next Bretton Woods: A New Multilateral Trade Agenda" (2009)

Responds to the rising costs of various goods (ex. Barrels of oil and tons of rice). References the push to re-establish the Doha Round talks (established in 2001) Says that to re-establish the Doha Round talks would be a mistake because the issues that the program has previously addressed are now outdated Criticizes the WTO for not adapting to the world's rapidly growing interconnected economy Argument: The members of the WTO have not fully maximized the level of tariffs and other trade barriers on goods and services Due to the increase in trade freedom, the significance of the Doha discussions has diminished significantly Supporters of reinstating the Doha process argue that, though its impact may be modest, it is still important to have legal ramifications for dictating trade operations BUT Mattoo & Sabramanian say that historically, the Doha agreement has not been able to implement any meaningful repercussions when violations have occurred (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) The lack of involvement from corporations in the intellectual property, manufacturing, and service sectors is an indication of the lack of relevance that Doha has States that the undervaluation of major currencies is a huge problem because it hurts the profitability of industries where these countries trade

Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Rich countries should give enough assistance to reduce suffering in poor countries Neither individuals nor governments are going enough/as much as they could Says out moral conceptual scheme needs to change--out way of life is taken for granted in our society Assumes that suffering and death from things like lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad **If it's within our power to stop something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we should do it This on the surface means stop bad things, but doesn't mean cause good things, so Singer says it should be uncontroversial If we walk by pond and young child is drowning, of course we muddy our clothes and save child from dying Principle doesn't account for proximity/distances i.e. is this a neighbor's child or a random child from 10,000 miles away Principle doesn't account for diffusion of responsibility--doesn't matter if there are other people there who in theory could also act, everyone should be jumping in the pond Any sense of impartiality, universalizability, equality etc. means these 2 things couldn't make a difference in our decision to help the child Our traditional distinction btwn duty and charity are messed up-->we think giving to a relief fund is charity, but if it's helping them and not hurting us, it's a duty This makes people who don't give, feel okay. They're not giving to charity, but at least they're still fulfilling their duties-->causes "charity" to feel options and people don't do their part Some object and say it's the responsibility of the government to give foreign aid and individuals should need to give to private charities Singer says these aren't mutually exclusive; no evidence that giving to charity disincentivizes governments to provide aid More likely, Singer says, if individuals don't give privately, governments won't provide aid because they'll think their constituents don't care about helping Some say (ex. Hardin) that we shouldn't give to starving people because they're survive, have kids, and eventually die from overpopulation and drag everyone else down too Singer says our duty is to stop the suffering today, not try to guess how to prevent it in the future Some alternatives say we should give until we reach marginal utility (give until that incremental amount makes you suffer more than the suffering you are relieving) Singer says we just have to give until we would then sacrifice something of comparable moral significance

Peter Goodman, "More Wealth, More Jobs, but Not for Everyone: What Fuels the Backlash on Trade"

Short article that finds what Scheve and Slaughter find generally People are losing jobs in low skill areas of the economy They cannot get retrained and largely become unemployed or enter into different industries that pay worse This obviously causes backlash on trade

Pape "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism"

Suicide terrorism is used as a coercive mechanism It is strategic and logical to get their agenda done 3 types of terrorism (in order of least to most violent) Demonstrative Destructive Suicide Suicide terrorism is convincing of target authority because clearly shows high resolve Allows you to access targets-->suicide opens possibilities Usually aimed at democracies because they're softer targets

