Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
95 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Political Parties Party Systems |
A relatively stable pattern of relationshipsamongst parties, based on their · Numbers · Size · Usual way of relating to each other o Cooperation and consensus? OR… o Conflict and polarization · Party systems are only of value if systemicfeatures, and relationships and interactions actually explain outcome |
|
|
Political Parties Using party systems to explain |
· One party system: party structures state -Strong: communist regimes (Stalin) -Weak: postcolonial Africa · Dominant party system: competitive, but oneparty wins consistently -Greatly influences state orientation -Competition within party, society · Two-Party System: Two major parties alternatingin power -Party Government: responsible, effective. -Encourages party moderation: parties reside inthe middle to catch the majority of voters -US Case: third parties do not tend to do well · Multi Party System Variations -Two and a half: where is the smaller thirdparty? Canada case… position of the third party can restrict the ability ofparties to take certain stances on issues -Three or more parties: consensus orpolarization? Parties will present their “true” views to the public |
|
|
Political Parties Implications of party systems |
-Parties don't just represent constituencies -They also respond to the competitive cues from the party system -Which influences party programs and strategies |
|
|
Political Parties Partisan Dealignment |
-Voters less attached to parties in the currentday and age -Parties are weaker |
|
|
Populism/Parties of the Extreme Right What are they? |
-Not protest parties: -established bases of supper -key issues-immigration, integration -Not catch all parties -outperforming neofascist parties -but parties of conviction |
|
|
Populism/Parties of the Extreme Right What do they stand for? |
-Reject the principle of human equality -Nativism, ethnonationalism -Less emphasis on jobs and resources -More on threats to the national community Give reason to support immigration restrictions Embrace Poplism |
|
|
Populism/Parties of the Extreme Right Why do they emerge? |
-When issues immigration and integration are salient. -When mainstream parties ignore or mismanage these issues: can become the solution -When new party ingredients are available: -charismatic leadership -not incredibly organized but internal cohesion -avoidance of anti-democratic and overly racist appeals |
|
|
Populism/Parties of the Extreme Right The Dutch Case |
-Late start: trust in elites and institutions -Issue salience in creases in the early 21st century: immigration, multiculturalism -Established parties fail to respond effectively -Fortuyn and wilders paint picture of out of touch elites, exploit resentment |
|
|
Populism/Parties of the Extreme Right The US Case |
-It can't happen here: single-member plurality -BUT, trump has commandeered one of the parties as a vehicle for his call to strengthen borders |
|
|
Populism/Parties of the Extreme Right Solutions? From the Goodwin case |
Exclusion: these parties feed off outsider status Principle: depends on all major parties following suit Adoption: too tempting to competitive parties Engagement and interaction work best |
|
|
Interested Groups Interest Groups |
-Aim to influence, not become the government -Like parties, interest groups emerged alongside representative government -And modern mass society-cleavages: -Class: distinct classes will demand distinct representation -Ethnicity: same thing goes -Region: minority cultures in certain areas |
|
|
Interested Groups Types of Groups |
Communal: embedded, not detached Institutional groups: parts of government Associational Groups Sectional groups: working to defend a certain group of members Promotional groups: attempting to defend a broader social group |
|
|
Interested Groups Interest Group Targets |
Groups try to influence -bureaucracy, legislature, courts, parties, media |
|
|
Interested Groups Republican Modeel |
-Rousseau: Organized interests degrade generalinterest, interest groups therefore would divide society -French Revolution: o Cleared away established interests: completelystarting from scratch o Banned independent workers associations o Republic as “one and indivisible” |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Pluralist Model |
-De Tocqueville: modern democracy is best grounded on interests and associations -Early 20th century American political science embraced pluralism -Pluralist model depends on: -Interests easily form into groups: no major impediments to people organizing themselves -Fair competition of interests -Influence in line with size and intensity of support |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Pluralist democracy Problems |
-Interest groups outperform parties at linking people and government -Competition, bargaining, compromise=policy -This is how people participate in decision making Problems: -Elitist and Marxist critiques eroded confidence in model of fair group competition |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Response: Neopluralism |
-No level playing field -But no single, united 'power elite' |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Corporatist Model |
-Privileging of some groups at the expense of others -Medieval corporatism: society is best organized into corporate groups -State corporatism: corporate groups are tightly bound to an authoritarian state |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Liberal/Neocorporatism |
