Weeks 6 and 8
Location: Room 1, 2 Church Walk (near St. Antony's)
Assignments: 2 substantial essays
Tutorial 1:
Week 6: “Whilst we now have good explanations to why democracies consolidate, it remains difficult to explain systematically why they become democracies in the first place.” Discuss. Tuturial 2:
Week 8: Do comparative theories of state capacity provide a sound basis for distinguishing between strong and weak states?
(more)
Thursday 22 October 2009
Political Institutions Programme
Classes: MT09 Wednesdays, 9am SSL
Presentations - weeks 1 and 7.
Assignments: None
Reading lists:
MT09
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
(more)
Presentations - weeks 1 and 7.
Assignments: None
Reading lists:
MT09
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
(more)
Introduction to the Advanced Study of Politics and International Relations
MT09 - Thursdays 14:00 - 15:30.
Not in 6th week
Convenors: Liz Frazer and Eddie Keene
Assignment - 1000 word summary due end of MT09
Line-up.
Week 1: Eddie Keene
Week 2: Jennifer Walsh
Week 3
(more)
Not in 6th week
Convenors: Liz Frazer and Eddie Keene
Assignment - 1000 word summary due end of MT09
Line-up.
Week 1: Eddie Keene
Week 2: Jennifer Walsh
Week 3
(more)
Introduction to Advanced Study of Politics and IR - Lecture 2
The State of the IR debate.
Prof Jenny Walsh, Somerville
Lecture handout available: hard copy
Notes:
Jennifer Walsh specialised in Edmund Burke, Sovereignty and International Intervention
CONTEXT:
Critically analyse theory in terms of who is making the theory, what are their personal biases; under which rules are they operating?
Neo-Realism
Kenneth Waltz was the father, with his "Theory of International Politics"
Views the causes of conflicts in the international community due to Structural Factors
The differences with classical realism, see Morgenthau, human nature is not a primary explanatory variable
A. 1. A call to abandon the Inductivist Illusion
Classical realist scholars hope to find patterns/connections between real life cases
Instead, NR attempts to describe a priori using theories
Maybe he has a case of "economics envy"
Uses individualistic models of behaviour that are rolled into systems
2. Treatment of Power
Combined capabilities of a state (so balance of capabilities leads to balance of power)
with Motivations: minimum being survival and maximum being domination
3. Logic of Anarchy
Anarchy is not just a residual condition, it defines the system and places similar constraints on all states
B - 1. The Ordering principle
Domestic politics is characterised by heirarchy
International politics is characterised by anarchy
Conflictual behaviour is the natural result of anarchy
2. The balance of power
There is one unit level factor (state capabilities) but apart from this analysis is structural
Why shouldn't we examine other unit-level factors
Criticisms: the theory is not comprehensive (e.g. cannot explain WW1), but its point is parsimony not perfection
Neo-Liberalism response
More concerned with integration than conflict (e.g. Ernst Hoss)
Post 1945, realist school didn't have all of the answers
e.g. within context of EEC states sought to gain prosperity through collaboration
Power and interdependence
Pluralism: relax assumption that states are the only main players in international relations, e.g. multinationals, NGOs etc.
Alternative dynamics: e.g. interdependence and cooperation
Distinction between high politics and low politics (security / economic cooperation)
...but, in the 1970s the oil crisis affected state security in a number of ways
Similarities:
It was a response to Waltz but did assign rationalist language
e.g. The Keohane article admits it does share some factors
Its agenda is to explain cooperation under systems of anarchy
B. Keohane's definition of cooperation: states bringing policy preferences into conformity
Shares:
States as primary actors
Atomistic/utility maximising
Respond to material incentives
Under conditions of anarchy
--> but cooperation can result, due to mutual interests and material benefits of doing so
Theory focusses on minimising the costs - e.g. prisoners' dilemma, optimal behaviour is precluded by rational behaviour
NLI moves away from this outcome through the use of institutions and repeated interactions
The "Liberal" ideological foundation - there is a more optimistic view of the world
Assumption that the security dilemma is not the natural conclusion of intl. anarchy
Self interests can be changed (e.g. Roussea, real vs apparent interests)
The institutions envince the assumption that politics can help.
Keohane e.g. has become more explicitly normative over time
see the Baldwin reading for more on the debate at work
Absolute vs. Relative gains (another distinction)
NLI sees absolute gains
NR believes states are more concerned with relative gains
Waltz believes the ratio of the gain is important
But how do we know whether states are pursuing absolute or relative gains?
Are the two theories the same?
Ruggi believes the two are essentiall "neo-utilitarian", with a similar rationalist epistemology
Both ignore identity, rationality, culture etc.
both are conservative and don't tackle injustice or seek to change the status quo
Neither theory had much to say about the fall of the Berlin Wall
Both have a universe of self interested utility maximisers
The approaches under-specified many aspects of international relations
Ruggi's main observation: states have a sense of appropriate behaviour
(Social theory related)
Social constructivism has a different agenda
Where do the players come from, why do they have those preferences etc.? What are their identities and do these identities change over the course of the interaction?
To account for the interests of actors rather than just taking them as given - think about collective intention/agency
Agency is reflective, actors give post hoc meaning to their actions
How do we actually study ideas?
