INR6507/0451 M. Leann Brown
Spring 2017 Office hours: MWF 10:30-11:30
Wednesday 11:45-2:45 333 Anderson Hall
MAT 6 352.352.2398,
GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS
While the international system is described as anarchic because of the absence of world government, more cooperation than conflict characterizes the global system. The global environment is replete with institutions of varying levels of formality, complexity, legitimacy, and effectiveness. This course begins by examining how we theorize about the global context within which states and other actors interact to address problems and provide global goods. We then turn our attention to the evolving literatures and debates around the prospects for cooperation in global institutions. Then, beginning with Meeting 6, we focus more specifically on the institutional arrangements associated with four specific issues: regionalism, economic growth and development, the environment, and peace and security. In Meeting 11 and thereafter, we return to a theoretical consideration of less material and/or formal institutions and then conclude with the mainstream concept of “global governance.”
DISCUSSION TOPICS
1. Introduction
2. State Sovereignty
Anarchy
3. Realism/neorealism
Liberalism
4. Complex interdependence
Regime theories
5. Neoliberal institutionalism
Designing effective institutions
6. Regionalism
Intergovernmentalism
Structural functionalism
Multilevel governance/network governance
7. Financial institutions
Trade institutions
8. Transnational corporations
Private regulatory regimes
9. Ecological rationality
Regimes for common pool resources
10. Security coalitions and alliances
Security communities
11. Constructivism and global institutions
Norms
12. Nongovernmental organizations
Global civil society
13. Imagined communities
Global networks
14. Globalizations
Global governance
TEXTBOOKS
Grande and Pauly, eds. 2005. COMPLEX SOVEREIGNTY. University of Toronto Press.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182691.
Bernstein, S. and L. W. Pauly. 2007. GLOBAL LIBERALISM AND POLITICAL ORDER. State University of New York.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182693.
Hasenclever, Andreas, et al., 1997. THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL REGIMES. Cambridge.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182693.
Keohane, R. 1989. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND STATE POWER. Westview Press.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182694.
Cini, M. and A. K. Bourne. 2006. EUROPEAN UNION STUDIES. Palgrave.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182696.
Barton, J. H. et al. 2006. THE EVOLUTION OF THE TRADE REGIME. Princeton.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182697.
Buthe, T. and W. Mattli. 2013. The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy. Princeton University Press.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182703
Baber, W. F. and R. V. Bartlett. 2005. DELIBERATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS. The MIT Press.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182700.
Walt, Stephen. 1987. THE ORIGINS OF ALLIANCES. Cornell University Press.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182698.
Haas, P. M. 2015. Epistemic Communities, Constructivism, and International Environmental Politics. Routledge.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182701
Prakash, Aseem and Mary Kay Gugerty, eds. 2010. ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION. Cambridge University Press.
https://login.famuproxy.fcla.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsite.ebrary.com%2flib%2ffamu%2fD oc%3fid%3d10433588
Castells, Manuel. 2015. NETWORKS OF OUTRAGE AND HOPE. Polity.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182702.
Sinclair, Timothy J. 2012. GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. Polity.
https://ares.uflib.ufl.edu/ares.dll?Action=10&Form=50&Value=182699.
EVALUATION
two discussion leadership occasions 40%
book critiques (10% each) and short theoretical/research papers (20% each) 50%
final examination in essay format via the listserv. 10%
DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP
Each student will lead the class discussion on TWO theoretical and/or substantive topics during the course of the semester. These presentations/discussions should address the following questions (at minimum): How do you define the primary concepts? What is the body of thought’s ontological and epistemological orientations? What are the primary assumptions associated with the topic/perspective? Where does it fit chronologically and theoretically into the International Relations/International Institutions subfield? Who are the primary theorists and what is regarded as the seminal literature on the perspective/topic? What are primary debates in the literature? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this perspective? How important is this topic/perspective to our understanding of global institutions? What would you regard as the future relevance of this topic/perspective? To supplement your presentation, you are expected to provide a discussion outline and reading list of recent publications (i.e. published in the five years) for your colleagues’ files. (About ten items, at least half from peer-reviewed journals, will be quite adequate.) Information concerning the recent scholarly work on each topic is available via the library’s online search engines (see e.g. Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, Wilson Omnifile). The final version of your presentation handout should be forwarded to me for the listserv within 24 hours of your presentation.
