POL 208 sem 1

20 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Lilach Gilady

POL 208 REVIEW Lectures 1 & 2 Levels of Analysis – J. David Singer What is a theory? A description, explanation, prediction, that relies on deductive reasoning not just inductive, and that can be falsifiable. What s a Hypothesis?  Theoretical predictions. What is a Model? Simplified/ scale of complex reality.  Levels of Analysis are variables that each affects the outcome in their own way  Each describes a specific part of reality  Question determines Level chosen 1. Individual - If we look at the personality, education, past experience, beliefs, and ideologies of the individual can we come to know why the decision was made. Would the outcome change if that individual were removed from history? 2. Decision Makers - The procedures associated with certain roles such as bureaucracies. Would the outcome change if the structure of the bureaucracy were altered? When acting on behalf of an organization you are more likely to sit where you stand, constrained by your role in that system 3. Governmental Structure - Concerned with Regime type and the insensitive and constraints that a decision maker would face in these environments. 4. Society - The state‘s size, poverty rate, economy, culture, and history 5. International Relations - Interactions between actors. How does their past history, geographic location and regional influences effect their actions. Small countries would act differently to large country than a small neighboring one 6. World System - Assumes that the world has elements that relate to everyone. Concerned with how the distribution of power and technology effects decisions. The Westphalian System  30 year war that resulted in the Treaty of Westphalia which first acknowledged the idea of sovereignty.  Sovereignty  monopoly over the functions of the state in a defined territory. o External o Internal  4 characteristics of a state o territory o citizens (population) o government (state apparatus) o sovereignty International Relation Theories Consider these questions for each ISM 1) how they deal with threat 2) is cooperation possible 3) what are actors interests 4) what is the most important concepts for understanding IR politics 5) Possibility for change? #1 REALISM Background Hobbes state of nature  Brutish, short, poor, solitary— solution = Leviathan ―the state‖ The domestic analogy  International system resembles the anarchy present in Hobbes state of nature  War is expected because there is no authority to protect violence  Violence is legit because it is necessary for one to survive  Yet this constant threat of violence is what produces security dilemma Machiavelli  Human nature is naturally evil, selfish, and power seeking  Ruler ―the Prince‖ will always act in ways that lead to more power Hans J Morgenthau  power politics  but power is relative Kenneth Waltz – NEO realism  Looking for a more scientific foundation for the realist theory  Contend that anarchy is what makes behavior predictable, BUT the uneven distribution of power is what makes behavior unpredictable.  Focused on world system level of analysis Summary  Self interest/ self help  Focused on practical considerations rather than moral or ideological ones – Realpolitiks  External factors  Main actor - unitary actor = state  Constant political laws (universal laws) based on Anarchy  Limited cooperation  Fear defection from others (paranoid)  Considers distribution of power as the way to understand IR #2 Liberalism John Locke – Social Contract  state of nature = anarchy but not necessarily constant war but still unstable  state built to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property)  individual matter, the state mirror individual desires  build institutions to meet the needs of all individuals  rights exist independent of power  optimistic Immanuel Kant – Perpetual Peace  all states should have republican constitutions, there should be a world federation, economic and social interaction between boarders = PEACE  democracy, trade, international organizations= peace Adam Smith – The Wealth of Nations  trade increases the cost of war and thus create an incentive for minimal violence  more trade = less war Neoliberalism Robert Keohane  more scientific  structural condition that favors cooperation = institutions Liberalism Summary:  actors are rational and follow self interest  private interest does not necessarily contradict with collective interest  collective will is rational  institutions shape and constrain actors interest  the right kind of institutions can mitigate conflict Lecture 3& 4 #3 Marxism Theory of Imperialism Assumptions: 1. Actors are class based 2. International relations are workings of a capitalist system a. Driven to make money b. Capital leads to increased productivity Logic of the argument Stage 1capitalists get rich ( more capital) Stage 2invest in more machinery/labor saving devices Stage 3results in creased profits and capital Stage 4requires fewer workers needed (unemployment and falling wages) Stage 5 less demand for goods because workers have less money, hence capitalists need to make them cheaper Stage 6 back to stage 2 INVEST MORE RESULT = revolution – the rich get richer the poor get poorer the working class becomes organized and defined and rises up How is this connected to IR?  marx was wrong: we see very few revolutions  Lenin and Hobson say the problem is: imperialism explains the lack of revolution (Marx implicitly assumes a closed market) – capitalists find new markets to exploit over new regions  Instead of revolutions Imperialism leads to war: class is the problem rather than anarchy or the nation state, IR is about spreading capitalism  