-Emphasis on labour and capital -Encouragement of effectively organized peak associations -Tripartite negotiations including the state |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Back to Corporatist: Why is the state interested? |
-Generates acceptance of legitimacy -Creates social peace, business confidence -Promotes sense of shared responsibility for tough decisions |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Downside of this |
-Reinforces class divisions: class divisions are encouraged by the state -Sidelines representative democracy -Creates opening for social movements, protest parties |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements New Right Model |
-Corporatism restricts freedom -Special interests push to increase role of government -Mancur Olson: Interest Groups: -Pursue goodies from government -Overcome free riding with selective benefits -Proliferate, expand state spending, shrink economy |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements New Social Movements -Traditional Social Movements -New Social Movements |
Traditional Social Movements: -Based on broad modern identity such as class -Responded to many member needs -Appeal to the power of numbers and organization New Social Movements: -With decline of class, rooted in narrow identities -Deal with single issues -Emphasize self-expression, participation, absence of hierarchy |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Executives and Assemblies -Executives in context -Executives in contest history |
Executive in context: -Legislature: makes laws, enacts legislation -Executive: implements and executes laws -Judiciary: interprets laws, adjudicates Executives in contest history: -Initially, undivided monarchical power and sovereignty -Over time, separate institutions assumed legislative and judicial -And set boundaries to executive power -The executive remains the one indispensable part of the state: "can't live with it, can't rule without it" |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Executives and Assemblies Bureaucratic Executive Political Executive |
Bureaucratic Executive: -Public officials, civil servants -Usually appointed -Implements legislation Political Executive: -Senior officials constituting "government of the day" -Politically chosen -Sets priorities -Sets priorities, enables legislation, oversees implementation, resolves crisises |
|
|
Interest Groups and Social Movements Executives and Assemblies Parliamentary Executive Presidential Executive |
Parliamentary Executive: -clearer distinction -Political Cabinet oversees bureaucratic civil servants -Canada: do PM and cabinet still want impartial advice? Presidential Executive: -fainter distinction -USA: president elected, but cabinet appointed -Many civil servants are temporary partisan appointees -Communist countries: all civil servants are 'political' |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Structure and Functions -Dual Executive |
Dual Executive: -Head of state: Queen, Governor General, President etc. -Head of government: Prime Minster, Chancellor -In a presidential system, the elected president combines -Ceremonial Leadership -Policy making leadership -Popular leadership -Bureaucratic leadership -Crisis leadership |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Structure and Functions -Low Energy or High? |
-Montesquieu: "need of dispatch"- single individual is best -Harvey C. Mansfield: room for maneuver, especially in crisis -US Constitution: "Energy in the Executive" But: givers you either... -Abraham Lincoln or George W.Bush |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Institutionalizing the Executive: Parliamentary Systems |
Fusion(parliamentary) -A single electoral process -Fusion of executive -Prime Minister and Cabinet hold legislative seats -Executive falls with loss of legislative majority, Non-confidence motion -Head of state dissolves legislature upon request of prime minister |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Presidents and Presidentialism -Separation of powers |
-Elected president leads government -Separate electoral mandates for president and legislature -Separate personnel: cabinet not composed of legislators -Legislative removal of president exceedingly rare: impeachment -President cannot dissolve legislature -President governs, but is checked by a legislature that the prez cannot effectively control, as well as the supreme court |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Presidents and Presidentialism -Presidentialism: Political implications -Different democratic mandates -Fewer political resources |
Different democratic mandates: -President: nationwide -Senate: statewide -House of preventatives: single-member districts Fewer political resources: -Prime ministers govern through cabinets and parties -Presidents: no cabinet posts for legislators -No threat of dissolution, new election -Party ties looser in an American system |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Presidents and Presidentialism Presidential/Parliamentary Contrasts |
-Presidential: Clinton impeachment drama -Parliamentary: non-confidence motion, move on -Presidential: debt ceiling crisis, government shutdown -Parliamentary: majorities may too easily pass legislation |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Presidents and Presidentialism Presidentialization of the Prime Minister? |
