Ip Final Essays

Front 1

How and why, according to Adam Smith, does the likelihood of war vary between the four different stages of economic development?

Back 1

War varies between 4 different stages of economic development because the more advanced economies are, the higher the opportunity cost there is in regards to war. This is because the forces and modes of production have altered through time. As man has moved to higher stages of technological development, the destructive power of war has increased. Therefore, to secure a states economy it is in their best interest to not engage in violence, since martial skill is low. If man is rational, the more progress he makes, the less likely he will want to engage in war and violence.

Front 2

What are the major contributions of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations to the theory of capitalist economics and economic policy?

Back 2

Adam Smith’s Economic Theories: (4)

1) The Invisible Hand: The state is not needed to set prices; prices can be determined automatically by the forces of supply and demand
2) Division of Labor: If different actors in society specialize in different tasks, they will become more efficient and the overall wealth of the society will increase.
3) Comparative Advantage: As division of labor is developed at a national level, countries will specialize in the production of commodities. For example, the US will produce corn while Saudi Arabia will produce oil; then trade ensues between them.
4) Laissez Faire Capitalism: free market determines structure of the economy; program to dismantle the mercantile system, where the state previously directed the economy.

Effects of Smith’s Wealth of Nations theories on global economic policy:

1) Led to the repeal of the Corn Laws (1836)- Britain Unilaterally abolished tariffs on all grains.
2) Cobden-Chevalier Treaty: (1860) The first reciprocal trade act. Britain and France agree to a mutual reduction in trade tariffs in order to increase economic growth.

Front 3

The growth of commerce and capitalism has been of central concern to liberal theorists since the 18th century. What arguments did liberals of the 18th and 19th century make about the impact of commerce and capitalism and war?

Back 3

Liberals of the 18th and 19th century made arguments in support capitalism as a proprietor of peace. In Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws (1748), he presents the theory that commerce has a “soothing effect” on politics. According to Montesquieu, ethos of the aristocracy will shift from being mainly based in martial conflict and military glory to the more bourgeois interests of gaining wealth (which is in nature pacific). Peace is a byproduct of commerce. InAdam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), he presents the theory that as a nation becomes more embedded in manufacturing, the economic costs of violence is very high and the resulting destruction would be very high. So why would nations want to fight? Peace would be the result.

Front 4

How, according to Gilpin, do liberal, Marxist, and mercantilist conceptions of political economy differ from each other concerning the nature of economic relations, the nature of the actors, the goal of economic activity, the relationships between economics and politics, and the nature of change?

Back 4

The 3 Conceptions of Political Economy, according to Gilpin:
Liberalism, Marxism, and Mercantilism

Nature of Economic Relations:
Liberalism: sees as harmonious
Marxism: sees as conflictual
Mercantilism: sees as conflictual

Nature of Actors:
Liberalism: households and firms
Marxism: economic classes
Mercantilism: nation-states

Goal of Economic Activity:
Liberalism: Maximization of global welfare
Marxism: Maximization of class interests
Mercantilism: Maximization of national interests

Relationship between Economy and Politics:
Liberalism: economics should determine politics (the state should not interfere with economic transactions across national boundaries)
Marxism: economics does determine politics and political structure
Mercantilism: politics determine economics (economy is subservient to state interests)

Theory of Change:
Liberalism: Dynamic equilibrium
Marxism: Tendency toward disequilibrium
Mercantilism: shits in distribution of power

Front 5

Describe the political causes and consequences of the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, and describe the economic causes and consequences of World War II.

Back 5

The political consequences of the stock market crash and the Great Depression are three-fold. Firstly, with unemployment rising, tariffs increased to protect individual state markets. This resulted in a large decrease of world trade, which led to even more unemployment. With the end of the Great War, the world blamed Germany for the war and thus politically Germany’s integrity and political system was compromised. This led to the rise of the Weimar Republic and the Hitlerism. Economically, the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was very influential in the Great Depression. World War I costs were enormous and war debts were instituted to pay them off. Europe blamed Germany for the war and thus stuck them with the bill. The situation in Europe thus became illiquidicate and speculative investing went unchecked resulting in a stock market crash.

