Suchergebnisse

This article examines the role played by war, and public violence more generally, in the state-building experiences of Central America. Bellicist theory expects that wars provide a stimulus to extractive efforts, thus enhancing the autonomy and capacity of the state over time, though recent qualitative studies of South America find the opposite. I expand the reach of bellicist theory to Central America through the broader concept of public violence, which captures the long-term impact of external and internal rivals on the state. The quantitative tests demonstrate that Central American interstate and civil wars reduce the extractive ability of states, consistent with the South American evidence. Interstate rivals stimulate extractive efforts among governments, whereas intrastate rivals detract from those efforts. Incorporating the concept of public violence into bellicist theory thus helps to increase our understanding of Central American state building.

Scholars of Latin America have recently begun to apply the bellicist approach to state building to the region, the central claim of which is that wars are a great stimulus to centralizing state power and building institutional capacity. This article argues that current applications of these models of state building are too narrowly specified to be of much use in Latin America or elsewhere in the developing world. Replacing the focus on interstate war with the more general phenomenon of interstate rivalry, alongside the consideration of intrastate rivals, allows us to account for the impact of both external and internal forces on the development of the state. I demonstrate the utility of this approach through several cross‐sectional time‐series analyses that provide evidence that external and internal rivals affect the Latin American state in a manner consistent with the general nature of bellicist theory.

Examines the lessons learned from a study abroad teaching experience in London. Techniques for professors to enhance the learning experience of students are presented, including integrating the coursework into a learning community. 36 References. L. Collins Leigh

Teachers of international relations and comparative politics spend a considerable amount of time looking for ways to bring the politics of the world outside of the United States into their classroom to enhance student learning experiences through increased relevance or "reality." Simulations are one method to make world politics seem more relevant (e.g., Dougherty 2003; Kille 2002; Shellman 2001; McIntosh 2001; Newmann and Twigg 2000; Kaarbo and Lantis 1997; Smith and Boyer 1996). The use of film is another popular method that enhances the drama and emotion of foreign cultures and politics (e.g., Waalkes 2003; Weber 2001; Kuzma and Haney 2001). Finally, the Internet and web-based technologies (e.g., Cogburn and Levinson 2003; Hauss et al. 2002; Bonham and Seifert 2000) and foreign newspapers (e.g., Schattle 2003) are also employed to connect textbook knowledge to the real world of foreign affairs.

This article constructs a test of the logical consistency of neorealism and neoliberalism by applying McPhee's (1963) survival model to international relations theory. McPhee's model demonstrates how some cultural artifacts survive over time, while others are forgotten or eliminated from the cultural canon. Employing Wendt's notion of roles as cultural artifacts in conjunction with McPhee's model allows us to clarify the logical assumptions and implications of neorealism and neoliberalism. I argue that neorealism is best characterized by the logic of a single screening system and neoliberalism by a repetitive screening system. The logical test that follows demonstrates that both theories are internally consistent with respect to the cultures of anarchy they predict.However, the logic of the repetitive screening model demonstrates that neoliberalism is theoretically more capable of dealing with the complexity of interstate relations. I suggest that the distinction between neorealism and neoliberalism is based upon a flawed understanding of the operation of process and structure within the international system. This misunderstanding, when clarified by the survival model and constructivist theory, indicates that the two competing theories are actually variants of a single, underlying model.

In a recent article in the Review of International Studies, Kai Alderson subjected the concept of state socialisation to considerable scrutiny. This kind of conceptual clarification is fundamental to both theory building and empirical work in the study of international relations. Alderson should be commended for his work on the concept, since there are only a handful of previous studies that explicitly explore state socialisation in any detail. However, his attempt to produce a 'consensus definition' of the concept to bring clarity to an emerging research programme has left me with more questions than answers. This essay is designed to raise questions about Alderson's conceptualisation of state socialisation based on a comparison with the literature on socialisation from other disciplines. The overarching goal is to stimulate healthy debate about a concept that should be central to our understanding of the social aspects of international politics.