-The rise of the prime minister: From CabinetGovernment to ‘First Among Equals” -The rise of the prime minister: from cabinetgovernment to ‘first among equals’ -Presidentialization: PM personalizes power,rises high above cabinet and party |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Institutionalizing the Executive -Semi-Presidentialism |
-Directly elected president -Directly elected legislature -President appoints Prime Minister -PM accountable to legislature -PM and president may specialize: domestic versus foreign affairs |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Assemblies: Origin and Evolution |
-Roots in Royal Courts Judge important cases, meet powerful nobles -Gradually more settled -Leading representatives of corporate groups and territories |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Origins and Evolution |
-Initiative for medieval representation lay with crown but also with support of roman option that "what concerns all should be approved by all" and from magna carta -Modern democracy incorporated representative assemblies in legislative role |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies The legislative function |
-No longer clearly the case: -Assemblies share legislative responsibility -Executive role: decree, veto, legislative propsals -Assemblies confined by constitutional law -Limited power of amendment -Poses a challenge to the separation of powers -Legislative role varies by system: -Presidential: US congress experiences -Substantial independence from executive -Weak part discipline -Parliamentary: house of commons experiences -Fusion with executive -Strong party discipline |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Other functions |
-Representation: "standing in" for the people -Scrutiny and oversight tools -Recruitment and training -Legitimacy; mobilizing consent |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Assembly structure: Chambers |
-Unicameralism: streamlined democracy -Bicameralism: two chambers -Provides a place for the privileged -Representation for neglected minorities -A check on the executive |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Assembly structure: Committees |
-Committees: outdo assemblies as sites for deliberation, consultation, and decision-making |
|
|
Executives and Assemblies Where do things now stand? |
-No longer clear that good government requires a strong assembly, may lead to political stalemate -But legislative power in decline due to: -Emergence of disciplined parties -Growth of 'big' government -Organizational weaknesses of assemblies -Role of interest group and media power |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Evolution of Bureaucracy |
-Patrimonial administration -Personal agents of monarch -Rooted in royal household: those with personal connections to the monarch -Bureaucratic Administration: why? -More demanding and dangerous warfare: everything becomes more developed -More complex economy and society: bureaucracy appears as a result -Democratic pressures: the people demand more |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Weberian Democracy |
-Offices with assigned responsibilities: office means position with assigned duties and obligations -Merit based recruitment -Division of labour -Hierarchy: power flows downward -Formal rule: rules much more defined |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Bureaucratic Functions |
-Administration: yes, but: -Implementation -Agenda setting and policy advice -Provides policy advice: what politicians know matters -Articulating interests -Political stability |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Variety in Bureaucracy |
-Not every bureaucracy is the same -French centralization, merit basis -US decentralization, spoils system -Not every bureaucrat is the same -Specialists for each field -Generalist; generally trained individuals to make responsible decisions after receiving advice from specialists -Many ways to organize a bureaucracy |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Back to evolution of democracy |
20th century: massive growth in -areas of state activity -administrative capacity Late 20th/Early 21st centuries: new public management -contracting out public functions: private firms will be more efficient -Quangos: hybrid bodies existing within and outside the government, use their autonomy to be more responsive to cues from the market -Performance incentives |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Theories of Decision Making |
-Rational actor models: a helpful simplification?People know what they want, rank order their preferences -Incremental models: consensus, evolution,“muddling through” -Bureaucratic Organization Models: -Organizational process: short-termism,“satisficing” (not trying to maximize rationality, going with the first goodsolution that will ‘suffice’) -Bureaucratic politics: separate interests,bargaining produce policy -Belief System models: schemas and filters:policies are influenced by previous existing beliefs -Graham Allison: essence of decision? Analyzingthe Cuban missile crisis, looking at how the soviet and US sides approached theissue |
|
|
Bureaucracy and Public Policy Stages in the Policy Process |
-Policy initiation: who sets the agenda -Policy formulation: from procedure to proposal -Policy implementation: is flexibility good or bad? -Policy evaluation: needs more investment |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary A Law-governed state |
