Search results

THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE U.S. IN THE CREATION OF THE OPEN TRADING REGIME OF THE POST WORLD WAR II PERIOD. IT ANALYZES THE INTERESTS THAT LED TO THE TARIFF REDUCTIONS AND CODES NEGOTIATED DURING THE TOKYO ROUND AND ASSESSES THE PROSPECTS FOR STABILITY AND THE DANGERS OF A SLIDE INTO A NEW PROTECTIONIST ERA.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO PRESENT A MODE OF ANALYSIS THAT ILLUSTRATES HOW A STATE-CENTRIC OR STATIST MODEL CAN BE USED TO ANALYZE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY IN WHICH CONCENTRATED BENEFITS ARE ENJOYED BY SPECIFIC GROUPS AND COSTS ARE DIFFUSED THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE SOCIETY. FOUR CASES OF OIL POLICY ARE EXAMINED.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign economies in the hope that its investments would help remake the world in its own image - or, at the very least, make the world "safe for democracy." So far, the returns have been disappointing, to say the least. Pushing for fair and free elections in undemocratic countries has added to the casualty count, rather than taken away from it, and trying to eliminate corruption entirely has precluded the elimination of some of the worst forms of corruption. In the Middle East, for example, post-9/11 interventionist campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be long, costly, and, worst of all, ineffective. Witnessing the failure of the utopian vision of a world full of market-oriented democracies, many observers, both on the right and the left, have begun to embrace a dystopian vision in which the United States can do nothing and save no one. Accordingly, calls to halt all assistance in undemocratic countries have grown louder. But, as Stephen D. Krasner explains, this cannot be an option: weak and poorly governed states pose a threat to our stability. In the era of nuclear weapons and biological warfare, ignoring troubled countries puts millions of American lives at risk.

Actors and institutions in the study of international politics -- Defending the national interest -- US commercial and monetary policy : unravelling the paradox of external strength and internal weakness -- Approaches to the state : alternative conceptions and historical dynamics -- Sovereignty : an institutional perspective -- Structural causes and regime consequences : regimes as intervening variables -- State power and the structure of international trade -- Global communications and national power : life on the Pareto frontier -- Sovereignty and its discontents -- Organized hypocrisy in nineteenth-century East Asia -- Sharing sovereignty : new institutions for collapsed and failing states -- Garbage cans and policy streams : how academic research might affect foreign policy

Stephen Krasner has been one of the most influential theorists within international relations and international political economy over the past few decades.€ This book is a collection of his key academic work as well as a meditation on his time in office.

The acceptance of human rights and minority rights, the increasing role of international financial institutions, and globalization have led many observers to question the continued viability of the sovereign state. Here a leading expert challenges this conclusion. Stephen Krasner contends that states have never been as sovereign as some have supposed. Throughout history, rulers have been motivated by a desire to stay in power, not by some abstract adherence to international principles. Organized hypocrisy--the presence of longstanding norms that are frequently violated--has been an enduring at.

Sovereignty and its discontents -- Theories of institutions and international politics -- Rulers and ruled: minority rights -- Rulers and ruled: human rights -- Sovereign lending -- Constitutional structures and new states in the nineteenth century -- Constitutional structures and new states after 1945 -- Conclusion: not a game of chess

Abstract
Kirshner may be right that domestic politics does matter, but he does not tell us how to understand domestic politics. How are we, for instance, to understand domestic cohesion? How are we to understand national purpose? More important, what is the impact of nuclear weapons? Do these weapons obliterate all past information about power? Are nuclear weapons all that matter? Is it possible to fight a limited nuclear war? Is North Korea as strong as the United States? Such questions have been around since the 1950s. Kirshner does not help us to answer them.