GOV5 Midterm

Fermi paradox

There is capacity for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Why haven’t we seen any/any evidence? Bc societies develop technologically faster than they develop politically to manage technology, so societies destroy themselves

Anarchy

Absence of rule

makes states feel threatened & need to protect themselves

Hierarchy of authority

Means there is a government that is more powerful than individuals; sets rules to control behavior of individuals. there is a lack of this on the International level

World government

solution to anarchy, unlikely bc sovereignty

Sovereignty

States make decisions for themselves

Non-state actors

terrorists, businesses, non government organizations (ex. UN), interest groups (ex. Greenpeace)

States

main actors in international relations

Why states are the main actors in ir

1. most things in ir relate to decisions taken by states


1. non-state actors seek to influence the actions of states

Causality

an independent variable causes changes in a dependent variable

Generalizable

ir scholars want theories that apply to many cases, not just one

Parsimony

ir scholars want to explain the most with the least; they want to focus on the most important variables

Theory

statement abt the causal effects of an independent variable on a dependent variable and explanation as to why these effects are present

Levels of analysis

categorizations of variables that impact ir; individual, domestic, systemic

Individual level

level of analysis that focuses on individual characteristics that can impact intl politics

age

individual characteristic; ex. older ppl less likely to favor war

gender

individual characteristic; ex. gender gap & war - women more likely than men to support wars that are humanitarian or have multilateral support

psychological characteristics

ex. make quick decisions vs slow, cognitive vs gut feeling, desire for status

misperceptions

individual level factor; lessons learned from history can lead ppl to make incorrect assumptions

\

example of misperceptions

us & Iran - Iran thinks us invaded Iraq bc they didn’t have nuclear weapons, that us is threatening, so decides to build up nuclear power

why are individual level not focused on much in ir?

bc scholars value parsimony and generalizability - so assume states/individuals are rational

why is the ind level likely to be focused on more in the future

bc behavioral economics is pushing forward the idea that ppl are not rational

Rationality

ind responding to international event bases his response on a cool and clear-headed means-end calculation - uses best available info & chooses from universe of possible response/alternatives most likely to maximize his goals 

Behavioral Economics

focus on how ppl suffer from cognitive limitations & effect on behavior 

Domestic Level

focuses on domestic politics and characteristics of states

1. Structure of the political system
2. Government Bureaucracy
3. Domestic Interest Groups
4. Public Opinion

4 parts of the domestic level

Democratic Peace Theory

2 democracies are unlikely to enter war/conflict with each other (as opposed to dem + authoritarian or 2 authoritarians)

Normative Model

explanation that norms of cooperation and compromise lead to peace between democracies

Structural Model

explanation that the structure of democracies, which requires mobilization of support for policy actions, leads to peace between democracies

Bureaucratic Politics Model

“where you stand depends upon where you sit” - the foreign policy positions different individuals in government take depends on what part of the government/bureaucracy they are in. Decisions are a result of bargaining and compromise between different parts of the bureaucracy and reflect the balance of power within democracies.

cross-cutting lobbying

lobbying efforts have no effect, essentially cancel each other out, bc there is lobbying happening on both sides of an issue

Delegate Model of Public Opinion

elected legislators represent the people and should vote in line with public opinion

Trustee Model of Public Opinion

elected legislators should do what they think is best, and not simply follow public opinion ef

effect of public opinion

strong public opinion for leaders gives them more authority to act; low public opinion for leaders constrains their ability to act

Systemic Level

variables outside of a state

Unitary Actors

states treated like BLANK (individuals); simplification that overlooks the complexities of what goes on within states

Model 1

states are treated like individuals; simplification that overlooks the complexities of what goes on within states; assume their is a single critical decision maker

allows creation of parsimonious, generalizable theories

what is the benefit of the unitary actor assumption

1. Anarchy
2. nature of technology
3. structure of the global economy
4. intl institutions
5. norms and other ideas Mul
6. distribution of power (unipolar, bipolar, multipolar)

6 elements of the Systemic Level of Analysis

multipolarity

3 or more great powers (before WWII)

unipolarity

one great power (after Cold War)

bipolarity

2 great powers (ex. US & Soviet Union during Cold War)

distribution of power

multipolar, unipolar, bipolar

power as influence

ability to change the behavior of a state, to get a state to do something it otherwise would not have done

power as capabilities

capacity/potential to change a state’s behavior (not where or not it actually does change states behavior) - based on military, tech, and Econ capacity

relative power

comparative power of states; focus on bc states don’t want another state to gain more power than them

