Suchergebnisse

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.

Alderson, Kai: Making sense of state socialization. In: Review of International Studies (Cambridge), 27 (July 2001) 3, S. 415-433

Following a depiction of personal experience as an untenured assistant professor in an administrative position, the risks & rewards of taking on such responsibilities are considered. Lessons learned are delineated: eg, do not forget that pursuing tenure is the main priority, settle with key decisionmakers on how such work will contribute to your tenure, budget your time, beware of mission creep, & regularly assess whether the position remains true to your reasons for assuming it. 1 Photograph, 1 Reference. J. Zendejas

This article examines the link between disciplinary identity formation, history creation and progress by undertaking an excavation of the idealist-realist debate in International Relations theory. I demonstrate how the debate was framed by the realists, who constructed a unified `idealism' temporally located in the interwar period to be the straw man for the justification of their theories and the starting point for construction of the realist identity. The unified paradigm of `idealism' turns out to be a multiplicity of discourses running throughout the first half of the 20th century. As those discourses intersected with `utopian' realism, two in particular became central to realist identity. The world federalism discourse became the unacknowledged, implicit goal of realism as the realists simultaneously constructed it as the explicit and sole goal of the `idealists'. The sovereignty/anarchy discourse became the lived ideal made real through power for the realists who suppressed any mention of this discourse during the `idealist', `interwar' years. I argue that the appropriation of these two discourses by realism is the reason that the narrative history of the discipline requires us to forever remember realism's progressive victory over `idealism' in the First Great Debate.

Researchers using qualitative methods, including case studies & comparative case studies, are becoming more self-conscious in enhancing the rigor of their research designs so as to maximize their explanatory leverage with a small number of cases. One aspect of qualitative research that has not received as much attention is the use of primary & secondary source material as data or evidence. This essay explores the potential problems encountered by political scientists as they conduct archival research or rely on secondary source material produced by historians. The essay also suggests guidelines for researchers to minimize the main problems associated with qualitative historical research, namely, investigator bias & unwarranted selectivity in the use of historical source materials. These guidelines should enable advanced undergraduates & graduate students to enhance the quality of their historically minded political science scholarship. 3 Tables, 83 References. Adapted from the source document.

The recent scholarly work on the concept of enduring rivalries offers a promising way to examine strategic interaction among dyads of states over extended periods of time. A focus on rivalry, and on the mechanisms that provide for such interaction, may offer a way to bridge existing theories of international relations that rely exclusively on structure or process. Unfortunately, the potential for theory‐building has not been fully realized because research into rivalry has tended to be inductive. This paper seeks to rectify that problem by situating the rivalry concept within a social psychological approach to international relations. The rivalry concept is appropriately located in a theoretical approach that views the international system as a social system where actors are conditioned by mechanisms of competition and socialization.

The reduction of agricultural trade barriers accomplished at the close of the Uruguay Round (UR) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is a puzzle because previous research has suggested that producer groups would always succeed in blocking liberalization efforts. The author explains this apparent puzzle through the use of a comparative historical method developed by Collier and Collier for analyzing the UR as a critical juncture. The analysis suggests that transformations in productive technology enabled producer groups to reap extraordinary economic and political rents during most of the post-World War II era. However, the fiscal crises of the 1980s provided governments an incentive to exert relative autonomy from producer groups and initiate bargaining over trade barriers. As trade barriers and the political influence of producer groups were reduced, the UR emerged as the product of a critical juncture in the transition from the Fordist to the post-Fordist mode of agricultural accumulation.