Front 6

After World War I the United States retreated to isolationism, but after World War II the United States led an effort to establish stronger international institutions. What accounts for this difference? What lessons were policy makers drawing from the disastrous experiences of the 1930s?

Back 6

America moved from isolationism to world leadership in world capitalism in order to prevent another depression after World War II. Policy makers in the US were drawing on experiences from the 1930s. Instead of forcing one country to pay all the war debts, the US created the Marshall Plan to fund and reconstruct Europe. The faster industries could be rebuilt the quicker debts could be paid. International organizations were created to regulate tariffs (whose rampant use by states created the crash) and set up a lender of last resorts independent of any state.

Front 7

Describe the international institutions established after World War II to support the international capitalist system. What roles were they assigned?

Back 7

International organizations such as the GATT were created at the Bretton Woods conference to regulate tariffs, which were a large factor in the stock market crash. Exchange rates were made more flexible and manageable with the creation of a World Bank that acted as a lender of last resorts to the European countries. Over the last half-century these institutions have evolved into more complex ones. The GATT became the WTO with its “rounds of talks” (Kennedy, Uruguay, and Doha). The World Bank became the IMF, which now lends money to third world states and regulates their taxes, tariffs, and subsidies to increase their GDPs.

Front 8

The role of hegemony in the international political economy has been hotly debated by theorists. What do Realist hegemonic stability theorists argue about this relationship, and how well does the historical record since the early nineteenth century match the expectations of hegemonic stability theory? What alternative explanation is advanced by liberal theorists to explain the persistence and strengthening of the free trade regime that has occurred in a period of declining American hegemony?

Back 8

Waltz believed that hegemonies are unstable because lesser states can band together to overthrow the unchecked power of the hegemon. Gilpin claimed that hegemony was good for order as it makes convertible currencies possible, opens markets, and facilitates free trade. Hegemonic powers also encourage Regimes as they share the costs and burdens of all of these interdependencies. Thus the international political economy is an expression of American hegemony. Liberals claim that though states created the institutions and organizations, they have now transcended the states. Thus permanent hegemonic power is not necessary for transnational agents to function.

Front 9

How does David Mitrany’s Functionalist strategy differ from earlier world government advocates? What processes does Mitrany believe will work to expand cooperation and conciliation? What criticisms do Realists make of Mitranian Functionalism?

Back 9

Mitrany said that countries are favored by the need and the habit of material cooperation, but are hampered by the general clinging to political operation. He said that therefore the system of functionalism is a more realistic way to bring states together, rather than the older strategies of a general and fairly loose association (like the UN) or the federal union. Mitrany said that through functionalism the low politics of states will bring the high politics of states together. From this idea comes the notion of complex interdependence in which states are not simply connected through government, but through a web that connects them through many aspects of society. Realist criticize functionalism by saying the High politics competition precludes low politics cooperation. Also, Realists say Europe had high politics cooperation under NATO alliance and high politics cooperation precedes low politics cooperation. They also insist that the nation has a motive appeal related to war, a sense of loyality/identity connected to the nation.

Front 10

What is ‘complex interdependence’ and how does it differ from Realist images of world politics? What is politics like under conditions of complex interdependence? To what degree do you think contemporary world politics resembles the complex interdependence model?

Back 10

Complex interdependence is a system of interaction between states in which there are multiple channels of interactions, intergovernmental, and transnational/multinational corporations (IOs, MNCs, NGOs, TANs). In theory, this interdependence will lead to mutual sensitivity to issues as well as mutual vulnerability to dangers. Realists believe that in world politics, only governments interact, not people and businesses. In complex interdependence politics, the economy and the military are roughly equal in power/importance, and both of these are roughly equal to all the other governmental agencies/businesses that interact between nations. Foreign policy also becomes fragmented, which causes a lack of coherence. Coalitions are often formed across borders in complex interdependence models. Complex interdependence is extremely evident in today’s world politics. The European Union is the result of complex interdependence…low politics influencing high politics (currency, transportation, economies, etc.).

Front 11

What are ‘regimes’? How do they differ from international organizations?