Barry Eichengreen, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System

Suitcase full of dollars as a classic image in modern Hollywood movies—reflects a modern monetary truth of the dollar as the world's reigning currency but language Dollar as the most important currency for invoicing and settling international transactions International system as set in dollars Oil priced in dollars Central banks hold more than 60% of their foreign currency reserves in dollars Dollar as reigning currency as peculiar Post WW2—U.S. was an economic superpower and leading source of foreign capital—made sense Now it makes less sense U.S. as not a main global exporter and not the main source of foreign direct investment U.S. as no longer the uncontested economic superpower Progress of other countries Process of 'catch-up' as great achievement of modern times as poverty is diminished worldly Dollars as reigning currency highly convenient for Americans American banks don't have the fear of risks to profits with the floating exchange rate Other countries provide the U.S. w resources in order to obtain dollars 500 billion u.S. dollars circulate outside the U.S.—this money was exchanged for goods and services Not only is currency but U.S. bills and bonds prevailing in the international monetary system and transactions As such, U.S. has to pay lower interest on foreign liabilities than the rate of return on its foreign investments, creating an external deficit and importing more than it exports Although there are harsh criticisms, no one has moved away from the system as conformity is highly beneficial for the international financial system U.S. "exorbitant privilege" Cheap foreign finance and low U.S. interest rates benefit U.S. citizens—developing world ends up subsidizing American lifestyle American international financial position strengthened by 2008 economic crisis Although dollar fell, U.S. foreign investments became more valuable Depreciation of dollar helped U.S. by offsetting their debts to other countries U.S. gov't borrowed large sums of money at low interest rates—and when financial volatility spiked again the cost of borrowing and mortgage rates was lowered for the U.S. Dollar at risk of losing its privilege — foreign investment moving away from it as the main international unit Exorbitant privilege of the dollar as affecting political dominance and policies—stronger financial leverage equating to stronger foreign policy In the case of the U.S., their status as a powerful and rich country post WW2 not only gave them the ability to make the U.S. the reigning dollar but the incentive to in order to retain their stronghold of the international system Idea that the chinese renminbi will compete with the dollar—eichengreen suggests this might come sooner than later Yet, idea of dollar as doomed is also wrong—euro as currency without a state but renminbi as currency w too much state U.S. as a country as largest economy in the world What is wrong is the idea that there can only be one international currency—fallacy of the modern era We need to prepare for a world in which several international currencies coexist —will allow other developing foreign markets to emerge

Michael Bechtel and Kenneth Scheve, "Mass Support for Global Climate Agreements Depends on Institutional Design"

Support increase for less costly climate agreements (international) Measured global climate cooperation with 3 dimensions Costs and distribution Participation Enforcement Institutional design features can change public support Costs are the major drivers of support for global climate agreements. As costs of global climate agreements go up people are far less likely to be in favor of them Individual calculations of perceived fairness of a climate deal is the second most powerful indicator of personal preference over any such deal As more countries are involved in an agreement, the approval for that agreement also rises proportionally The means by which the deal is enforced is also important: deals that are enforced by an unbiased, third-party moderator, will be more popular than other methods of enforcement Different factors cause differing rates of individual preference sway in different countries. The Public generally prefers global climate agreements in which many countries participate The authors theorize the larger amount of countries in the agreement being a sign of its effectiveness and reliability International efforts to set up a global climate architecture require broad public support to be politically sustainable and effective in the long run. The strongest influencing factor if the cost of climate change mitigation However, they further find that costly agreements will be able to find support if they are accompanied by specific design features that make cooperation more effective in reducing emissions and that resolve distributional conflicts in a way that resonates with fairness norms Citizens are more likely to support agreements that include a higher number of participating countries, are monitored by an independent third party, and include a low sanction for countries failing to meet their emission reduction targets.

Tyson Barker, For Transatlantic Trade, This Time is Different"

TTIP US and EU align their regulations regarding manufacturing and services like finance and telecom Eliminate almost all barriers to foreign direct investment Advocates say that agreement with streamline businesses to give each side a boost in competitiveness Could grow GDP and great jobs--both US and EU were in recessions Differences in approach to regulations US uses cost-benefit analysis--emphasizes outcome EU uses cautious approach, burden of proof is on innovator--emphasize the process Regulating tech companies and cloud cybersecurity too Agreement would potentially boost the legitimacy of EU for skeptics like UK who want to leave Could give US and EU leverage in future to push back against China and reaffirm the liberal international order

Ted Bromund, "Is TTIP Dead? If it is, does it matter?"

TTIP=Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership By seeking convergence in regulation, the agreement is heading to the lowest levels of environmental and consumer protection Over time, it will add a bit to countries' GDP, but it also hurts some businesses b/o regulations Countries should aim to be conservative in what they promise (working on huge aims such as TTIP usually take forever and accomplish nothing)

Jeffry Frieden, "The Euro: Who Wins? Who Loses?"

