Suchergebnisse

In this volume, a group of distinguished economists and political scientists analyzes the political economy of European integration. The authors evaluate recent developments of the European Monetary and Fiscal Policy. They consider the current situation, and assess prospects for the future of an Integrated Europe. This book will be of great interest to observers, scholars, and students of European economic and political affairs, macroeconomic policy, institutional analysis, and comparative and international political economy. The book is unique in combining perspectives from economics and political science and provides an in-depth analysis of the new European institutions. It is published in conjunction with "Politics and Institutions in an Integrated Europe" by the same editors

In this volume, a group of distinguished economists, political scientists, and sociologists analyzes the political economy of European integration. The authors evaluate recent developments of European politics and institutions. They consider the current situation, and assess prospects for the future of an Integrated Europe. This book will be of great interest to observers, scholars, and students of European economic and political affairs, macroeconomic policy, institutional analysis, and comparative and international political economy. The book is unique in combining perspectives from economics and political science and provides in-depth analysis of the new European institutions. It is published in conjunction with "Monetary and Fiscal Policy in an Integrated Europe" by the same editors

Seminario Interuniversitario de Pedagogía Social (29è : 2016 : Girona) = Seminari interuniversitari de Pedagogia Social (29è : 2016 : Girona) ; Resum de les intervencions del Congrés Internacional XXIX Seminari Interuniversitari de Pedagogia Social, celebrat a Girona els dies 14 al 16 de setembre de 2016, a on es proposa reflexionar i formular propostes concretes que permeten avançar en la reflexió sobre la juventud, els programes i serveis dirigits a aquest col·lectiu i el seu paper a les transformacions socials

Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

"The Arctic Council, created in 1996, has facilitated over twenty years of successful democracy and regional cooperation between Russia and the seven other Arctic states--the United States, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland. What has allowed this unity to continue despite political turmoil between these nations? In Diplomacy and the Arctic Council Danita Catherine Burke argues that the Arctic Council is a club--a group of states that mutually benefit from voluntary collaboration and that use the forum as a vessel to help define and guide the parameters of their cooperation. How the club members identify and address challenges reflects power relations among them, which vary depending on the topic under discussion or debate. Providing insight into the daily practices of the Arctic Council and the relative status of its member states, Burke seeks to understand why major international events, such as the 2014 Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the Crimea region, do not deter the Arctic countries from cooperating. The author posits that the Arctic Council's club structure and its strategy of practising and projecting unity have allowed it to weather the storm of international conflicts involving its core membership. Through interviews with representatives from the Arctic states and Indigenous peoples, Diplomacy and the Arctic Council offers a unique look into the diplomatic practices of the Council after more than two decades of operation."--

Academic and policy debates on alliances are yet to incorporate insights from foreign policy analysis (FPA) literature. Generally, bilateral relations between allies are either analyzed with insights from traditional IR theories (such as realism) or with policy-oriented work that does not engage any scholarly literature (focusing on only the day-to-day issues of international politics). I argue that FPA theories that make linkages between scholarly work and policy-oriented questions in an evidence-based and analytical fashion are capable of accounting for the most significant policy questions of modern international politics. This article analyzes US–Turkey relations in, arguably, their worst decade, with a role theoretic outlook. I claim that despite being close political and military allies since the 1940s, US–Turkey bilateral relations are witnessing their worst decade since the Arab uprisings in the MENA, due mostly to ideational factors that shape foreign policy. The conflictual relations originate from a change in US and Turkish foreign policy-makers' role conceptualizations vis-à-vis their countries' roles in the MENA region after the Arab uprisings and the role conflict this has caused with one another. Misaligned interests during the Arab uprisings, especially after 2014 in the Syrian civil war, have exacerbated the bilateral ties further. Drawing insights from elite interviews conducted in Turkey (2014–2016), Washington DC, and Ankara (2018–2020), I explain the sources of conflict in US–Turkey relations with a role theory perspective and offer policy prescriptions in conclusion.