Cumulative Review Flashcards
Use to study for the final exam
- Mercantilist Era (1492-1815)
beginning event: Columbus, ending event: Industrial revolution and end of Napoleon reign, major events: American Revolution, protestant reformation, treaty of Westphalia, French revolution, and 30 years’ war
- Golden Era (1815-1914)
beginning: end of Napoleonic wars and start of industrial revolution, major: concert of Europe, Pax Britannica, unification of Germany, 1870 Gold Standard ending: war
- Thirty years crisis (1914-1945)
beginning: assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, major: appeasement of Germany, ww1, great depression, ww2, ending: end of ww2, Treaty of Versailles, Creation of the UN
- Cold war (1945-1991)
beginning: rebuilding of Europe, USSR and US emerge as powers, major: entire cold war dynamic, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, ending: fall of USSR
- Post-cold war (1991-present)
fall of USSR, major events: evolution of IOs, return to market, 9/11, Arab Spring, globalization, Persian Gulf War
Mercantilist
imperialism, colonialism, mercantilism
Interests- access to markets/resources, ensure own power/control
Interactions- bargaining
Institutions- sovereignty/ Peace of Westphalia
Golden
prosperity, economic growth, balance of power, free trade
Economic integration, alliance making, trade expansion
Cooperating
Concert of Europe, gold standard
30 years
war, panic, strife
Rise of power, economic repair, not dying
Bargaining
League of Nations, alliances, treaties
Cold War
tension, capitalism v. communism, decolonization
Spread ideology
Bargaining
NATO, Warsaw Pact, UN, Bretton Woods, CMEA, World Bank, GATT
Post-cold war
trade agreements, single super power
Expand trade, security, counter-terrorism, human rights
Cooperating
NAFTA, EU, WTO, IMF
Theory
a logically consistent set of statements that explains a phenomenon of interests, proposed answer to IR questions, tested, generalizable, falsifiable, and parsimonious
actors
basic unit for analysis of Int. politics, individuals/groups of people with common interests, strategic, rational
Describe rational behind choosing relevant actors
contingent on the outcome you are trying to explain, who or what are contributing to the outcome, interests or info that are relevant to what is being analyzed
I3
Interests- what actors want to achieve through political action
Interactions- the ways in which the choices of 2 or more actors combine to produce political outcomes, cooperation and bargaining
Institutions- set of rules that structure interactions within a relevant community that are known and shared, formal or informal, principles and norms
3 types of interests
- power/security (30 years crisis, golden era, mercantilist era)
- economic/material welfare (post-cold war, golden era, mercantilist)
- ideational/normative (cold war)
Cooperation
2 or more actors adopt policies that make at least one actor better off w/o any party becoming worse off
Two types of cooperation
- Coordination- self-sustaining
2. Collaboration- not self-sustaining, incentive to break agreement
3 factors that make collaboration easier
- iteration
- number of actors (fewer-better to collab)
- issue linkage and info (more-better)
Bargaining
actors must chose outcomes that make one better off at the expense of the other (zero sum gain)
General purpose of institutions
facilitate cooperation and self-enforcement
4 ways IOs make self-enforcement easier
- Setting standards of behavior
- verifying compliance
- reducing costs of joint decision making
- resolving disputes
Bias of IOs
IOs contain policy bias, institutions were made by parties whose goals are reflected in those institutions
2 reasons why actors comply with IOs
- broader cooperation in future, even if outcome is biased
2. less costly to use existing ones rather than cost of creating new ones
Realist theory
States are selfish and power seeking, act in national interest, anarchic international system, states are unitary, rational actors, and security is the main issue
Liberal theory
inherent goodness of actors, societal progress is possible, if a just society is not obtained, it is at the fault of inadequate institutions and a corrupt environment, individuals are not evil, they are corrected by society, democracy and free trade are good institutions, free trade creates interdependencies that raise cost of war, and IOs are important
Classical v. Neorealism
- Classical: there are two types of states: status quo powers that want to keep the system the way it is and revisionist powers that want to upend the system and create one system that benefits them. Conflict happens because people suck, classical realism is largely only concerned with “high politics”– matters of war and peace or security.
- Neorealism: doesn’t bother to classify states, instead arguing that every state is always trying to change the system in order to maximize their own benefit.