The EU attempted to stabilize fluctuations of differing currencies and move towards a single currency—a single currency won EU agreeing on a common monetary policy What made the euro attractive: Quest for anti-inflationary credibility—bring inflation down for countries w high inflation Broader links to european integration Support from powerful business interests—end of currency fluctuations and beginning of a broader european market Unified monetary policy is complicated—e.g. Differing rates of unemployment Influential groups value low inflation Strong public sentiment within europe to lower interest rates to help w slow growth + unemployment Common currency attractive to Euro financial markets Monetary policy = complicated — question lies in the balance between fighting inflation or strengthening the euro A strong euro + tight money suggest a priority on international confidence in the currency and low inflation High interest rates keep inflation down + make currency more attractive and raise its price Come at the expense of employment + competition Weak currency and losse money associated with using the exchange rate to help europeans compete with foreign producers Conflicts to come: Recession Localized financial crisis — either bailout failing member or let the member pay the consequence Crisis abroad ] An apolitical central bank can't exist: ecb faces task of balancing disparate regions and interests than is the case in most countries It takes a long time for a system of accountability to be set up Potential problem of unfair influence of private financiers Political realities of the EU will determine the future of the euro

Paul Krugman, "The Revenge of the Optimum Currency Area"

The Euro was supposed to be a common currency success but instead has become an economic trap Optimum currency area theory (weighing the balance between advantages and potential costs) Advantages of common currency (come at a high risk) Reduced transaction costs, elimination of currency risk, greater transparency, and possibly greater competition because prices are easier to compare. Disadvantages of a single currency Loss of flexibility Loss of mechanism for adjustment (necessary due to "asymmetric shocks") Mundell (wrote paper on this in 1961) Argued that a single currency was more likely to be workable if the region sharing that currency were characterized by high mutual labor (factor) mobility Like in Massachusetts when unemployment rate got high and then low again because workers left the state to find work elsewhere after losing their jobs Kenen Fiscal integrations (a large "federal" component to spending at the regional or local level) can help a lot in dealing with asymmetric shocks.

Peter Goodman, "The Dollar is Still King. How (in the World) did that Happen?"

The dollar has continued to amass more and more value even as the US has shown significant weaknesses, both politically and economically It's strength has helped Trump sell gov savings bond and impose strict foreign policies and sanctions on the rest of the world China has attempted to take over this role but their economic slowdown, concern over soaring debts and unease from neighbors that its global investments represent a new form of colonialism have quashed that effort. The Euro has tried as well, but there is a lack of save savings options in euros "The problems with the euro are problems of governance" However the dollar seems to be free of existential fears Overall, a strong dollar has become a new foreign policy weapon for the US as they can leverage it to get what they want in whatever country they want to leverage

Hardin, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor"

The rich countries are the lifeboat, the poor countries are swimming around them and want to get in Inherent to this metaphor for him is the limited capacity of a lifeboat If you help everyone until you can't help anymore, you're using up all of your "safety factor" which you "save for a rainy day" Another factor in metaphor, the swimmers are reproducing much more quickly than those safe in the lifeboat-->as time goes on, the difference in prosperity only increases Tragedy of the commons--if everyone would restrain himself, all would be well but it takes only 1 less than everyone to ruin the system of voluntary restraint; in a crowded world of less than perfect people, mutual ruin is inevitable Reality of aid--is it for selfish reasons? Also, is it even making a difference? Modern approach to foreign aid stresses export of technology and advice instead of money and food Growing resources like food to meet demand may decrease other resources that we need Immigration v. food supply World food banks move food to the people thus quickening the exhaustion of environment in poor countries Immigration moves people to the food thus quickening the destruction of environment in rich countries-->so immigration as a solution is supported for selfish reasons (cheap labor) and humanitarian impulses Pure justice is not possible, so all we can do is try to work with reality as best we can, and in reality, we need to prioritize first our own survival

Jeffry Frieden, "Will Global Capitalism Fall Again"

The world has returned to a level of globalization which was only seen pre WW1 Global economy collapsed after 1914—why? Sources of weakness were political International political conflict Bretton Woods system reflecting compromise: Breakdown caused by stagflation combination of recession and inflation Deregulation in the developed world globalization reappearing by mid 1990s general unease in the U.S. regarding globalization: trends in american society: deteriorating income distribution, macroeconomic imbalances and concern about national security Argument: We need to rely upon market forces & support of global economy to address all discontent, BUT we need to avoid economic insularity Should we and how do we restore international economic integration & maintain a global economy? Build and sustain a functional, integrated political/economic order. Geopolitical, ideological, religious threats will oppose the global economy Must build a government structure for international economic interactions Build and sustain domestic political/economic conditions that allow enduring support for international commitments Consultation among affected social groups, compensation for those who sacrificed, targeted interventions, etc

Snyder "One World, Rival Theories"