Back 11

Regimes are social institutions governing actions of those involved in specifiable activities or sets of activities. They are characterized by rules, roles, and rights. Rules to govern activity (in the international sense, activities such as whaling, conservationism, environment, etc.) with rights granted to the states, who perform a role in the activity. For example, the role of a human being in every society is said to carry with it the right to life. The main features of regimes include the fact that they are multi-lateral and mostly headed by non-state actors (TAN, MNC, IO, and NGO’s). International organizations are material entities possessing physical locations (base), personnel (bureau), and assets (budget). Organizations could be created to help regulate international regimes (such as the WTO for trade). Organizations, being material entities, are also subject to law and can be sued, sue, and so forth. You cannot sue a regime in the same way you cannot sue an “idea” (no one can sue you for your right to life).

Front 12

What explains the large number of regimes in international politics today? What are the consequences of these regimes?

Back 12

International regimes are all social institutions. They are the product of human interactions; specific regimes are always created not discovered. Therefore, there are more international regimes today because changes in technology have connected more and more of the world population. Hegemons bear the cost of regimes, so if hegemony decreases so does regime influence. Regimes increase cooperation because transaction costs are lower and transparency is higher (greater interaction amongst states increases knowledge of mutual state activity). Regimes increase awareness to problems (such as the depletion of the Ozone) and legitimate and empower transnational coalitions.

Front 13

What factors account for the emergence of the European Union over the last half-century?

Back 13

1: Memory of WWII
2: Capitalism—a business-driven process; the union of European states yields a larger market
3: Europe in commission (regime)—increased flow of information between states
4: Balance of power against USSR (NATO)
5: Economic competition vs. Japan and US—Europe was getting crushed by the decline of its economy, and therefore saw the need to unite

Front 14

The history of the last fifty years suggests that the recently renewed momentum toward European unification will slow as a period of consolidation occurs. What factors, both inside and outside Europe, might serve to slow or halt further European integration?

Back 14

1: Size of the welfare state: taxation in Europe is at 50%; moreover, with a declining population, the economy may grow sluggish.

2: Immigrants are coming to Europe from Africa, Asia, etc, resulting in a growing population of Muslims in Europe with separate, possibly conflicting tendencies

3: democratic deficit

4: NATO (North American Treaty Organization)- Expanded after the Cold War; after US leaves, what will happen—anarchy?
5: Question of how big the EU will get!? Bulgaria and Romania are next! If continues acquiring more member nations, integration may slow due to overextension!

Front 15

Describe the ways in which the European Union is similar to and different from three of the following: a regime, a states-union, an alliance, and a federal state.

Back 15

Regime: is similar to a regime, but more organization because of election and referenda

Federal state: similar to federal state—“cool sovereignty”, federal unions, but not cool military capability; NATO, but US is an integral part of this (and isn’t in EU)

Alliance: yes, it started as an alliance with the formation of NATO, however now it has grown!

Front 16

What, according to Deudney and Ikenberry, are the distinctive features of the Western liberal order (or ‘free world complex’ (FWC))? How do these claims contrast with the Realist/neorealist views?

Back 16

1) secular co-binding : NATO expanded. International organization vs. balancing
2) penetrated hegemony: there is a political structural openness to the U.S. (REALIST: coercive)
3) semi-sovereign states (Japan/Germany) peace constitution (REALISTS see as anomalies)
4) economic openness: wealth up, economic interdependence up, VS. self-reliance
5) civic identity, nation : tier-identity – ethnic/religion, conflict down, diversity/freedom up, integration up

Front 17

What, according to William Wohlforth, are the feature of and prospects for American unipolarity?

Back 17

Wohlforth’s durability hypothesis
1) unipolar (US 5% of world’s population, but 23% of world GDP) EU = United States of Europe (bipolar system?)
2) unipolar leads to peaceful
3) U.S. unipolarity is durable

Front 18

Compare and contrast the views of Forte (and other neo-conservatives) with the views of liberal internationalists on the relationship of democracy and sovereignty with international law, organizations, and regimes.