NLI and NR don't really study ideas, they focus on materialism
They may be included as focal points in games with multiple equilibria
Constructionists - have a more systematic treatment of ideas, are interested in shaping the game to affect outcomes
How are ideas transmitted?
Notion of intersubjectivity
e.g. sovereignty requires mutual recognition
This assumes that international relations can be conceived in societal terms
A form of knowledge different from positivism
Keohane's challenge to constructivists (reflectivism)
Weakness is in the lack of clear reglective research programmes that can be employed - says scholars will remain on the margins of the field unless they embrace empiricism.
Constructivists have responded with lots of empirical work over the past 20 years
Trying to bridge the divide between idiographic and nomothetic
(more)
Prof Jenny Walsh, Somerville
Lecture handout available: hard copy
Notes:
Jennifer Walsh specialised in Edmund Burke, Sovereignty and International Intervention
CONTEXT:
Critically analyse theory in terms of who is making the theory, what are their personal biases; under which rules are they operating?
Neo-Realism
Kenneth Waltz was the father, with his "Theory of International Politics"
Views the causes of conflicts in the international community due to Structural Factors
The differences with classical realism, see Morgenthau, human nature is not a primary explanatory variable
A. 1. A call to abandon the Inductivist Illusion
Classical realist scholars hope to find patterns/connections between real life cases
Instead, NR attempts to describe a priori using theories
Maybe he has a case of "economics envy"
Uses individualistic models of behaviour that are rolled into systems
2. Treatment of Power
Combined capabilities of a state (so balance of capabilities leads to balance of power)
with Motivations: minimum being survival and maximum being domination
3. Logic of Anarchy
Anarchy is not just a residual condition, it defines the system and places similar constraints on all states
B - 1. The Ordering principle
Domestic politics is characterised by heirarchy
International politics is characterised by anarchy
Conflictual behaviour is the natural result of anarchy
2. The balance of power
There is one unit level factor (state capabilities) but apart from this analysis is structural
Why shouldn't we examine other unit-level factors
Criticisms: the theory is not comprehensive (e.g. cannot explain WW1), but its point is parsimony not perfection
Neo-Liberalism response
More concerned with integration than conflict (e.g. Ernst Hoss)
Post 1945, realist school didn't have all of the answers
e.g. within context of EEC states sought to gain prosperity through collaboration
Power and interdependence
Pluralism: relax assumption that states are the only main players in international relations, e.g. multinationals, NGOs etc.
Alternative dynamics: e.g. interdependence and cooperation
Distinction between high politics and low politics (security / economic cooperation)
...but, in the 1970s the oil crisis affected state security in a number of ways
Similarities:
It was a response to Waltz but did assign rationalist language
e.g. The Keohane article admits it does share some factors
Its agenda is to explain cooperation under systems of anarchy
B. Keohane's definition of cooperation: states bringing policy preferences into conformity
Shares:
States as primary actors
Atomistic/utility maximising
Respond to material incentives
Under conditions of anarchy
--> but cooperation can result, due to mutual interests and material benefits of doing so
Theory focusses on minimising the costs - e.g. prisoners' dilemma, optimal behaviour is precluded by rational behaviour
NLI moves away from this outcome through the use of institutions and repeated interactions
The "Liberal" ideological foundation - there is a more optimistic view of the world
Assumption that the security dilemma is not the natural conclusion of intl. anarchy
Self interests can be changed (e.g. Roussea, real vs apparent interests)
The institutions envince the assumption that politics can help.
Keohane e.g. has become more explicitly normative over time
see the Baldwin reading for more on the debate at work
Absolute vs. Relative gains (another distinction)
NLI sees absolute gains
NR believes states are more concerned with relative gains
Waltz believes the ratio of the gain is important
But how do we know whether states are pursuing absolute or relative gains?
Are the two theories the same?
Ruggi believes the two are essentiall "neo-utilitarian", with a similar rationalist epistemology
Both ignore identity, rationality, culture etc.
both are conservative and don't tackle injustice or seek to change the status quo
Neither theory had much to say about the fall of the Berlin Wall
Both have a universe of self interested utility maximisers
The approaches under-specified many aspects of international relations
Ruggi's main observation: states have a sense of appropriate behaviour
(Social theory related)
Social constructivism has a different agenda
Where do the players come from, why do they have those preferences etc.? What are their identities and do these identities change over the course of the interaction?
To account for the interests of actors rather than just taking them as given - think about collective intention/agency
Agency is reflective, actors give post hoc meaning to their actions
How do we actually study ideas?
NLI and NR don't really study ideas, they focus on materialism
They may be included as focal points in games with multiple equilibria
Constructionists - have a more systematic treatment of ideas, are interested in shaping the game to affect outcomes
How are ideas transmitted?
Notion of intersubjectivity
e.g. sovereignty requires mutual recognition
This assumes that international relations can be conceived in societal terms
A form of knowledge different from positivism
Keohane's challenge to constructivists (reflectivism)
Weakness is in the lack of clear reglective research programmes that can be employed - says scholars will remain on the margins of the field unless they embrace empiricism.
Constructivists have responded with lots of empirical work over the past 20 years
Trying to bridge the divide between idiographic and nomothetic
(more)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)