Theories Stephen M. Walt's three dominant theories from "One World, Many Theories" Realism Focuses on the shifting distribution of power among states. Policy Implications: Instills a pragmatic appreciation of the role of power but also warns that states will suffer if they overreach Liberalism Highlights the rising number of democracies and the turbulence of democratic transitions. Policy Implications: Highlights the cooperative potential of mature democracies, especially when working together through effective institutions, but it also notes democracies' tendency to crusade against tyrannies and the propensity of emerging democracies to collapse into violent ethnic turmoil. Constructivism (an updated form of idealism) Idealism illuminates the changing norms of sovereignty, human rights, and international justice, as well as the increased potency of religious ideas in politics. Policy Implications: Stresses that a consensus on values must underpin any stable political order, yet it also recognizes that forging such a consensus often requires an ideological struggle with the potential for conflict. Other mutations Neoconservatives Combines the importance of force from realism and the importance of democracy promotion from liberalism (George W. Bush?) Human Rights Activists Combines the importance of international institutions from liberalism and the principled activism of constructivism (idealism). P. 54 see map of politicians and where they fall in the practice of these theories REALISM The belief that international affairs is a struggle for power among self-interested states. Not amoral, its advocates to emphasize that a ruthless pragmatism about power can actually yield a more peaceful world, if not an ideal one. From World War 2 US, China use it Non-state groups confound it a bit Post 9/11 developments undercut it because it predicts the balance of power is maintained by weaker states allying to protect themselves from stronger strates yet nothing can compare to the power of the UN so balance of power is impossible. Policies must be based on real strength LIBERALISM Contends that realism cannot account for progress in relations between nations Because elected leaders are accountable to the people (who bear the burdens of war), liberals expect that democracies will not attack each other and will respect each other's regimes Transparency of democractic processes make it easier to sustain international cooperation, especially when these practices are enshrined in multilateral institutions Problems US's tendency to stick their noses in other politics and then isolate led to cold war Countries transitioning to democracy, with weak political institutions, are more likely than other states to get into international and civil wars. The rising democratic tide creates the presumption that all nations out to enjoy the benefits of self determination, so those left out might undertake violent campaigns to secure democratic rights Democratic regimes make attractive targets for terrorist violence by national liberation movements precisely because they are accountable to a cost-conscious electorate. Not clear how nascent democracy and economic liberalism can always cohabitate. Free trade and multifaceted globalization that advanced democracies promote often buffet transitional societies. IDEALISM (CONSTRUCTIVISM) The belief that foreign policy is and should be guided by ethical and legal standards. Constructivism holds that social reality is created through debate about values, often echoes activists Europe and America Debates are fundamental Explains the origins of the forces that drive other theories CHANGE None can explain it

Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter, "What Determines Individual Trade Policy Preferences?"

They find that there are two main things that determine individual trade policy preferences The factor type that dominates the industry of employment can explain support for trade barriers Home ownership is the second thing that matters They find that home ownership in counties with a manufacturing mix concentrated in comparative-disadvantage industries is correlated with support for trade barriers. Lower skill is strongly correlated with support for new trade barriers Individuals evaluate trade policy based on how their current factor incomes are affected without regard for aggregate national welfare The RV model is a shorter run model of the HO model If individuals evaluate both short and long run effects of trade liberalization then preferences might depend on both factor type and industry of employment. The HO model assumes factors move costlessly across sectors RV model assumes that some or even all factors cannot move across sectors. Trade liberalization then redistributes income across sectors Comparative advantage sectors gain from free trade, comparative disadvantage sectors lose from trade

Fordham and Kleinberg "International Trade and US Relations with China"

Threat perception of China differs based on social standing Wealthier and more educated perceive smaller threat Nation as a whole is benefiting from trade (liberalism) War-->higher classes would be more protected from harm than lower class liberalist!

Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons"

Wants to answer: "is there a technical solution to overpopulation?" Says NO, but mutual coercion and social contract can work though Recognition of necessity is key Without punishment/enforcement by greater entity, ppl won't be collectively rational Need either legal or social laws to enforce When individuals aren't internalizing costs, the exploit a common-pool resource (non-excludable but consumed by 1 individual fundamentally reducts ability for others to consume) Central role of externalities: decision maker doesn't bear full costs or benefits of actions Negative externalities-->too much of a good/bad action Positive externalities-->action creates benefits for a third party Assumptions of tragedy of the commons Self interest will always be maximized All about getting the full benefit of individuals' actions But individuals only pay part of the costs Costs of taking actions are upfront, but benefits don't come until far in the future-->time-inconsistency problem geographical distribution inequality in cost/benefit Freedom is the recognition of necessity (Hegel) We must abandon the commons in breeding

