Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis is a complement to Anne Haila's critique of institutionalism in Chinese urbanism. This is understood as an extension of Ronald Coase's transaction cost economics in urban space. The focus is well‐defined property rights which, extended to both urban land and intellectual property, allow monopoly competition and internalise public goods — whether social or environmental — into the logic of the neoliberal commoditized transaction. This ('Washington‐Consensus') notion of rights is contrasted to the blurred ('Beijing‐Consensus') property rights arrangements of today's China. Here property is a 'bundle of rights', in which different legal persons have rights in the same unit of urban space. In this property is not well defined but instead a 'boundary object'. I draw on Francois Jullien to describe such relational property, which is coloured, less by individualism, than by Taoist‐like relations. These comprise a long‐time horizon, an ongoing never completed, never actualized character of transacting or exchange. They comprise rights‐sharing, obligation‐sharing and risk‐sharing. Parallels are drawn with, not Roman and Continental a priorist, but with English a posteriorist notions of property.Résumé À l'appui de la critique d'Anne Haila sur l'institutionnalisme dans l'urbanisme chinois, ce texte l'appréhende comme une extension, à l'espace urbain, de l'économie des coûts de transaction selon Ronald Coase. Le propos s'attache aux droits de propriété bien définis qui, étendus aux terrains urbains et à la propriété intellectuelle, permettent une concurrence monopolistique et une internalisation des biens publics, qu'ils soient sociaux ou environnementaux, dans la logique de la transaction néolibérale banalisée. Cette notion des droits (dans l'axe du Consensus de Washington) est opposée aux dispositifs flous (au sens d'un 'Consensus de Beijing') propres aux droits de propriété dans la Chine d'aujourd'hui. La propriété y est constituée d'un 'lot de droits', par lequel plusieurs personnes morales ont des droits dans la même unité d'espace urbain; la propriété n'y est pas définie avec précision, constituant plutôt un 'objet‐frontière'. François Jullien éclaire la description de cette propriétérelationnelle, moins empreinte d'individualisme que de rapports d'inspiration taoïste; ceux‐ci correspondent à un type de transaction ou d'échange suivi, à longue échéance, jamais terminé, jamais actualisé– tout en englobant le partage des droits, des obligations et des risques. Par comparaison, cette conception de la propriété se rapproche, non pas des a priori de la notion romaine ou continentale, mais de l'a posteriori de la notion anglaise.

Regime theory is an approach within international relations theory, a sub-discipline of political science, which seeks to explain the occurrence of co-operation among States by focusing on the role that regimes play in mitigating international anarchy and overcoming various collective action problems among States (International Relations, Principal Theories; State; see also Co-operation, International Law of). Different schools of thought within international relations have emerged, and various analytical approaches exist within the regime theory itself (see Sec. F.3 below). However, typically regime theory is associated with neoliberal institutionalism that builds on a premise that regimes are central in facilitating international co-operation and constraining the behaviour of States. Thus, in international relations literature, regime theory is often used interchangeably with the terms 'institutionalism' or 'neoliberal institutionalism'.

The author explores some fundamental aspects of international cooperation, its functional incentives & structural limitations, by describing the discussion between two most influential approaches in international relations theory: neorealism & neoliberalism, or to be more precise, between defensive neorealism & neoliberal institutionalism. During the discussion on possibilities & limitations of international co-operation neorealism & neoliberalism showed their differences, but also similarities of views that resulted in their approach, which is called the neo-neo synthesis in international relations theory. The discussion, that has been going on for three decades in USA also reflects on the practical foreign policy decision-making in this country. The discussion contains the ideas that can serve as means to explain some foreign policy approaches in our country as well. References. Adapted from the source document.

Even though the number of summits of heads of state & government has steadily increased since World War II, political science has so far mainly ignored them. Based on the American-Soviet superpower summits, the world economic summits, & the world conferences under the auspices of the United Nations, this article shows that the three mainstream theories of international relations -- neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism & constructivism offer adequate explanations for those summits which fall into their historical context of emergence. The cooperation of states at the highest level & the theories about them are thus "children of their time". 3 Tables, 40 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author explores some fundamental aspects of international cooperation its functional incentives and structural limitations, by describing the discussion between two most influential approaches in international relations theory: neorealism and neoliberalism, or to be more precise between defensive neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. During the discussion on possibilities and limitations of international co-operation neorealism and neoliberalism showed their differences, but also similarities of views that resulted in their approach, which is called the neo-neo synthesis in international relations theory. The discussion, that has been going on for three decades in USA also reflects on the practical foreign policy decision making in this country. The discussion contains the ideas that can serve as means to explain some foreign policy approaches in our country as well.