BOOK CRITIQUES
Books available for critique are indicated on the schedule below. They were requested as recommended books at the UF bookstore, and copies are on reserve in Library West. Each book critiques should be FIVE, typewritten pages in length and consist generally of these elements: (1) a concise statement of the author's thesis; (2) a discussion of the book’s research design, including its methodology and data sources; (3) a discussion of the book’s ontological, epistemological, and theoretical underpinnings; (4) a discussion of how the book fits into the existing literature; and (5) an evaluation of the book. In reference to the evaluation, you may wish to comment on the book's theoretical contribution, coherence, clarity, logic, methodology, evidential base, place in the literature, etc. You may choose to compare or contrast the work with other similar material presented in the course or in other courses you have taken. The critique is NOT simply a summary of what the author has to say, but instead is an analysis of the work. Each critique is due in class on the date under which the book is listed in the syllabus.
SHORT THEORETICAL/RESEARCH PAPERS
Each theoretical or research exploration should be TEN, typewritten pages in length. It should, in general, include the elements listed above under “Discussion Leadership.” The bibliography should contain no fewer than ten sources, half of which should be peer-reviewed journal articles. Each theoretical exploration is due in class on the date that the general topic is discussed. Students should plan to earn only one grade per week to guarantee exposure to the breadth of the IO literature.
FINAL EXAM
The final exam for the course in essay format is scheduled for 24 hours beginning at 10:00 am on Thursday 4/27. You will answer one among three possible questions deriving from the course content. Each answer should be 2,000-2,500 words in length, double-spaced, not including references. We will discuss potential exam questions as the course progresses and during the final two regular class sessions. The purpose of the exam is to encourage you to acquire an in-depth, comprehensive, and firm understanding of the theoretical literature, to synthesize your understandings, and to gain experience useful in the written and oral portions of your comprehensive exams.
Meeting 1: Introduction of the course (January 4)
Presentation assignments
Recommended reading:
Frederking, B. and P. F. Diehl, eds. 2015. The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Interdependent World. Lynne Rienner.
Weiss, Thomas G. and Rorden Wilkinson, eds. 2013. International Organization and Global Governance. Routledge.
Barkin, S. 2013. International Organization: Theories and Institutions. Palgrave.
Rittberger, V. et. al. 2011. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, L. and B. Simmons. 1998. “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.”
International Organization 52: 729-758.
Shanks, C., H. Jacobson, and J. Kaplan. 1996. “Inertia and Change in the Constellation of
International Governmental Organizations, 1981-1992.” International Organization 50: 593-628.
Kratochwil, f and E. D. Mansfield, ed. 1994. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION READER. Harper Collins.
Abbott, K. and D. Snidal. 1988. “Why States Act through Formal International Organizations,”
JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 42: 3-32.
Kratochwil, F. and J. G. Ruggie, 1986. “International Organization: A State of the Art of the Art of
the State.” International Organization 40: 753-775.
Rochester, J. M. 1986. “The Rise and Fall of International Organization as a Field of Study,”
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 40/4: 777-813.
Meeting 2: The Global Context (January 11)
Sovereignty
Anarchy
Potential book critique: Grande and Pauly, eds. 2005. COMPLEX SOVEREIGNTY.
Recommended reading:
Cooper, S., et al. 2008. “Yielding Sovereignty to International Institutions,” INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW 10/3: 501-524.
Dahbour, O. 2006. “Advocating Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization,” JOURNAL OF SOCIAL
PHILOSOPHY 37/1, pp. 108-124.
Lake, David A. 2004. “The New Sovereignty in International Relations,” INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
REVIEW. 5/3.
Cohen, E. S. 2001. “Globalization and the Boundaries of the State: A Framework for Analyzing the
Changing Practice of Sovereignty,” GOVERNANCE 14/1, pp. 75-97.
Krasner, S. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. 1997. “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of
Fundamental Institutions.” International Organization 51: 555-590
Evans, P. 1997. “The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization,”
WORLD POLITICS 51/1, 62-87.
Chayes, A. and A. H. Chayes. 1995. THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY: COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AGREEMENTS. Harvard University Press.
Bartelson, J. 1995. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
Barkin, S. and B. Cronin. 1994. “The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of
Sovereignty in International Relations.” International Organization 48: 107-130.
Nozick, R. 2013. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
Jackson, R. 2008. Classical and Modern Thought on International Relations: From Anarchy to Cosmopolis. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hurd, I. 2007. AFTER ANARCHY. Princeton University Press.
Schmidt, B. C. 1998. THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE OF ANARCHY: A DISCIPLINARY HISTORY OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Albany: SUNY Press.
Lake, D. 1996. “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations,” INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION 50/1: 1-33.
Wendt, A. 1992. “Anarchy is what States Make of It.” International Organization 46: 391-426.
Milner, H. 1991. “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique,” REVIEW
OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, reprinted in Baldwin, David, ed. 1993. NEOREALISM AND
NEOLIBERALISM. Columbia University Press.
Grieco, J. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal
Institutionalism,’ INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 42/3: 485-508.