Jeffry Friend, David Lake, and Ken Schultz, "Ch. 7: International Trade" 265-275

Trade barriers can keep domestic prices high (to benefit domestic producers) and stop cheaper foreign products from being sold Help producers, harm consumers (protectionism) International trade brings important benefits to national economics and barriers to trade hurt economic growth and well-being-->reducing trade barriers (trade liberalization)--is good for a nation's economy Trade is beneficial for country as whole, but can harm interests of groups and individuals in society. Trade liberations can create both winners and losers National political institutions affect the extent to which interest groups that stand to lose in world trade will prevail over those that stand to gain Simplified, if 1 group is making profit, another is over-paying, which is what leads to the conflict/negotiation Adam Smith--specialization (division of labor); says self-sufficiency was foolish because a greater division of labor made societies wealthier Specialization requires access to large markets--restricting market size slows growth Comparative advantage--country or firm will be most successful when they produce a good or service that is most efficient given their resources Absolute advantage--country or firm can produce more of a good or service than others but using the same amount of resources Economic logic says imports are the gains from trade, exports are its costs; country imports goods it can't make (well) itself, which allows the nation to focus on productive things (exporting) Free trade leads a country to follow its comparative advantage, and economic logic implies this is ideal policy-->countries should accept cooperative trade policies regardless of what other countries do Heckscher-Ohlin approach: a country will export goods that make intensive use of the factors of production in which it is well-endowed (assumes factors aren't mobile) As country develops, it accumulates capitaland its workers become more skilled, so its endowments change and thus export patterns change Protectionism--imposition of barriers to restrict imports; commonly used devices include tariffs, quotas, and NTBs Tariff--a tax on imports paid by importer, which raises the price of good being imported Quota--limits the quantity of a foreign good that can be sold domestically NTBs--regulations targeted at foreign goods or requirements that governments purchase from national (domestic) producers Factors of production can be associated with different socioeconomic actors ie. land and farmers, capital and wealthy, labor and middle-class are connected

Herman Daly, "The Perils of Free Trade"

Trade speeds up economic growth-->environmental damages "Race to the bottom"--lower environmental standards produces more efficiently by obviously bad for the environment, but leads to everyone lowering standards Same for standards of labor conditions

William Easterly, "The Utopian Nightmare"

Utopianism is hurting efforts to help the world's poor It is seeing an easy and sudden answer to complex problems It is trying to solve everything at once via an administrative apparatus headed by "world leaders" Puts too much faith in altruism and underestimates self-seeking behavior Expects great things from schemes designed at the top without doing things to solve the problems at the bottom Issue is that the rich people paying for aid don't have the same goals as the poor people they're trying to help The wealthy have weak incentives, and the poor have no position to complain Utopian-driven aid packages have so many different goals that they have weak accountability and probability of meeting any one goal Top-down approaches have repeatedly shown that they don't really work Free markets and democracy aren't overnight solutions to poverty They require other things from the bottom-up like contract enforcement and fair political competition Democracy and free-markets also usually aren't successful in helping if they are imposed by outsiders i.e. IMF, U.S. Army etc The poor have no economic or political power to hold anyone accountable The ones with the power are without genuine incentives

Rogowski, "Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments"

Views society through Heckscher-Ohlin model and Stolper-Samuelson theory because through factor lines, not sector lines like Ricardo-Viner model Factor mobility! 3 assumptions re. domestic political processes Beneficiaries of change with try to continue and accelerate it Those who gain sudden increase in wealth will in turn expand political influence Likelihood that political entrepreneurs will find ways to overcome collective action issues increases as desire and means for particular political preferences increase No country can be rich in both land and labor An advanced economy is one in which capital is abundant Factor endowments: 4 boxes are economy (advanced or backward) X land-labor ratio (high or low) Advanced X High=abundant capital and land, scarce labor Class conflict (benefits wealthy) More trade exposure: Land and capital free-trading, assertive; labor defensive, protectionist Less trade exposure: labor assertive, land and capital defensive-->US New Deal Advanced X Low=abundant capital and labor, scarce land Urban/rural (benefits urban) More trade exposure: Capital and labor free-trading, assertive; land defensive, protectionist-->radicalism Less trade exposure: Land assertive, labor and capital defensive-->W. European Fascism Backward X High=abundant land, scarce capital and labor Urban/rural (benefits rural) More trade exposure: Land free trading, assertive; labor and capital defensive, protectionist-->U.S. populism Less trade exposure: labor and capital assertive, land defensive-->S. American Populism BackwardX Low=abundant labor, scarce capital and land Class conflict (benefits poor) More trade exposure: Labor free-trading, assertive; land and capital defensive, protectionist-->socialism Less trade exposure: land and capital assertive, labor defensive-->Easian and E. European fascism