Is the world running out of water? The problem of the adequacy of this natural resource is one of the new paradigms of security. Can war over hydro-resources be avoided through interstate cooperation? In such cases, what instruments would best alleviate conflict? Provisions to preserve future relations between states that share international waterways are discussed. This article considers whether the securitization of hydro-resources must challenge international rights, applying international relations theory to the analysis. On the one hand, neoliberal institutionalism provides a motive for countries to cooperate using instruments of international rights. On the other hand, cooperative water policies might also be achieved through the application of a realist theory of common need. This notion is based on historical analysis of other cases of this nature. Adapted from the source document.

The insights of social psychology are not thoroughly integrated into international relations theory, yet social psychology has much to offer. Social psychology provides a conceptualization of a number of varieties of trust – moralistic, strategic, and generalized – and their opposites that implicitly drive the logic of major works of international relations. It also reveals the empirical presence of a number of different types of trusters who make different assumptions about the trustworthiness of others and consequently show markedly different propensities towards cooperation. The rough correspondence between these different 'social orientations' and the logics of the three approaches of structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism suggest that individuals carry a crude paradigm in their minds. Metatheoretically, the implication for international relations theory is that scholars capture a part but not the totality of world politics, the behavior of those who trust (or do not trust) in a particular way that matches the logic of their paradigms. Theoretically it suggests a research agenda at multiple levels of analysis, utilizing all of the types of trust and trusters. I review the work of others that offers some preliminary evidence for its plausibility, suggest some hypotheses of my own, and address potential theoretical objections.

The insights of social psychology are not thoroughly integrated into international relations theory, yet social psychology has much to offer. Social psychology provides a conceptualization of a number of varieties of trust moralistic, strategic, and generalized and their opposites that implicitly drive the logic of major works of international relations. It also reveals the empirical presence of a number of different types of trusters who make different assumptions about the trustworthiness of others and consequently show markedly different propensities towards cooperation. The rough correspondence between these different 'social orientations' and the logics of the three approaches of structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism suggest that individuals carry a crude paradigm in their minds. Metatheoretically, the implication for international relations theory is that scholars capture a part but not the totality of world politics, the behavior of those who trust (or do not trust) in a particular way that matches the logic of their paradigms. Theoretically it suggests a research agenda at multiple levels of analysis, utilizing all of the types of trust and trusters. I review the work of others that offers some preliminary evidence for its plausibility, suggest some hypotheses of my own, and address potential theoretical objections. Adapted from the source document.

Why do regional institutions emerge, what accounts for their variation in design, and what are their effects? Several conceptual and epistemological perspectives-neorealism, neoliberal-institutionalism, constructivism, and domestic politics-provide competing and complementary answers to these questions. I focus on regional organizations as productive arenas for developing contingent propositions on institutions more generally. The purpose is to advance cross-paradigmatic dialogue in two ways: through sensitivity to scope conditions and to institutional genesis, forms, and effects, in an effort to transcend axiomatic debates that often conflate different dependent variables. The empirical analysis includes the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Arab League. The main findings from these cases suggest that understanding the nature of dominant domestic coalitions is often crucial for explaining incentives to create, design, and fine-tune the effects of institutions. However, this is mainly the case when the consequences of creating or designing institutions for power distribution, transaction costs, and norms are negligible or hard to estimate. In many cases these consequences are sizeable, reducing the explanatory influence of domestic coalitions. The latter often provide no more than permissive conditions for the emergence, design, and effect of institutions. Their influence is most decisive in explaining institutional genesis but is often underdetermining in explaining their design. © 2008 International Studies Association.

Neoliberalism is oft invoked but ill-defined in the social sciences. This paper develops a tripartite definition of neoliberalism using tools from institutionalism and field theory. It argues that neoliberalism is a sui generis ideological system born of historical processes of struggle and collaboration in three worlds: intellectual, bureaucratic, and political. Among neoliberalism's three 'faces,' its mode as a form of politics has received the least attention. To fill this gap, I develop a definition of neoliberal politics as struggles over political authority that are bounded by a particularly market-centric set of ideas about the state's responsibilities, the locus of state authority, and the state's central constituencies. Given that social democratic politics were particularly powerful in Western Europe for much of the postwar period, neoliberalism among the mainstream parties of the European left deserves particular attention.