-The rule of law: substitutes a 'government of laws' for a 'government of me' -Apply to everyone -Types of law: -Common law-customs, tradition, precedents -judge-made law -judge make law, precedent, significant role in interpreting law -Civil law-written legal codes -tries to make them apply to every case, without too much need for interpretation -judge-adminstered law |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Constitution |
-A set of written or unwritten rules -That defines the powers of various institutions of government -Regulates the relationships of these institutions between different levels of government -Designates the rights of citizens |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Constitutionalism |
-Acceptance that our political institutions operate within the context of overarching rules -Which set real limits to the exercise of political authority -Origins : -Medieval: monarchy limited by god, law, and corporate privileges -Modern: Beginning with French and American Revolutions -Constitutions emerge after rupture: -War -Independence -Regime change |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Purpose of a Constitution |
-Empowering states: creating and enabling states -Establishing fundamental values and goals -Providing government stability: mapping power within the state -Protecting freedom: transferring power from leaders to rules -Legitimizing regimes |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Do Constitutions matter? |
-Constitutional effectiveness: -Bounded by culture and values of society -No defense against tyranny -Can be self-sustaining -May require adaptability to changing circumstances |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Constitutional Forms |
Codified: -Single, authoritative document -Above statute law -Limits legislature -Constitutional amendment required Un-codified: -Sources in common law -Statue law prevails -Parliamentary sovereignty -Constitution evolves with statutes, norms |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Constitutional Durability |
-Constitutions last on average 52years -Cases of success: -USA:Codified, genera (broad), flexible (can change, amendment) -UK:Un-codified, open-ended, adaptable |
|
|
The Constitution, Law and Judiciary Judicial Review |
-Evolution of the constitutionalityof legislation · By a Supreme or Constitutional Court -Well established in codified cases -Growing in importance withinun-codified cases |
|
|
Domestic Security Security and the State |
-Duality: External anarchy, internalorder -Security: Safety from harms orthreats -Based on state’s capacity to: -Maintainorder within borders -Protectagainst external threats -14th century onward: Longdecline in domestic crime and violence -18th-19thcenturies: Police replace military as providers of domestic order |
|
|
Domestic Security The Domestic Role of the Military |
-Military -Extensionof state’s monopoly of violence -Armof the executive -Can defer or suppress rebellion,revolution -Regime falls when military ceases todefend it -Military may offer itself asalternative to civilian rule |
|
|
Domestic Security The Role of the Police -Perspectives -Broken window theory -In a police state |
-Perspectives: -Liberal:Sustains rule of law impartially, consensually -Conservative:Props up state authority in face of constant threat of disorder -Radical:Serves elites, represses people, requires constant check and challenge -Broken windows theory: -theory that cracking down on smaller crimes prevents bigger crimes from occurring -Ferguson,Missouri’s subversion of it -In a police state: -Thepolice do not rule, but are a central instrument of rule -Constitutionalismand the rule of law are set aside -Cases:Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Pinochef’s Chile |
|
|
Domestic Security External/Internal Distinction Revisited |
Ever more difficult to sustain since Globalization and 9/11 |
|
|
Domestic Security Militarized Police |
In context of confusion over boundaries between policing and 'high' security, we see the militarization of even local police |
|
|
International Security The Security State: USA |
-Historical reluctance to establish a permanent federal security agency -Damaging revelations led to rollback in the 70s -Then came 9/11: everyone wants a security apparatus -global war on terror -partriot act 2001, expanded surveillance -department of homeland security -Extreme border -Collapses distinction between : -relatively open and accountable community police -politically controlled high security apparatus |
|
|
International Security The Security State: Canada |
-Historically, RCMP managed federal security -World War II, Cold War and FLQ crisis justified expansion in security apparatus -Under pressure to "civilianize" CSIS created 1984 for intelligence gathering -9/11 anti-terrorist act -Bill C-51: -To counter actions that “undermine the securityof Canada” -Gives CSIS some enforcement powers: to “disrupt”threats -Facilitates preventative arrests -Criminalizes promotion of terrorism |
|
|
International Security Democratic Accountability |
-Enhanced security provisions may undermine liberal, constitutional democracy -Strong oversight may undermine security effectiveness, induce politicization |
|
|
International Security Approaches to International Relations -Realism |
Realism: a power politics model emphasizing anarchy, egoism, national interest, conflict and balance of power |
|
|
International Security Approaches to International Relations -Neorealism |
Neorealism: a structural model emphasizing anarchy, national security, distribution capabilities, international system, polarity |
