Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, University of Pennsylvania

1. Big Business and the Wealth of South Africa: Policy Issues in the Transition from Apartheid

Author:
Andrea E. Goldstein
Publication Date:
12-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract:
The large-scale corporation is at the core of the process of introducing new technologies, developing new organizational and managerial methods, and commercializing new products and services – in plain English, of creating the wealth of nations (Chandler et al. 1997). The manner and extent to which corporations will promote a country's economic and social development depends largely on how well the institutions of the market, on the one hand, and of government, on the other, work together in that country. Modern history suggests that such firms emerged and evolved differently in various economic, political, and social settings. Many thought that trade opening, capital market liberalization, and the convergence in consumers tastes and economic ideologies would lead to a convergence in the forms of organizing, managing, and financing business activity. Nonetheless, even in OECD countries, globalization has not brought about the expected convergence of institutions towards a unique model of interrelations between business, governments, markets, and the society at large. This outcome strengthens the hand of those arguing that purely economic, technological, or legal explanations fail to explain the contours of big business and their behaviours. This is almost a truism in all countries, but it appears particularly challenging in analyzing changes in emerging countries undergoing a series of deep economic, political, and social transformations.
Topic:
Human Rights and International Trade and Finance
Political Geography:
United States and South Africa

2. Balances of Power versus Balancing: A Conceptual Analysis

Author:
Susan B. Martin
Publication Date:
05-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract:
This paper responds to recent criticisms of balance of power theory by arguing that those criticisms represent a misunderstanding of both the contributions and limitations of systemic balance of power theory. At the same time, it acknowledges that there are some problems with current work on balance of power, in particular with work that uses systemic balance of power theory as a basis for studies of state behavior. I argue that the problems with this current work are a result of the failure to make the adjustments required by the change in the level of analysis that occurs when one moves from systemic theory to the study of state behavior. In particular, there has been little analysis of what it means for a state to “balance.” To address this problem, I develop a definition of balancing behavior that is consistent with systemic balance of power theory, and then use that definition to develop a general model of balancing behavior. I then show how that general model can be used to integrate and evaluate different hypotheses concerning the balancing behavior of states. I conclude that both systemic balance of power theory and studies of the balancing behavior of states can contribute to our understanding of international politics, and therefore argue that we should resist the suggestion of critics that balance of power theory should be abandoned.
Topic:
International Relations, Government, and Politics

3. Domestic Structures and Democratic Foreign Policy: Peacemaking After World War II

Author:
Norrin Ripsman
Publication Date:
07-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract:
Unlike the comparative political economy literature, the literature on foreign security policy treats democracies as a coherent category of states, focusing on their commonalities rather than their differences. Both classical and contemporary theorists of foreign security policy have emphasized that all democratic states--states that are characterized by popular sovereignty, where the ultimate source of authority resides within the people as a whole -- share certain constitutional, procedural and normative features which affect the nature and content of their foreign security policies in similar ways. Using this logic, traditional Realists have argued that public involvement in the policy process makes democracies slow to react to international threats, reluctant to spend on defense, incapable of secrecy and war-averse; consequently, they conclude that democracies are at a disadvantage in international politics, where balance-of-power policies are necessary. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that democracies enjoy certain advantages at international bargaining, devote more aggregate resources to implementing their foreign and security policies, and are less likely than non-democratic states to have their policies subverted to serve the particular interests of their leaders, private interest groups or foreign countries. Moreover, as democratic peace theorists have recently argued, shared political norms and common political procedures prevent democracies from waging war against other democracies.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Government, and Peace Studies
Political Geography:
United States, United Kingdom, Europe, and France

4. Structural Liberalism:The Nature and Sources of Postwar Western Political Order

Author:
G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney
Publication Date:
05-1996
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract:
The end of the Cold War has triggered new debates about international relations theory. Most of the attention has been focused on explaining the end of the Cold War. Equally important, however, this epochal development raises new questions about the impact of forty years of East-West rivalry on the relations among the Western liberal democracies. This issue is not simply of passing historical interest because it bears on our expectations about the future trajectory of relations among the great powers in the West. Will the end of the Cold War lead to the decline of cooperative relations among the Western liberal democracies? Will major Western political institutions, such as NATO and the U.S.-Japanese alliance, fall apart? Will "semi-sovereign" Germany and Japan revert to traditional great power status? Will the United States return to its traditional isolationist posture? Our answers to these questions depend upon the sources of Western order: was the Cold War the primary cause of Western solidarity or does the West have a distinctive and robust political order that predated and paralleled the Cold War?
Topic:
International Relations, Government, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Europe, and Germany