Suchergebnisse

I advance an endogenous explanation for the systemic transformation of international politics and offer to neatly resolve the debate between offensive realism and defensive realism through a social evolutionary approach. I contend that international politics has always been an evolutionary system and it has evolved from an offensive realism world to a defensive realism world. Consequently, offensive realism and defensive realism are appropriate grand theories of international politics for two different historical epochs. Different grand theories of international politics are for different epochs of international politics, and different epochs of international politics actually need different theories of international politics. Because international politics has always been an evolutionary system, non-evolutionary approaches will be intrinsically incapable of shedding light on the evolution of the system. The science of international politics must be a genuine evolutionary science and students of international politics must 'give Darwin his due'.

When stripped to the bare bone, there are only 11 foundational paradigms in social sciences. These foundational paradigms are like flashlights that can be utilized to shed light on different aspects of human society, but each of them can only shed light on a limited area of human society. Different schools in social science result from different but often incomplete combinations of these foundational paradigms. To adequately understand human society and its history, we need to deploy all 11 foundational paradigms, although more limited combinations of them may be adequate for understanding more specific social facts.

A systemic account of how institutions shape economic developmentInstitutions matter for economic development. Yet, despite this accepted wisdom, new institutional economics (NIE) has yet to provide a comprehensive look at what constitutes the institutional foundation of economic development (IFED). Bringing together findings from a range a fields, from development economics and development studies to political science and sociology, The Institutional Foundation of Economic Development explores the precise mechanisms through which institutions affect growth.Shiping Tang contends institutions shape economic development through four "Big Things": possibility, incentive, capability, and opportunity. From this perspective, IFED has six major dimensions: political hierarchy, property rights, social mobility, redistribution, innovation protection, and equal opportunity. Tang further argues that IFED is only one pillar within the New Development Triangle (NDT): sustained economic development also requires strong state capacity and sound socioeconomic policies.Arguing for an evolutionary approach tied to a country's stage of development, The Institutional Foundation of Economic Development advances an understanding of institutions and economic development through a holistic, interdisciplinary lens

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Biological evolution: From basics to extended synthesis -- 3 Social evolution as a phenomenon -- 4 The social evolution paradigm -- 5 A critique of existing evolutionary social sciences -- 6 What the social evolution paradigm can do -- 7 In lieu of conclusion: The power of SEP -- Appendix A Why haven't social sciences been more evolutionary? -- Appendix B Geno-social sciences as sociobiology redux: Genoeconomics, genopolitics, and genosociology -- References -- Index.

This book advances a coherent statement of defensive realism as a theory of strategy for our time and adds to our understanding of defensive realism as a grand theory of IR in particular and our understanding of IR in general and contributes to the ongoing debates among major paradigms of international relations.

Abstract
The debate on how neoclassical realism (NCR) has fared as a new brand of realism and supposedly a more rigorous approach towards foreign policy has become increasingly acerbic. Most NCR critics have challenged NCR's epistemological positions, and few have scrutinised NCR's methodological practice. This essay seeks to fill the void and focuses on the latter. My aim is both critical and constructive. Because NCR's mainstay method is comparative case studies (CCSs), I first examine how NCR has practiced this method. I argue that NCR has been saddled with several key shortcomings when doing CCSs. Drawing from the extensive new qualitative methodology literature, I propose several remedies corresponding to the shortcomings. Fixing these shortcomings will allow NCR to advance more valid theories and move towards better theoretical synthesis. I then highlight qualitative comparative analysis as a very useful tool for NCR. Finally, I address a common criticism against NCR, that is, with numerous variables, NCR lacks theoretical synthesis and hence a theoretical core. I accordingly advance a preliminary framework for possible theoretical synthesis.

AbstractIn this essay I survey the key themes within China's discourse on international order, especially how China views its position and role in shaping the existing and future order. I go on to explore the possible implications of China's thinking and actions toward the existing international order. I conclude that overall, China sees no need for and hence does not seek fundamental transformation, but rather piecemeal modification of the existing order. In fact, China has been quite content with the existing order that supports globalization, despite occasional rhetoric indicating otherwise. In the near future, China will likely invest heavily in two key issue areas: (1) regionalism in East Asia and Central Asia; and (2) interregional cooperation and coordination. Perhaps unsurprisingly, China's ambitious "One Belt and One Road" initiative seeks to integrate these two issue areas.

"Understanding Ethnic Conflict: Four Waves and Beyond" published on by Oxford University Press.