Compare authors within the same theoretical tradition (liberalism) + critique
The review article MUST REFER TO at least 8 readings from the course reader
PLAGIARISM will not be tolerated!
Readings:
- Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye (1977[2012]): “Part I – Understanding Interdependence” (Chapters
1-3), in Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman: 1-51 - Doyle, Michael W. (1983): “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12(3):
205-235 - Moravcsik, Andrew (1997): “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”,
International Organization 51(4): 513-553
(I couldn’t download it here, because the file is too heavy. Probably I could send it in some other way if you
don’t find it) - Nye, Joseph Jr. (2004): “The Changing Nature of Power”, in Soft Power. The Means to Success in World
Politics. New York: Public Affairs: 1-32 - Fukuyama, Francis (1989): “The End of History?”, The National Interest (Summer 1989): 3-18
Take Keohane and Nye, Doyle, Moravcsik and Nye again and Fukuyama;
compare their assumptions about international politics. On which assumptions do they agree/where do they
differ? Why is international politics conflictual? Can we find cooperation anywhere? Who as the main actors?
What about institutions? Is peace possible? What is power? Why do states want it?
What modes of inquiry do the authors use (positivist, historical, constructivist)? What is the role of scholars
(advise policy-makers, or recite eternal truths)? How accurate is their proposed theory? In meta-theory: what
reality are they studying (ontology), how can they know (epistemology) and what methods do they employ to
find out (methodology)?
Critique: from realists (see that last Mearsheimer text in liberalism False Promise of Int. Institutions, critique
from constructivist and non-positivists such as Ruggie “you neoliberals are so neo-utilitarian and limited!”) or
critique from Cox we’re read of “problem-solving” theories (which include Keohane/Nye)