|
|
International Security Approaches to International Relations -Liberalism |
Liberalism: an interdependence model emphasizing cooperation, collective security, international regimes, domestic analogy and domestic regime change |
|
|
International Security Approaches to International Relations -Constructivism: |
Constructivism: a model emphasizing the role of norms in mediating state interactions, shared ideas and implicit rules serving as strucutres |
|
|
International Security Approaches to International Relations -Feminism |
Feminism: a critique of masculine biases emphasizing a challenge to the realist approach and the security paradox |
|
|
International Security Forms of Security -Absence of a threat |
-The absence of a threat to the stability -Of the international system: internationalsecurity -Of countries: national security -Of individuals: human security, new approachesto it |
|
|
International Security Forms of Security -Security earlier |
-Security earlier -Emphasized threats to states, from states -Autonomous, single minded states with clearnational interests -Employing military force to deter and respond toaggressions |
|
|
International Security Forms of Security -Security now |
-Security now -Threats also from a variety of non-state actors -States subject to institutional and socialinfluences -Traditional military force often inadequate |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Postwar proliferation |
-1945: us acquires nuclear power and the nuclearexplosions in hiroshima and nagasaki to end wwii raise ethical questions
-1945-1964: cold war-era expansion of us-ussrstockpiles, tests (as america acquires nuclear power, so does the soviet union:nuclear arms race) -growing number of nuclear powers (beyond americaand soviet union) -early signs of interest in interstatecooperation to stop the spread of nuclear weapons |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Nuclear non-proliferation regime |
-1957: international atomic energy agency (iaea)engages in the development of understanding and provides inspections capacityto ensure whether treaty terms are being held to -1964-1968: interstate negotiations overnon-proliferation (states agree that if they can’t eliminate nuclear weapons,the least they could do is make sure they don’t spread) -1968: non-proliferation treaty is signed, 1970:officially in force -190 signatures (vast majority of the states inthe world)o major holdouts (non-participants): india,pakistan, israel and eventually north korea -1995: npt renewed indefinitely (proof oftreaty’s massive success and support) |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation NPT terms |
-nnws (non-nuclear weapon states) agree: -not to acquire nuclear weapons -to submit to IAEA inspections regime -nws (nuclear weapon states) agree: -not to transfer weapons to nnws -to begin a process that will ultimately lead tototal nuclear disarmament (point that has not been very well-advanced and therehasn’t been total disarmament yet) -to help nnws develop their nuclear power/energycapacities for civilian use |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Who acquired nukes? |
-America -Soviet Union -United Kingdom -France -China -Israel -India -South Africa -Pakistan -North Korea |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Where are the nukes now? |
-Four countries denuclearized: south africa and ukrain, kazakhstan and belarus from USSR -9 nuclear powers left: |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Proliferation and implications |
-30+ countries pursued and then abandoned nuclearweapons (npt didn’t stop countries from secretly embarking on this research anddevelopment, however most countries never completed the process) -proliferation is gradual and the rate ofproliferation (acquisition) is declining -new nws don’t seem to spur regional nuclear armsraces (when one country acquires the bomb, it doesn’t mean others will bepressured to acquire one too for reasons of security i.e. north korea didn’tprovoke south korea) - nws have cut back from a high of 80 000 to lessthan 20 000 weapons |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Successful regime? |
-resolves commitment problems (people aren’t ashesitant to commit to non-proliferation if they know so many other countrieshave committed and are legally binded to their commitments) -encourages compliance, especially amongdemocracies (by law, inspection, establishment of an international norm wherebyin order to be in good standing one should not acquire nuclear power) -treaty has been violated, but -violators haven’t actually gone nuclear (exceptnorth korea that did go nuclear and withdrew from the npt) because they haven’tcompleted the process of developing nuclear breakout capacity |
|
|
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Compliance for other reasons |
-nukes aren’t attractive to every country(development is expensive in terms of time and money, introduces risks becauseother countries might impose sanctions on you if they disagree with youractions/perceive it as threatening) -many countries have security support from anuclear power (are protected and so don’t feel the need to develop their ownbomb) -neoliberal globalization (in order to becomefully integrated in the world economy, countries want to portray themselves aspeaceful and cooperative so there’s an economic benefit to participating in thenpt) -bureaucratic organization (decision to gonuclear often gets thrown off track by bureaucratic infighting so it’simpossible to ever go nuclear and this can be misinterpreted as loyalcompliance) |
