polisci final

WEEK 6: Rationalism, Psychology & Decision-Making

02/13

On rationality

• “Actors survey their environment and, to the best of their ability, choose the strategy that best meets their subjectively defined goals”

A real world example: north korea

• 2 potential outcomes:

  • Kim Jong-un maintains power OR

  • A newly elected leader governs 

U (KJU)= 0

U (Elect Better)= 0

U (Elect Worse)= 0

• We are not sure whether the elected leader will be better or worse than Kim jong-un

• 10,-10, are US estimates of how much better or worse

P= actors estimated probability that an elected leader would be better (1-P, the est. probably (s)he is worse)

SO,

U (elected leader)= PU (E. Better)+(1-P)U(E. Worse)

U (elected leader= (.6)(10)+(.4)(-10)

U (elected leader)= 2>U(KJU)=0

100% probability of staying quiet

0% probability to defect

Rational/strategic choice: a quick rundown

• Focus on strategic interaction,

• Actors are purposive (goal driven),

• Universally applicable (boxes within boxes),

• Pragmatic (actors and aggregation not given),

• Same “methodological bets” re: how to “do theory”

What os rational/purposive behavior?

• goals/preferences, complete and ordered alternatives,

• Transitivity ( A>B, B>C, A>C)

• A low bar, bounded not comprehensive rationality 

On the Money: which would you choose?

1. 100& chance of losing $50

2. 25% chance of losing $200 and a 75% chance of losing nothing 

• All equals same thing 

Prospect their (1979) Kahneman and Tversky

• Losses hurt more than gain feel good

• Editing and evaluation: no theory of editing

• Behavioral economics: psychological, descriptive 

2/18

Part 3: Contemporary Politics and Conflict

• Power Changes and Transitions

  • The US and China

• Crisis Economics

  • Migration and pandemic Shocks

• Current Events

  • IR of Climate Change and Regime Change

Defying Gravity

• During nuclear race, Russia suddenly collapsed

  • Left the US with a unfathomable amount of power

• Even if all small states band together, they still would not match the US power

• Do we live in dangerous or stable times?

Hegemony

• Walt and realist have been talking and polarity

• Hegemony is a preponderance of power in IR

• The US had the same amount of power as all the secondary states combines

  • Waltz believed that the top and second place state’s power are supposed to be very small

  • This differed from that idea as the US power was so great

Bringing Others Onboard vs Going It Alone

• The US can bring others onboard with sticks rather than carrots

• Negative consequences rather than positive

• Can be a lot of time and resources

• A lot of concessions

  • A lot of deals and sacrifices

  • Not everything goes as they want it

• Because they are so strong, they don't really need other states

  • You bare the exclusive burden of your choices

  • Isolated in those choices

Ambition vs Apathy

• Overreach(and Backlash)

  • Maybe not the rest of the world is excited about a plan and can lead to backlash and therefore revolution

• Underachievement(and Abdication)

  • If the US does nothing with their power the world will be upset

  • The world will move on without you and to people with greater ambition

• Benign vs Threatening force

  • Their power and influence mostly comes from their huge military

  • Their ability to use and project force

  • Must consider very carefully how to use this force

  • The US have done a good job in the last 30 years to not use their powers to make most states feel threatened

    • Especially the bigger states

  • Want to be careful not to use their power to provoke a resistance among those that have enough power to challenge the US

  • Defensive war is okay within the UN

  • Offensive war is not

  • For it to be a defensive war, you must be attacked first

    • Unless it is very clear you are about to be attacked and attacked first

  • Self Defense

  • Transformative Violation

  • Fundamental Challenge

The Liberal World Order

WEEK 8:Crisis Economics 

02/25

China

• Power transition theories: moment of dangerous time because the power that is rising (country getting stronger) starts to reasonably believe that if there was a war, they might win.

  • Once there, waltz argues balance is stable, since it is equal, counterintuitive to go to war because just as likely to lose people and things during the fight. Mutually destructive war no one wants (chicken game).

Arrival of balance=not stable

WEEK 8: Migration Crisis 

01/27

How does the rest of the world view china?

• Young people are in favor

• Conservatives hate him 

• Lack of clarity

China

• Does china hope o fully revise the world order?

• “What the US wants is really vague rules and the right to interpret them.”
  “American disdain for the rules-based order means its criticism of china now rings hollow.”Walt’s piece was written before the 2nd trump administration

China

• Security dilemma or deter and aggressor?: Taiwan, islands conflicts, North korea

Deterrence and the security dilemma

• “One more step and I shoot’ can be a deterrent threat only if accompanied by the implicit assurance, ‘and if you stop, I wont’” - Thomas Shelling

• The stronger you are, the more credible the threat, and the more challenging the assurance. 

China

• Economic transition?:

• Chinese economy had stumbled

• Growth down

• Population decline

• Yuan not

Defying Gravity 

• Do we live in dangerous or stable times? 