Walter "The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement"

Ways states can cooperate to avoid wars/keep peace: Increasing costs of breaking peace States can maintain military power after wars Create buffer zones/safe zones Theory: Big impediment to settling civil war and keeping peace is the lack of trust Commitment problem!! Indivisibility fuels the war to continue No "compromise" possible IV=3rd party intervention; DV=total victory of settlement Small N! But lots of qualitative evidence 3 requirements to qualify as 3rd party intervention Have self-interest in maintaining the peace Willing to use force Demonstrates ability/resolve to use force Only 6 total cases where there was 3rd party involvement

Detlef Sprinz and Tapani Vaahtoranta, "The Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental Policy"

What influences country's support for international environmental policy? No central authority in the international system causes insufficient means of fostering environmental protection They are presenting an interest-based approach to international environmental regulation Countries are pursuing two main goals with the help of their environmental foreign policies Each country seeks to avoid vulnerability to air pollutants Countries pursue policies that minimize adverse environmental effects on their own citizens and ecosystems States are more inclined to participate in environmental protection when the costs of compliance are relatively minor There create a 2x2 matrix, similar to the one created in a security dilemma Low abatement costs and low ecological vulnerability = bystanders Low ecological vulnerability and high abatement costs = draggers High ecological vulnerability and low abatement costs = pushers High ecological vulnerability and high abatement costs = intermediaries Six factors were found to be conducive in allowing for the Montreal protocol The role of scientific understanding of ozone depletion The impact of public pressure on decision makers The role of technological developments The leadership role played by the United States The role of the epistemic community The role of international institutions They suggest that policies are mainly shaped by a country's ecological vulnerability and economic capacity to control environmental degradation The impact of technology on reducing abatement costs The environmental foreign policy of these countries toward climate abatement changed as a result of the success of their industries in inventing substitute compounds for CFCs The US started the international push for banning CFCs shortly after they invented new substitutes for CFCs Countries even demanded to receive the new technology for the substitute before agreeing to ban CFCs Feasible technological substitutes are needed in order to fully transition to an agreement that bans harmful substances Countries that have superior substitute tech will be pushers because it will open up a new economic lane of comparative advantage in that part of industry

Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Ken Schultz, "Ch. 7: International Trade" 276-287

When governments make national trade policies they take into account what other governments are likely to do in response Attempts to create regional trading areas such as the EU or NAFTA will also depend on what the countries within the pact want Other countries, even if you come to an agreement, will try to cheat the agreement for their benefit International trade issues can resemble that of a prisoner's dilemma Small numbers - that is a small amount of product or a small number of nations in a trade agreement - make it easier to resolve trade disagreements Hegemonic stability theory A hegemonic power so large and strong enough to both willing and able to solve these problems for the world as a whole. Information can also be an important consideration in trade negotiation Many failures are due to a lack of knowledge that the other state will not cheat Repeated interaction If you're trading or making agreements with nations on a continuous basis then those countries are going to be less willing to chear. Govs may also facilitate by linking concessions You may lower tariffs on steel but you have to also lower tariffs on wheat if this deal is going to work This makes it more favorable for both parties They can also link these types of agreements to national security and military aid agreements Bilateral or regional trade agreements are usually more successful, due to small numbers theory and also because they have more information, more repeated interaction Institutions can also help facilitate trade by being a third party arbitrator and making rules about trade to limit the amount of cheating Most favored nation status (MFN) This means that countries that confer a MFN status on one another agree to extend to each other the same concessions that they provide to all other nations This system is called normal trade relations in the US The most important institution is the WTO The WTO negotiates on a loose rule of reciprocity, each nation receives the same dollar amount in trade in each agreement, this is then spread to other nations through MFN Negotiations in the WTO are dictated by its most powerful members The WTO monitors a country's compliance in two main ways Members must report actions taken under the safeguards clause as well any regional trade agreements that they may enter into Countries can file a complaint against a country that they believe is cheating

Glaser "Will China's Rise Lead to War?"

Won't lead to war-->realism doesn't mean pessimism! Realist argument but nuanced so more optimistic Structured forces that drive major powers to conflict are weaker-->economic interdependence! Mild security dilemma-->there are incentives for peace and cooperation counterargument/uncertainty he addresses: we can't know what U.S. will do re. Taiwan Growth doesn't mean aggression