Back 18

Forte believed that as globalization increased, the power of transnational organizations becomes more apparent, and state sovereignty is usurped. He saw these transnational organizations such as the WTO and the NGO as a threat to democracy because the leaders of these organizations are responsible to nobody and push the idea of human rights on other people. The neo-conservatives also believe that international law and regimes are a threat to democratic nation-states, and think that these factors cause US restrainment. The liberal internationalists on the other hand believe that due to the intense VI in the world today, and world government is needed for security purposes. It is this world government, and these types of organizations that Forte is strongly against and believes usurp state sovereignty.

Front 19

What are the views of the three leading schools of Realism (Waltzian neorealism; Gilpinian hegemonic Realism; and the English School’s society of states Realism) on the roles of international law, organization, and regimes in world politics?

Back 19

American neo-conservatives differ from the three different schools of realism on the roles of international law, organization, and regimes in world politics. Waltz (neo-realist) believes that when push comes to shove, regimes/int’l law/int’l organizations do not matter. Gilpin (neo-realist) believes that regimes/int’l law/int’l org. are an expression of hegemonic power that help to add legitimacy and reduce costs of being hegemon. The society of states (Bull) states that regimes/int’l law/int’l orgs help to moderate relationships between states. American neo-conservatives (J. Forte) believe that regimes/int’l law/int’l orgs are a threat to democratic nation-states. They also believe that these institutions will limit the power of the US.

Front 20

What are the views of the three leading variants of international liberalism (neo-conservatism; liberal globalist internationalism; and republican internationalism) on the roles of international law, organization, and regimes in world politics?

Back 20

International liberalism (neo-conservatism): hierarchy → democratic republics (use American power to do so), international organizations and international law down because restrain US, vs. ICC
Liberal globalist internationallism: 1) institutions solve problems 2) interdependence up, management of spillovers
Republic internationalism: emphasizes VI, anarchy = threat to limited govt. constitutionalism, multilateralism down, 1) AC down 2) new multilateral vs. old
OLD: 1) escape clauses 2) weighted voting vs. UN general assembly 3) WTO up

Front 21

In what ways does the ‘old multilateralism’ differ from the ‘new multilateralism’? What are examples of each?

Back 21

Multilateralism involves the coordination of rules or principles by three, or more nations. The old multilateralism revolved around securing post-WWII economic and security agreements (Bretton Woods, NATO). This is an organizational form of multilateralism. These organizations and other forms of old multilateralism possess forms of escape clauses, or veto rights. They are not binding organizations. The new multilateralism (WTO) is also based on maintaining security and economic growth, but it is much stricter. There are no veto rights as the WTO is binding. An example of combining both old and new multilateralism is the ICC. It can only be avoided if you prosecute the defendant in his home country. New is still rooted in power management, economic vitality, and political tradition.

Front 22

Early in the nuclear era, many analysts predicted that several dozen states would have nuclear weapons by now. What factors have kept the rate of proliferation much lower than expected (or possible)?

Back 22

Although many states have the power to obtain nuclear weapons, the rate of proliferation has been much lower than expected. The gap between states that could potentially have nuclear weapons and states that actually have nuclear weapons is referred to as “Nuclear Overhang.” What causes Nuclear Overhang 1) American Alliances – if our alliance system were to breakdown, it would be easier for states to acquire nuclear weapons. 2)the influence of the non-proliferation treaty and regime 3) states have not put in as much effort as states referred to as pariah states (N. Korea, Israel). Pariah states develop nukes because they feel threatened by bigger states.

Front 23

What are the main features of the current non-proliferation regime? What problems mark this regime and how might the regime be reformed to overcome these problems?
Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970): Legal distinction between NWS/NNWS

Back 23

NWS (Nuclear Weapons States): (1) provide civilian technology to NNWS: US→Japan, (2) move to full disarmament
US→Canada

NNWS (Non Nuclear Weapons States): (1) no assumption of nuclear weapons
(2) get civil technology
LIMITS:
The IAEA (International Atomic and Energy Agency): in Vienna, inspects and monitors nuclear weapons sites: limits: no enforcement mechanism, can only inspect declared sites

SOLUTION: as proposed in the Baruch Plan (1947): All nuclear activities in countries to be placed in the hands of a global nuclear authority

Front 24

Since the beginning of the nuclear era, Realist theorists have differed profoundly about the implications of nuclear weapons for the state and state-system. What are the main views of the three main schools (war strategism, deterrence statism, and nuclear one worldism) of Realist thought on the nuclear question? Who are their leading theorists? How do they differ?