A state‘s interests have to do with maximizing capital  What kind of IR do Marxists predict? Conflict over markets; imperialism; diversionary wars; collusion of capital classes; underdevelopment and dependency Neo- Marxism IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN  World System is the primary unit of analysis  holistic view: World-system refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. The system is dynamic, as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or lose the core (semi- periphery, periphery) status over time.  long term processes – historical perspective  core vs. periphery: a powerful and wealthy core dominates and exploits the weak and poor countries  Semiperiphery: intermediate countries that combine features of both core and periphery – instrumental for preserving the system  The end of the cold war signals the demise of the capitalist world economy – Us expansionism is a reflection of its decline #4 Constructivism  The material facts are secondary to the social meaning attributed to them  Institutions: a set of customs, practices, relationships or behavioral patterns of importance in the life of a community or society; institutions are the rules of the game, the norms that regulate behaviour, they generate repetitive and predictable behavioral; they define the social constraints and opportunities that actors face.  Main unit of analysis = Identities, norms and social institutions  Interests are socially constructed  State of nature- self help is an institution  Examples: family, marriage, lecture, border, sovereignty, war ALEXANDER WENDT  Suggests we should focus on the social meanings of material factors  Those meanings are intersubjective (space in-between objective and subjective)– they are understood by group members; they help regulate and produce behavior patterns; in turn they are reproduced by those behavior patters. Intersubjectivity emphasizes that shared cognition and consensus is essential in the shaping of our ideas and relations. Something is intersubjective if people are capable of sharing it or holding it in common.  aspects of international relations are, contrary to the assumptions of Neorealist and Neoliberalism, socially constructed, that is, they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction. Alexander Wendt calls two increasingly accepted basic tenets of Constructivism "that the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature"  Main claim: anarchy is what states make of it – neorealist argue that this preservation of power explains state actions but it doesn‘t explain what causes states to be friends or foes  Challenges this assumption by showing that the causal powers attributed to 'Structure' by Neorealist are in fact not 'given', but rest on the way in which Structure is constructed by social practice Constructivists Summary  Constructivism can lead to realist or liberal predictions – it is a different way of understanding the world. Doesn‘t give an exact prediction, neutral  A way to understand how actors come to be the way they are  Suggests that the social world is constantly changing and is constantly being reproduced  However- identities and norms are the only things that are relatively stable, slow to change  It is better in analyzing patterns of behavior rather than specific events  Provides a theory for the origin of preferences and interests  We cannot understand the world by observing it from the outside: intersubjectivity #5 Feminism  IR has been one of the last fields to open up to feminist theories  What happens when we add gender to our analysis? How should this be done?  What constitution does the international system have for the marginalization of women? How does the marginalization of women affect the international system?  Hard to test because women in politics don‘t represent the average women  Feminism itself contains different degrees of approaches from liberal – radical Women and war  Should women be part of the armed forces? (liberal vs. radical)  Liberals: YES  Radicals: No because it would just re-enforce the problem with feminism, should refuse to join  The ―myth of protection‖ – wars do not protect women they target women (starving, rape etc)  A sharp increase in cases of mass rape as a tool of war (Balkans, Congo)  The gender gap – women consistently don‘t support war as much as men ANN TICKNER  Empiricism: the gender gap; women in war etc.  Critique: still using a male dominated system of knowledge  The scientific method itself is not gender neutral; linearity; the white male as a unit of analysis: the state of nature may be different if it was dominated by women/ families instead of men  Is IR theory really gender neutral Desirable behavior Dangerous Behavior Strongul Soft Determined Appeasement Self help Needs help Cold interest Morality, justice Defender Protectedn These behaviors are built in by men and typically not gender neutral  the domestic/ international distinction in IR theory reflects the domestic/ public dichotomy in society  breaking these distinctions – breaking levels of analysis; everything is one system  Violence is not only war, focus on violence against women  We need to expose hidden power relationships gender; north-south; rich –poor Lecture 5 Rational Choice Definitions Rationality – ability to assess all alternatives, choosing the policy that leads to the most profitable outcome (max utility, minimal cost/losses) Preferences – order of relative utility from various outcomes Expected utility – what is the benefit that each actor is likely to gain by adopting a certain strategy Game theory – models interactions of decision makers via strategic games. Try to predict other actor‘s moves through backwards