Hobbes: 1. bc no hierarchy of authority, states seek to exploit/steal from each other 2. in order to be secure, states need to protect themselves militarily - can only rely on themselves 3. military protection is very important - basis for many aspects of life/society

security

expanding security

argument that security should expand to include things like the environment, human rights,

Grand theories

explain all ideas in ir

3 grand theories of IR

realism, liberalism, constructivism

Middle range theories

more specific theories in IR

example of middle range theory

democratic peace theory

Idealism

prominent IR theory from World War I to World War II

1. human nature is good
2. international institutions and laws important
3. belief in progress (away from war, towards peace)

What Idealism posits

Kennon

realist who criticized idealism

legalistic-moralistic approach

another name for idealism

realism

grand theory that emerged as a critique to idealism; prominent from end WWII to 1990s

Hans Morgenthau

main proponent of classical realism

1. states are selfish/self-interested
2. skeptical that moral principles will or should guide state behavior
3. power
4. human nature is bad
5. progress is unlikely

5 key elements of Classical Realism

what does it mean that states are self-interested

states are trying to make their welfare, their security better; states should only help others when it is in their self-interest to do so

realist belief about power

states seek as much power as possible

classical realist belief about moral goals

states should not sacrifice self-interest to pursue moral goals; need to insure security and survival above all else

classical realist belief about human nature

actions of states (conflict and quest for power) driven by greed and desire for domination; human nature is bad

Classical realist belief about progress

progress away from war and conflict is unlikely

neorealism

sect of realism that arose in mid-70s

Kenneth Waltz

creator of neorealism

neorealism agreement w/ realism

states are selfish, shouldn’t focus on moral goals, progress unlikely

Neorealism arguments that differ from classical realism

1. movement away from focus on human nature - anarchy drives states - they always need to look out for selves
2. power as means, not end; states only want power to obtain security

power as means

neorealist belief about power - states want power to obtain security

anarchy

what neorealism emphasizes

possibility of conflict

neorealist view of conflict

possibility of conflict

neorealists argue states don’t consider the relative chances that conflict will occur, but rather adopt worst-case perspective

* bc of focus on anarchy, states always assume the worst about the intentions of others
* treat all situations the same

probability of conflict

what most IR realists think; focus on the relative likelihood of conflict and take different precautions accordingly

* ex take different precautions in dangerous city than in Hanover - bc assessing the relative danger

\

neorealist perspective on the security dilemma

do not think it is possible for states to feel more secure

Predictions of Neorealism

1. relative gains & difficulty of cooperating
2. balancing
3. balances of power are most peaceful

relative gains and difficulty of cooperating

not likely to be much cooperation bc states never want others to gain more power than them from cooperating

balancing

states seek to match the power of a state that is threatening them

* if not strong enough to do by self, will form alliances

balancing of power is the most peaceful

neorealists think greatest peace when low power imbalance

* bc states don’t know who will win

Organski

who created Power Transition School

Power Transition School

power imbalances will lead to peace/stability

* bc less powerful states know they can’t beat most powerful state and most powerful state can exert control w/o conflict via coercion, etc

power& satisfaction

2 variables of power transition school

dissatisfied and relatively strong

most dangerous state according to power transition theory

satisfied and relatively weak

least dangerous state according to power transition school

partial unipolarity

what brooks and wohlforth argue us is in

security dilemma

states often can’t defend themselves w/o threatening others → arms races/BLANK

* “Many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security decrease the security of others”

anarchy, sovereignty, states looking out for self

what is at the heart of the security dilemma

jervis

who discusses the security dilemma

when states feel secure, when the defense has an advantage

generally, how states can escape the security dilemma

geography and technology

realist answer to the security dilemma 

how realists answer the security dilemma

geography and technology

geography

can reduce the security dilemma by making it easier for states to defend themselves (ex. oceans)

technology

can reduce the security dilemma when it gives an advantage to the defense, makes it harder for the offense (ex. machine guns in WWI)

offense/defense balance

security dilemma lessened when defense is easier/cheaper than offense; heightened when offense is easier/cheaper than defense

nuclear weapons → caution → peace/stability

nuclear weapons and the offense/defense balance

liberalism

global economy, international institutions, domestic institutions

liberal answer to security dilemma

intl institutions, global economy, and domestic institutions can be arranged in a way that make states feel more secure

formal institutions

physically established - can see them, have staff, headquarters, etc (ex. UN, NATO, World Bank)

informal institutions

ideas

formal institutions

which type of institutions do liberals focus on

four UNs

social, Econ, health, security

security UN

security council - 5 permanent members, 10 elected membersve