Oye, K. 1985. “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies,” WORLD
POLITICS 38: 1-234.
Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.
Meeting 3: Dominate Paradigms and the Prospects and Conditions for Cooperation (January 18)
Realism/(Neorealism)
Political liberalism/Idealism
Potential book critique: Bernstein, S. and L. W. Pauly. 2007. GLOBAL LIBERALISM AND POLITICAL ORDER. State University of New York.
Recommended reading:
Elman, C. and M. Jensen, eds. 2014 THE REALISM READER. Routledge.
Gruber, L. 2000. Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. Princeton
University Press.
Holsti, O. R. 1998. "Models of International Relations: Realist and Neoliberal Perspectives on Conflict
and Cooperation," in C. Kegley and E. Wittkoff, eds. THE GLOBAL AGENDA, 5th ed. New York:
McGraw Hill: 131-44.
Schweller, R. L. and D. Priess. 1997. “A Tale of Two Realisms: Expanding the Institutions Debate,”
MERSON INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW. 41/1: 1-32.
Mearsheimer, J. 1994-95. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19:
5-49.
Baldwin, David, ed. 1993. NEOREALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM. Columbia University Press.
Nye, J. S., Jr. 1988. “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,” WORLD POLITICS 40/2: 235-251.
Keohane, R. O., ed. 1984. NEOREALISM AND ITS CRITICS. Columbia University Press.
Ruggie, J. G. 1983. “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist
Synthesis,” WORLD POLITICS 35/2: 261-285.
Russett, B. and J. ONeal. 2001. TRIANGULATING PEACE. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Ashworth, L. M. 1999. CREATING INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: ANGELL, MITRANY AND THE LIBERAL
TRADITION. Ashgate.
Keohane, R. O. 1989. “International Liberalism Reconsidered,” in J. Dunn, ed. ECONOMIC LIMITS TO
MODERN POLITICS. Cambridge University Press.
Doyle, M. W. 1983. “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” PHILOSOPHY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
12/3 and 4: 205-231, 323-353.
Ruggie, J. G. 1982. “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the
Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization 36: 379-415.
Meeting 4: Change in the 1970s and 1980s (January 25)
Complex interdependence
Regime theories
Potential book critique: Hasenclever, Andreas, et al., 1997. THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL REGIMES. Cambridge.
Recommended reading:
Kahler, M. and S. Kastner. 2006. “Strategic Uses of Economic Interdependence,” JOURNAL OF PEACE
RESEARCH 43/5: 523-541.
Risse-Kappen, T. 1995. BRINGING TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS BACK IN: NON-STATE ACTORS,
DOMESTIC STRUCTURES AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, Cambridge University Press.
de Wilde, J. 1991. SAVED FROM OBLIVION: INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 1988. "Complex Interdependence, Transnational
Relations, and Realism: Alternative Perspectives on World Politics," in Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, eds. THE GLOBAL AGENDA, 2nd ed. New York: Random House: 257-271.
Jones, R. J. B. and P. Willetts, eds. 1984. INTERDEPENDENCE ON TRIAL. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Tetreault, M. A. 1980. “Measuring Interdependence,” INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 34/3: 429-443.
Bergsten, C. F. 1976. “Interdependence and the Reform of International Institutions,” INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. 30/2: 361-372.
Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye, Jr. 1977. POWER AND INTERDEPENDENCE. Boston: Little, Brown.
Waltz, K. 1970. “The Myth of National Interdependence,” in INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, edited
by Charles Kindleberger. MIT Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1975. “International Interdependence: Some Long-term Trends and Recent
Changes,” INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 29/4.
Rosecrance, R. and A. Stein. 1993. “Interdependence: Myth or Reality?” WORLD POLITICS 26/1.
Alter, K. J. and s. Meunier. 2009. “The Politics of International Regime Complexity,” PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS 7/1: 13-24.
Drezner, D. W. 2009. “The Power and Peril of International Regime Complexity,” PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS 7/1: 65-70.
Neumayer, Eric. 2001. "How Regime Theory and the Economic Theory of International Environmental
Cooperation Can Learn from Each Other." Global Environmental Politics, Feb2001, Vol. 1 Issue
1, pp. 122-147.
Young, Oran, ed. 1999. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGIMES. MIT Press.
Mitchell, R. B. 1998. “Sources of Transparency: Information Systems in International Regimes,” INTERNATIONAL STUDIES QUARTERLY 42/1: 109-130.
List, Martin and Rittberger, V. 1998. REGIME THEORY AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT.
Keohane, R. O. 1983. AFTER HEGEMONY. Princeton University Press.
Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. INTERNATIONAL REGIMES. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Strange, S. 1982. “Cave! Hic Dragons: A Critique of Regimes Analysis.” International Organization