A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-169
Author(s):  
Philippe C. Schmitter
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-167
Author(s):  
Bo Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-164
Author(s):  
Milja Kurki
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pippa Norris
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

Introduction to comparative politics

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Caramani
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Empirical Science ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
The World ◽  
Comprehensive Introduction

This text provides a comprehensive introduction to comparative politics. Comparative politics is an empirical science that deals primarily with domestic politics. It is one of the three main subfields of political science, alongside international relations and political theory. Comparative politics has three goals: to describe differences and similarities between political systems and their features; to explain these differences; and to predict which factors may cause specific outcomes. This edition compares the most important features of national political systems and contains chapters on integration, globalization, and promotion of democracy in non-Western parts of the world. This introductory chapter explains what comparative politics is and discusses its substance as well as method.

Introduction to Comparative Politics

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Daniele Caramani
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Empirical Science ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
The World ◽  
Comprehensive Introduction

This text provides a comprehensive introduction to comparative politics. Comparative politics is an empirical science that deals primarily with domestic politics. It is one of the three main subfields of political science, alongside international relations and political theory. Comparative politics has three goals: to describe differences and similarities between political systems and their features; to explain these differences; and to predict which factors may cause specific outcomes. This edition compares the most important features of national political systems and contains chapters on integration, globalization, and promotion of democracy in non-Western parts of the world. This introductory chapter explains what comparative politics is, and discusses its substance as well as method.

scholarly journals GEOPOLITICAL TRANSFORMATION AND NEW TRENDS OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY IN THE CONDITIONS OF GLOBALIZATION

THE BULLETIN ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (390) ◽  
pp. 235-244
Author(s):  
S. V. Ryazantsev ◽  
L. S. Ruban
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Main Idea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Pacific Region ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
The World

The article analyzes the process of globalization and the role of the Russian Federation in this process. The relevance of considering the current stage of globalization is due to the strengthening of the inter-connectedness and interdependence of the world, which requires the improvement of interstate relations and mechanisms of global governance with the primacy of the economic aspect of the development of society in the conditions of the functioning of the global scale of production. The historiography presents the regulation of international relations from the Westphalian system (state-centrist model of the world) to the Vienna Congress and the attempt to create a system of collective security and regulation of international relations: to the League of Nations and the United Nations. The formation of global governance institutions is shown: the largest international intergovernmental organizations (UN, WTO, IMF, IBRD, G-8, G-20, etc.), the most important function of which is to determine the norms and rules of interstate interaction. The main idea of the authors of the article is to show the historical conditionality of the transition to a polycentric model of development, as it most fully meets the needs of society on a global scale. The main purpose of this work was to substantiate and confirm the characteristics of the role of Russia in the international arena at the present stage of development by empirical material obtained during international surveys of experts from sixteen APR countries (VIPs and decision-makers). Thus, among the current trends in global development, the authors highlight the dilemma globalism - sovereignty and the correlation of globalism - transregionalism, in particular, the concept of the Indian-Pacific region (Indo-Pacific) instead of the Asia-Pacific region, put forward by the United States, Japan, Australia and India and the concept of "One belt is one road ”, initiated by China. Another trans-regional structure, such as BRICS, remains largely insufficiently structured, institutionalized and little realized in the specific political and economic activities of the countries that gave the name to this abbreviation.

scholarly journals Bad World: The Negativity Bias in International Politics

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic D.P. Johnson ◽  
Dominic Tierney
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Negative Information ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Negativity Bias ◽  
Positive Information ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
New Research

A major puzzle in international relations is why states privilege negative over positive information. States tend to inflate threats, exhibit loss aversion, and learn more from failures than from successes. Rationalist accounts fail to explain this phenomenon, because systematically overweighting bad over good may in fact undermine state interests. New research in psychology, however, offers an explanation. The “negativity bias” has emerged as a fundamental principle of the human mind, in which people's response to positive and negative information is asymmetric. Negative factors have greater effects than positive factors across a wide range of psychological phenomena, including cognition, motivation, emotion, information processing, decision-making, learning, and memory. Put simply, bad is stronger than good. Scholars have long pointed to the role of positive biases, such as overconfidence, in causing war, but negative biases are actually more pervasive and may represent a core explanation for patterns of conflict. Positive and negative dispositions apply in different contexts. People privilege negative information about the external environment and other actors, but positive information about themselves. The coexistence of biases can increase the potential for conflict. Decisionmakers simultaneously exaggerate the severity of threats and exhibit overconfidence about their capacity to deal with them. Overall, the negativity bias is a potent force in human judgment and decisionmaking, with important implications for international relations theory and practice.

Disarmament

2008 ◽  
pp. 286-299
Author(s):  
Keith Krause
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
Land Mines ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Small Arms ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
World Organization ◽  
Light Weapons

This article evaluates the achievements and limitations of the world organization in the field of disarmament. It stresses the role of the UN as part of the efforts to control arms as a way to achieve international peace and security. It also notes specific cases where progress was achieved or not, as well as the more recent efforts to handle the problems of anti-personnel land mines and small arms and light weapons. The article also tries to draw out some of the broader implications for international relations of the UN experience with formal multilateral arms control, among others.

scholarly journals François Fénelon: Modern philosopher or conservative theologian?

2021 ◽  
pp. 147488512110020
Author(s):  
Alexandra Oprea
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Education Of Women ◽  
Political Philosopher

Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document