induction Nash Equilibrium – outcome from interactions where neither player can unilaterally alter their strategy in order to improve their position Both must simultaneously change strategy Stable outcome Coordination game – different/ non-conflicting preferences create a stable situation where defection is less incent. Can reach a solution through institutions, communication, power, focus point, agenda setting, and iteration Focal Point – shared ideas about solutions are useful to coordination games where there is multiple NE Prisoner‘s Dilemma – mutual cooperation is not stable in this game because the dominant strategy is to defect for both actors This is a rational individual decision but does not produce a rational outcome, not socially optimal Leads to the security dilemma Dominant Strategy – the choice that a rational actor would make regardless of the other actors decision (defect in prisoner‘s dilemma) Iteration – reassurance that the game will be repeated so that there is less of an incentive to defect Neoliberal thought coined from Axelrod = Evolution of Cooperation Tit for tat = if the first move is cooperation than you continue the game following what the previous actor did. BUT must be an infinite/ unknown set of games played or else backwards induction will solve the cycle Chicken – 2 NE (swerve, straight) and (straight, swerve) No dominant strategy so hard to predict what the other player will do, but always trying to do the opposite of your opponent There is high risk Ex = nuclear deterrence stand off between USSR and US Rationality of Irrationality – sometimes useful to appear irrational to convince the opponent to adopt an action that favors you (Iran bluffing about eliminating Isreal Lecture 6&7 War Some believe war is the continuation of politics in another form Total war – world at war Real war – typical view of war Absolute war – never fought in reality (because it requires 100% of resources to be dedicated to the war) How do we measure war? Terrorism, gurilla warfare, information warefare new forms) Militarized Interstate Disputes, but most cant be categorized so narrowly Interstate war vs. Intrastate war  interstate wars require at least 1000 troops and 25 casualties, but today we see more civil wars = intrastate wars have lead to interstate wars 3 stages of war 1 image – Human nature  this is an explanation that looks at the biological, sociological, psychology aspects that suggest war and violence are natural conditions for humans OR pessimistic about the ability to eliminate war OR humans have adapted to violence  war is a product of human fallibility  greed, miscommunication, assumptions, fear and hate  way to eliminate war is to ―cure‖ humans from the impulse of war  PROBLEM: there has been periods of peace… 2 Image – Domestic (political/ economic) realists aren’t a fan of this image  the regime type, economics, and interests groups influence war  war is done as a rational calculus of cost/ benefit analysis  Falklands War  Argentina: Why the attack? o Argentineans claim it is their territory o National interest:  Fisheries  potentially some mineral deposits  Identity, sovereignty, national pride  However: difficult living conditions; inhospitable population o Why did they decide to attack the Falklands at the time of attack?  Even so, why attack in 1982  UK about to withdraw HMS Endurance and to scrap its carriers; why not wait? o Domestic Conditions in Argentina  1976—Military Coup (Junta)  1981—Army General Leopoldo Galtieri replaces prior military leadership (supported by Air Force and navy) o Political and economic pressures:  the economy is deteriorating quickly  Thousands of ‗missing‘ people (mass executions, torture, corruption)  Anti Junta demonstration; pro democracy pressures o Why attack? Rational Calculus:  no downside to invasion if one expects to be thrown out of office anyway  The probability of success would increase if Argentina waits- however it would be too late for the Junta (national interest vs. narrow political interest)—what is good for the country and what is good for leadershThe Junta becomes very popular after the invasion  The regime collapses following the subsequent defeat  what is the second decision for this to become a real war?  It takes two to tango: can such logic work in democracy  Margaret Thatcher o Takes office as PM in 1979 as leader of the conservative party o Economic decline continues despite unpopular reforms o Government deeply unpopular, but ―The Iron Lady‖ announces there will be ―no U-turn‖  successful engagement in war/international promises—domestic leaders gain bump in popularity (example of this: Obama after capturing and killing Bin Ladin)  There could be domestic reasons that drive decision making whether to engage/not engage in violent actions internationally  1982 war between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The conflict resulted from the long-standing dispute over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Argentina‘s attack on UK was encouraged by national interests for resources and to expand identity and national pride, yet the population was in a terrible condition. Te operation was designed to draw attention away from human rights and economic issues at home by bolstering national pride and giving teeth to the nation's long-held claim on the islands. Could of waited UK was backing off anyways  Country can benefit from war through industries (interest group) neglecting to recognize that war overall causes impoverishment (capitalism)  The type of government: Liberal, non Liberal, Conservative, or Radical (the type of government that leads to war differs amongst the liberal a
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.