|
|
Global Governance Military dimension |
-power was mainly military in early centuries buthas reduced in significance over the last several decades although it remainsimportant -not always usable because there are treaties andorganizations that don’t allow you to exercise your power however you wish -sometimes counterproductive because if you’retrying to reach multiple objectives, the use of military power may undermineother objectives |
|
|
Global Governance Economic dimension |
-economic power can support military power (astronger economy means a stronger military with better weapons, discipline etc) -fits era of interdependence (globalization)because economic power is a form of power in its own right (not limited as asupport for military) because it allows for international trade and cooperation |
|
|
Global governance Soft power |
-exercised not through coercion but co-optation(encouragement, inspiration, spread of culture which makes others choose to beinfluenced by you because they see the value in your values) -via culture, value legitimacy |
|
|
Global governance Structural power |
-power over the decision-making process in theinternational system -deciding which issues will come up fordiscussion and in what order, how these issues will be framed, introduced,solved -via regimes and institutions (where you stand inthe hierarchy of an institution) -america has much structural power because it cansignificantly influence the agenda in international relations |
|
|
Global governance Polarity |
-international system is like a party system withits pattern of interactions (and distribution of power and capability) whichthen has a causal impact -like the party system inasmuch as there can be aone-party, two-party, multiparty etc systems -a pole is a country with an exceptionally largeshare (concentration) of the major power resources above |
|
|
Global governance Unipolarity |
-a single, clearly predominant state with agreatly disproportionate share of power -no major rivals (other powers are clearly insecondary and tertiary positions) |
|
|
Global governance Bipolarity |
-two major powers with heavy, disproportionateconcentrations of the major power resources in the system -leads to zero-sum competition (ie in the coldwar it was believed that any gain in power for america was a loss for thesoviet union and vice versa) |
|
|
Global governance Multipolarity |
-more than two major powers concentrating majorpower resources -encourages balancing behaviour (if one countrystarts to become quite significant, other countries might start to shift theiralliances to reinforce the other side) -goal is to ensure no one country becomes toostrong -there is potential for mistakes (in the bipolarworld, lines/stakes were clearly drawn and everybody knew who had what powerresources; in the multipolar world, lines are messy so countries are moreinclined to miscalculate other countries’ power resources and induce war bymaking incorrect assumptions about who has what power and where their alliancesshould be consequently shifted) |
|
|
The Rise of China |
-Communist revolution led by Mao Zedong in 1949:one party regime, centrally planned economy -Reforms since 1979 led to Chinese model: limitedpolitical pluralism combined with economic liberalism: -Capitalist incentives: property, privatizationo Developmental state: subsidies, investments,SOE’s -Pursuit of export markets, managed foreigndirect investment -No democratic pandering |
|
|
The Rise of China The Chinese Economic Miracle |
-Extraordinary results -Over three decades of roughly 10% growt -Now worlds second largest economy, expected toovertake the US within decade -From 1% (1978) to 11.4 (2009) of global output -75% of those lifted out of poverty in last twodecades live in china |
|
|
The Rise of China Beyond Economic Power |
-Military: heightened spending, up to levlel ofsecond ranked powers: not chasing USA -Soft Power: Confucius institutes, global media,international aid, debt relief and low-cost loans -Structural power: limited- national interest notglobal governance |
|
|
TROFC China's peaceful rise |
-Early 20th century rise of Germanyand japan led to total wars -But different for china: -American military lead immense -American order “easy to join, hard to overturn”(John Ikenberry” -Bitter memories and nationalism vs presentsuccess -Neighbours concerned, but also cutting militarybudgets |
|
|
TROFC US Reaction to China |
-US lacks capacity to contain china -Interdependence: US dependent on China for Goodsand Finance -Corporations heavily invested in china -US needs Chinese cooperation on global issues:EX north Korea -No cold war: no serious ideological or militarychallenge: but: Culture? |
|
|
TROFC Russia vs China |
-Russia: Potentially revisionist power -China: Outstanding claims: especially Taiwan,but interested in reducing tensions: with US, and within region in order tokeep US out |
|
|
TROFC Will China Continue to Rise? |
-Falling economic growth rates -Why? Globally, states and consumers tacklingdebt -Supply of cheap international labour drying up -Market may need to take lead on investments -CCP depends on growth for legitimacy -New frustrated social groups may increase pressure -Increased reliance on nationalism to tie societyto party-state and military -US pivot to Asia? Stronger regional presencepursued at American expense Key: will china continue to have an interest inexisting world order? Or seek to substantially change or overturn it? |
