3B03 Fall 2013
Week of September 9, 2013
M ONDAY , S EPTEMBER 9, 2013
International relations and its effect on politics
C LASS SUMMARY BY R ICHARD STUBBS
The state was defined as: the set of civil and coercive institutions which are more or less
coordinated by an authoritative executive which seeks to exert exclusive, legitimate control -
ultimately by force if necessary – over a given population and territory.
Markets are where buyers and sellers offer and exchange a variety of goods, services and
information. A question that arises is: do markets spontaneously emerge or are they political
So we will be looking at the way overarching International Relations trends and events influenced
the state and its relationship to markets within countries.
In terms of international relations wars are important in ‘shaping people’s lives’. Charles Tilly’s
aphorism - ‘Wars make states and states make wars’ - is especially important. He shows how
wars have influenced the emergence of states in Europe.
In terms of wars and particularly the Cold War an equation is particularly helpful:
Perceived Threat = Perceived Capability x Perceived Intent.
This helps us to understand how Washington and Moscow saw each other and how they were
willing to mobilize and distribute resources to Europe so as to get it back on its feet.
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS –SECOND IMAGE REVERSED .
China, Russia, the United States, Brazil
State in International Relations:
Territory, controlled by government
C OMPARATIVE NOTION OF STATE
Institutional form of state (in comparative politics terms; the state encompasses the set of
civil and coercive institutions
o Civil institutions – bureaucracy
o Coercive institutions – armed forces, which are more or less coordinated by an
authoritative executive (in Canada, cabinet)
Seeks to exert exclusive legitimate control (by force if necessary) over a
given population and territory (brought in IR definition of the state)
The state on the one hand and the market on the other (within countries)
o Market: where buyers and sellers offer and exchange a variety of
Relationship between the state and the market within each countries and how it is
affected by what is going on in the world (international realm)
1 3B03 Fall 2013
Week of September 9, 2013
IMPORTANCE OF WAR AND THE WAY IT SHAPES HISTORY
Tilly – “Wars make states, states make war”
Why does Tilly make this argument?
o History of European history, how did the individual states within Europe
emerge? How do these countries look like they are now? To defend territory or to
go get someone else‟s resources, must mobilize resources.
o In order to do this:
o Depends on the kind of resources – Military that emerges.
Second World War 1945
o Devastation of Europe
o Original plan for Germany, (made by the Brits and Americans): after it invaded
Europe twice, was to turn it into one big farm land (Ruralization)
However, Germany was divided (Soviet/Western)
Parallel war was going on in the Pacific to the one in Europe
o End of a Hot war and the emerge of the cold war after 1945
Churchill speech and Iron Curtain (Emergence of Cold War)
The Cold War
o Each side feeling a threat
o THREAT = CAPABILITY x INTENT
o Perceived Threat = Perceived Capability x Perceived Intent
Russia and the Red Army (Mr. X Articles)
o From the Russian side seeing the American/British
Perceived Threat = (Large capability, Bomb, Army mobilization) x
(Large intent, dominate the world)
The cold war was an important factor in the way that everyone thought directly after the
war. Perceived threat by both sides was massive, by Washington and Soviet Union
o Both sides in Tilly‟s terms are willing to mobilize resources in order to fight the
Washington (America) and massive amounts of money; put a lot of
money in Europe. Pumping money into countries in order to trade. Gave
money to non-communist parties.
Despite being „free‟ markets and interested in free trades, free
markets, they needed the European economies so much against
the Red Army, but did not worry about the kinds of politics. (Did
not want them to be „communist‟ but did not worry about the
The Americans gave money to Europe, but did not ask too many
questions about the kinds of governments they were supporting.
Due to their political motivation.
o American supporting relatively strong states (more or
less coordinated by an authoritative executive)
World divided between the American / Soviets
o International Politics through the prism of Cold War
o Prepared to provide money and resources in the first few years of the war in
order to get Europe up and running.
Saved Europe (Post-1945 countries had been devastated)
2 3B03 Fall 2013
Week of September 9, 2013
Different effects on where war is situated
When war is on your territory it is devastating
Canada / America not devastated during wars because of
isolation in territory away from war
War makes states, change lives: acceleration of events.
W EDNESDAY , S EPTEMBER 11, 2013
Class summary by Richard Stubbs
Do the readings. The piece on the Cold War raises some interesting points. Remember who wrote
it. Quotations from Harry S. Truman and Robert Taft who were US Senators during WW II
suggest that the US was very wary of communism even as the Soviet Union was an ally in the
Effects of War:
1. Destructive and Disintegrative Effects
2. Formative and Developmental Effects
3. Reformative and Redistributive
In the Pacific the destructive effects were massive. The atomic bombs and the firebombing by the
US left Japan in ruins. Yet 40 years later Japan was the second largest economy in the world.
How did this happen.
Destruction brought about both by WWII across East and Southeast Asia and by the Korean War.
The Cold War was also a major factor in East and Southeast Asia as both the Soviet Union and
the US were very wary of the threat posed by the other.
Another important overarching trend that was taking place in the international realm was
decolonization. Joel Migdal notes that most colonial territories experienced the colonizers
extracting raw material and a relatively weak central authority established. As a result at the
time of decolonization/independence new states had strong societies dominated by local
‘strongmen’ and weak states that had neither good bureaucracies or courts and limited police
and army capacities. The question for this class then is how did East Asian and Southeast Asian
states develop strong states and weak societies?
Part of the thinking at this time for newly independent states was that they should adopt import-
substitution industrialization. This meshed with mercantilist ideas about how an economy should
“O RIGINS OF THE C OLD WAR ”
General look at the co