Neorealism extends its approach to all levels of interaction, conflict happens because the anarchical structure of the international system sucks
Classical v. Neoliberalism
- Classical liberalism is a political philosophy which holds that the most important value is individual liberty. Classical liberals believe that the utmost priority would be to maximize individual liberty, while restricting the use of force and coercion (ie government) in order to achieve this. Classical liberalism encompasses the social/economic/political)aspects, defining the basis and the role of government (the legitimacy of a government is with the people, and governments should minimize intervention and adhere to the rule of law), economics (many classical liberals would defend some type of free market system as to maximize individual freedom in the economic sphere) and society (mutual toleration, open discussion, freedom to act as long as nobody else is harmed). Famous examples of classical liberals include Adam Smith and William Gladstone.
- Neoliberalism is more about laissez faire economics, so economically it is very similar to classical liberalism. It focuses on the markets, deregulation, ending protectionism, and freeing up the markets. While classical liberalism is more of a political philosophy, neoliberalism bases its ideas on neoclassical economics, so it is really a set of ideas for how a free market, as advocated by classical liberalism, can be achieved and maintained.
Neorealism I3
Interests: security
Interactions: bargaining
Institutions: pessimistic about institutions, IOs have policy bias
Neoliberalism I3
Interests: many, wealth
Interactions: cooperation
Institutions: reduce uncertainty in interactions
Differences
Cooperation versus bargaining
Optimism versus pessimism
Wealth versus security
Domestic politics versus unitary state
Similarities
States are main actors
Anarchy in the international system
Rationality of actors
Describe general intuition behind war-as-bargain model
- Rationalist: a viewpoint for modeling actors’ behavior in which actors choose the best action to pursue their goals, given the expected behavior of others
- Utility maximization through rational & strategic actions
Fearon 1995 model
- Proposed solution (by A to B)
2. B accepts, divide (inside option), or rejects, war ensues (outside option)
Key insight from the model:
if mutually acceptable proposals exist, why do states go to war?
Impacts on expected utility from war:
1. Resolve (willingness to endure costs of fighting)
2. Capabilities (chance of winning)
Three rationalist explanations for war that explain why actors go to war if mutually acceptable proposals always exist
- incomplete info
- commitment problems
- issue indivisibility
Incomplete Info
- situation in which states lack info about other states’ resolve and capabilities
- credibility of a threat or alliance plays into incomplete info, bluffing can lead to better outcomes as transparency can eliminate strategic capacity
two ways to increase credibility
- Brinksmanship- threats that generate risk (keep making threats until someone backs down)
- Tying hands- generate costs to backing out of an agreement or down from a threat,
audience costs
negative repercussions from other states or your own for failing to follow through
commitment problems
state cannot promise not to revise terms of an agreement in the future, often occurs when bargaining over a source of power
Preemptive war
fought with anticipation of an attack from enemy, 1st strike advantage- state that attacks first is at an advantage
Preventative war
fought to avoid future shifts in capabilities
Issue indivisibility
an issue whose associated good cannot be divided without diminishing the value
Four ways probability of war can be reduced
- Raising the costs of war
- Increasing transparency
- Providing outside enforcement of commitments
- Dividing apparently indivisible goods
National v. particularistic interests
National interests are widely shared by a state whereas particularistic interests are narrow interests held by a small number of actors in a state
domestic influence on foreign policy
Domestic politics have influence in foreign policy as the benefits of war may be enjoyed by a different group than the one that carries the costs, war may arise as it furthers interests of a group in the state
Domestic groups that may benefit from war
- Leaders- office seeking, benefit from rally effect (people are more supportive of a leader during war or other international crisis such as 9/11, rise in nationalism)
• Diversionary incentive: incentive leaders have to start a crisis to rally support
Domestic groups that may benefit from war cont.
- Bureaucracy- collection of organizations that carry out tasks of governance, influence comes from resources & expert knowledge, they are self-serving and benefit from war can be elevation of status/importance or increased funding
Domestic groups that may benefit from war cont.
- Interest Groups- group of individuals w/ common interests, push for policies that benefit members, benefits could include profit maximization for an economic group or protection/advancement of rights for an ethnic group
- general public
Democratic peace theory
democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies, two qualifiers- transparency and credibility
Two general ways democracy may decrease probability of war
- Accountability- ability to punish or award leaders for decisions (free and open elections)
- Democratic institutions (require transparency and free press to prevent spread of incomplete info)