Migration Crisis

• Border crossings southern and northern

• Drugs and violent crime

• What happens to a local economy when illegal migrants disappear? Obama era example 

• Pushes of displacement: IDP (internal displaced people) and Refugee (crossing international border, asylum)

National debt

Better spending 

Provoking Russia–threatening nuclear war

International conflict the us does not deserve to be in, spending 119 billion, perpetuating death and war by continuing to fund this war

WEEK 9: Pandemic econ

03/06

Democratic backsliding question on midterm (reading)

Global public health and health diplomacy

• Public health: “some people are more susceptible to disease due to social problems and those problems should be remedied”

• Worked against medicine/insurance

• Top individualist/american 1890 turn

• Personal responsibility vs social rot

• “It was so much easier to identify individual victims of disease and cure them than it was to rebuild a city” - rosner

• Worked to become more like medicine 

People cannot isolate themselves if they work low income jobs with no paid sick leave, or if they live in crowded housing or prisons. They cannot access vaccines if they have no nearby pharmacies, no public transportation, or no relationships with primary care providers. They cannot benefit from effective new drugs if they have no insurance. In earlier incarnations, public health might have been in the thick of these problems, but in its current state, it lacks the resources, mandate, and sometimes even the willingness to address them.

Covid 19 pandemic 

• Global excess deaths jan 1, 2020-dec 31, 2021: 14.91 million (9.49 million more than officially reported) 

• First UNSC begins a mutual accusation exercise, USA-CHN

• March 11, 2020, WHO declared covid 19, (caused by the SARS CoV-2) a pandemic 

Primary international players

• UNSC UN Security Counsel 

  • UN organization dedicated to the maintenance of peace and stability

  • 5 permanent members with veto power (uSA, UKG, FRA, CHN, RUS) and 10 rotating members

• WHO- World health organization

  • WHO is an organization of 194 member states. The member states elect the director-general, who leads the organization in achieving its global health goals

  • It coordinates the worlds response to health emergencies, promotes well being, prevents disease and expands access to health care

  • Tiny budget

• Bill and Melinda gates foundation

  • Second largest donor to the WHO next to USG

  • Mission is to create a world where every person has the opportunity to live a healthy, productive life

  • As of 2022, $7 billion charitable support

• Pharmaceutical companies 

  • Who receives funding?

  • How much?
    Who controls patent?

  • How manufactured?

  • Will vaccines be made overseas?

Covid 19 Pandemic: CHN

• Zero covid 19 policy 

• Long term draconic politics leading to backlash and excessive secrecy/arms length cooperation in name of sovereignty 

Covid 19 Pandemic: USA

• Denial and under-prep

• Lack of coordinated nationwide response

• Excessive focus on election and “good news”

Global public health and diplomacy post covid 19: the other major payers

• WHO: COVAX

• High income countries (hic) vaccine hoarding (buy vaccines for your own population and not distribute through need)

  Summary (Page 7)

  • Democratic Backsliding Defined:

    • A defining trend in global politics over the past two decades.

    • Lacks consensus on underlying drivers.

  • Common Explanations:

    • Roles of Russia and China, technology, populism, political polarization, and economic failure are mentioned but insufficient as exhaustive explanations.

  • Key Focus:

    • Leader-driven anti-democratic projects:

      • Types of Backsliding:

        • Grievance-fueled illiberalism: Uses grievances to justify the dismantling of democratic norms.

        • Opportunistic authoritarianism: Comes to power via conventional means but once in power, undermines democracy for self-preservation.

        • Entrenched-interest revanchism: Displaced interests (often militaries) use undemocratic means to regain power.

  • Commonality: All types focus on dismantling institutions meant to provide checks and balances.

  Introduction (Page 9)

  • Current State of Democracy:

    • Marked retreat in global democracy, leading to reassessments of democracy's expansion.

  • Debate Among Policymakers:

    • Sought clarity on democratic backsliding causes with various interpretations.

  • External Factors Discussed:

    • Role of Russia and China in supporting autocrats and undermining democracies.

    • Impact of technology—including social media and surveillance technologies—treated as secondary rather than central.

  • Historical Context:

    • Recognition of deeper domestic factors in backsliding countries.

  The Landscape of Democratic Backsliding (Page 10)

  • Definition of Democratic Backsliding:

    • Erosion of democratic institutions in countries that previously achieved notable levels of democracy.

  • Types of Democratic Recession:

    • Hardening of autocratic rule, democratic tremors, and outright backsliding.

  • Criteria for Classification:

    • Countries must demonstrate a significant level of democracy followed by significant erosion.

  • Democratic Backsliders Post-2005:

    • Examples include Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and the United States among others.

  Partial Explanations (Page 12)

  • External Drivers:

    • Russia and China:

      • Criticism of their influence as overstated; often local dynamics matter more.

    • Technology's Role:

      • Causes of backsliding often misattributed to technology.

  Internal Drivers (Page 15)

  • Populism:

    • Identified as a noteworthy threat but not central in many cases of backsliding.

  • Polarization:

    • Often a result of backsliding rather than a contributing factor.

  • Failure to Deliver:

    • Poor socioeconomic conditions can fuel discontent but do not explain backsliding directly.

  Breaking Down Backsliding (Page 18)

  • Key Motivations:

    • Three main types of illiberal movements discussed, emphasizing the importance of domestic political actors:

      • Grievance-driven illiberalism

      • Opportunistic authoritarianism

      • Entrenched-interest revanchism

  Conclusions (Page 24)

  • Summary of Findings:

    • Key drivers of backsliding are domestic leaders rather than macro external factors.

  • Call to Action:

    • Need for differentiated strategies in addressing backsliding.

  About the Authors (Page 25)

  • Thomas Carothers: Senior fellow and co-director at Carnegie.

  • Benjamin Press: Research assistant in democracy studies.

  Acknowledgments (Page 27)

  • Thanks to supporters including the Ford Foundation.

  Notes (Page 29)