Back 24

There are three main schools of thought on how nuclear weapons have changed the classical state system. The first is nuclear one worldism, a theory espoused by Hans Morgenthau and Herz. They claim that states are militarily obsolete because non-state actors pose an asymmetrical threat that cannot be controlled by nations. Thus they propose a world state that holds a monopoly on legitimate violence and turns anarchy into hierarchy. On the other hand, the war strategist H. Kahn believes that nuclear weapons offer continuity with historical warfare. This means that nuclear war can be fought and victory is possible due to the relative outweighing the absolute gains. In opposition to this, the deterrence statism theorists like Jervis assure us that nuclear war is impossible between states because of assured second strikes. Though anarchy persists, competition is moderated.

Front 25

Nuclear analysts have disagreed profoundly about such traditional strategic concepts such as superiority and victory. Compare and contrast the views of Gray with those of Jervis and WALTZ on the relevance of such concepts in the nuclear era.

Back 25

Gray, a prominent Nuclear strategist, theorizes that nuclear weapons follow in the same pattern as traditional war – though on a larger scale. In opposition to this, Jervis and the deterrence statism theorists hold that nuclear war is a fundamental departure from history. The main reasons for this division in thought are the relative importance of superiority and victory in war. Gray believes that since Realism has always stressed relative gains over absolute gains, nuclear war can be traditionally fought and even won. Victory in his mind is having fewer casualties than the enemy, and superiority can be a product of limited nuclear war (just targeting specific silos or depots). Yet Jervis asserts that the costs of nuclear war make it improbable and impossible for major states to use them. Moreover, in nuclear war there is no victory, nor is there superiority in possessing more nukes. Despite their differences, both theorists recognize that states remain in a system of anarchy. Neorealists, such as Waltz insist that when push comes to shove, international organizations and international law doesn’t matter.

Front 26

All ‘nuclear one worlders’ believe that nuclear weapons have rendered the state and the state-system inviable as a means of providing security, but they differ in their understanding of the needed alternative and how it might emerge. Describe the main claims and main theorists of the four different varieties of classical nuclear one worldism (imperial nuclear one worldism, tragic nuclear one worldism, maximal world federal statism, and minimal world statism).

Back 26

Imperial one worlders argued that US should prevent the Soviet Union from getting nuclear weapons and establish a world imperial nuclear peace before the Soviet Union even has a chance to develop weapons and rise to power. Problem with this vision: how will the US be restrained? Threat of rebellion if US loses self restraint.
Maximal World Federalism – proposes projecting the nation-state form of liberal democracy to the global scale. Based on enlightened self interest of people and leaders – they will realize their own security demands a liberal world state – and operates through institutions of restraint (like checks and balances, etc.)
Tragic one worldism – Hans Morgenthau argues in opposition to Maximal world federalism theorists. He agrees with their diagnosis of the problem but not their solution. Sees it as improbable that enlightened self interest will lead to an adequate liberal world government and says that world government must come about in stages. First we need international community – institutions on smaller scales – in order to effectively restrain a world government.
Minimal world federalism – 1960s reply to Morgenthau’s arguments. Recognizes that we do not have an adequate international community and so proposes a stripped down world government that is focused solely on security. The goal is only to concentrate military authority, and this authority has the sole purpose of keeping peace. The problem with this approach, again, is who will control this ultimate military authority and what if it gets tyrannical?
Modified Nuclear one world and republicanism – the nuclear one world theorists described above have been trying to move from anarchy to hierarchy to solve the nuclear weapons security problem; in contrast this view proposes moving from anarchy to negarchy or co-binding.

Front 27

in what ways, if any, have the attacks of 9/11 altered the balance of argument about the nuclear-political question?

Back 27

9/11 was a bolt of lightning; it was more significant than the hijacking of airplanes because it shows how non-state actors with little money can wield weapons of mass destruction. It shows the falsity of the balance of power assumption between nations that by the attainment of nuclear weapons, deterrence will result. Leakage of nuclear materials as well as the ability of terrorists and Mango’s to create weapons of mass destruction can and has been devastating, particularly in the attacks of 9/11. The K-K (killers: killed) ratio experienced a major shift following the events of 9/11, falling way out of the historical 1:1-1:10 range, appearing at approx. 1:300; this approached the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) Terrorism range.

Front 28

Compare and contrast the views and policy recommendations of Mueller and Allison on the threat posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction terrorism. Which view do you find more persuasive and why?

Back 28

Allison: Expresses a hysteric side: Bad stuff will happen! We need to do something to combat terrorism. Uses the example of AQ Kohn in a side-business with N. Korea, the “K-Mart of Nuclear Weapons”. He declares 3 “No’s:”
1) No loose nukes.—in Russia, tell Putin how horrific it will be if terrorists attack Moscow; have US/Russia secure nuc. weapons like the Gold Standard
2) No nascent nukes—strengthen NPT (nuclear proliferation treaty), allowing for intrusive inspection and covert action if states don’t comply
3) No new nuclear weapons states (N. Korea and Iran)
Mueller: “Myth of Enemy”: the threat of terrorism is highly exaggerated
-the number of states with nuclear weapons are few in numbers, and few have the power to strike from abroad— 9/11= RARE EXCEPTION!
-there are 1,000’s of immigrants every day, 5,000 Alchaida members in US, SO why has nothing else happened? ---there’s a bigger chance of being hit by a meteor than a terrorist attack occurring!

Front 29

What, according to Richard Betts, are the sources and nature of terrorist threats to the United States and the prospects from the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)?

Back 29

Nature of Terrorism (3):
1) terrorism is a MEANS not a TACTIC (its misnamed)
2) uses asymmetric warfare because don’t have conventional capability
3) as long as there’s a large power disparity, terrorist tactics will be used repeatedly
Source of Terrorism (4):
1) American primacy
2) American role in arbitrating conflicts around the world (ex) Israel-Palestine
3) The idea that it derives from poverty is a MYTH!
4) It is NOT IRRATIONAL! There is political grievance behind it
Prospects from Global War on Terrorism: (2)
1) depend on how well U.S. can focus on political problem
2) with force, how many terrorists can you kill compared to the number you create?

Front 30

What are the implications for security and political liberty of the shift in the ratio of killers to killed (the K-K ratio) associated with the diffusion of WMD to non-state actors?

Back 30

Accompanying nuclear proliferation, the growth in the number of states with weapons of mass destruction, is the increase in weapons of mass destruction and materials attained by MANGO’s (malevolent non-government organizations) through leakage. This poses a growing threat to global security and political liberty because a lack of knowledge of their location decreases global transparency. The K-K ratio (killers to killed) has experienced a monumental shift from a ratio of between 1:1 and 1:10 to between 1:10,000 and 1:100,000. Further, Violence Interdependence has reached an intense level.

Front 31

What have been the three main effects of nuclear weapons on the internal political structures of liberal democratic constitutional states? What, according to Krasner, is likely to be the effects of terrorist use of WMD upon these structures?

Back 31

1) Constitutional Democracy is saved (need for full mobilization)
2) Constitutional Democracy hollowed (nuclear despotism)
3) Constitutional Democracy Sectorally Eliminated; Nuclear Totalitarian Archipelago (Atomic Energy Act of 1954; high hierarchical “arms control” within states)

Front 32

Assuming that political liberty is associated with low penetration of political authorities upon individuals, what implications does the shifting K-K ratio and the prospect of leakage from states to malevolent non-governmental organizations have for the trade-off between comprehensive global containment of nuclear material and the level of political liberty?

Back 32

The shifting K-K ratio and the prospect of leakage of WMD to MANGO’s reveal the extreme lack of international nuclear containment today. Due to the lack of containment, that enabled events such as 9/11 to occur, the extent of penetration needed for security must be very high. However, this results in a great loss of political liberty. It is a trade-off—in order for penetration to decrease, international nuclear containment must improve greatly, and vice versa.