Liberal Arts Political Science Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Notes
In the text below you will find notes on Foreign Policy. The notes cover the European Union and World Politics. The notes will help you in any Foreign Policy college course.
Note: If you are having trouble viewing this page or would prefer to view this information in a document viewer Click Here!
The European Union Notes
Introduction to the EU
-unlike most political systems, people don’t know what it really is
-What is the EU?
-Is it an international organization or federal state?
-How does it work?
-Why study the EU
-What does the EU do?
--Why is it important?
-How did the EU come about?
-What were the initial motivations for union?
-How has the EU developed over time?
-how have we moved from sovereign member states to given up currency?
What is the EU?
-Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
“I understand how the EU works”
-42% say agree
-perhaps trying to show off and don’t really know
-46% say disagree
-12% don’t know
What is the EU?
What political scientists say
-“Neither a state nor and international organization.”
-not exactly like US or Canada
-stronger than NAFTA and UN
-“Less than a federation, more than a regime.”
-“Middle ground between the cooperation of existing nations and the breaking of a new one.”
-A political system without a state
-what Hicks says
-actors inside have preferences, etc.
-but no state
What is the EU?
-The EU is a political system comprised of European states that has become increasingly responsible for political decisions in Europe and the world.
-what are rules in which decisions are governed in EU
-Hicks and Slapin words
EU Trivia
-How many countries in the EU?
-27
-Who are the newest members and when did they join?
-Romania and Bulgaria
-Who were the original six members of the EU?
-France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands
EU-US Comparison
-EU Population: 497 million
-US Population: 300 million
-EU GDP: 12.8 trillion Euro
-US GDP: 9.7 trillion Euro
-GDP total number of goods and service produced in the economy
-EU27 GDP percap (PPS): 25,800
-EU15 GDP percap (PPP): 28,700
-look at EU prior to expansion to poorer Eastern countries
-US GDP percap (PPP): 38,100
-US slightly wealthier
What does the EU do?
-Common market
-Freedom of movement of people
-Freedom of movement of goods
-Freedom of movement of capital
-Freedom of movement of services
-core objective of EU, to allow these things to move without hindrance
-first thing to get intregated was goods
-then people: can move across Italy, Germany, etc. is the same as moving across
state in US
-capital means move money around throughout Europe without levies
-movement of services hardest to integrate
-Monetary Policy: The EU sets monetary policy and prints currency for members of the Euro-zone.
-Germany, France, Ireland, all use Euro
-each country allowed to print its own back
What does the EU do?
Environmental Regulations
-Set standards for clean air
-Catalytic converters on all small cars since 1980.
-environmental standards come from Brussels, not member states
-EU Air Quality Management System.
-Set standards for waste management
-2/3rds of all biodegradable waster must be disposed of in a manner other than landfills
-blue bucket must dump food in it
How does the EU Work?
-Executive Branch: Commission & Council
-European Commission and Council
-when member states making decisions, Council has more power
-by itself, commission has more power
-Legislative Branch: European Parliament & Council
-lower chamber
-Council represents state interests in EU
-Parliament represents the people’s interests
-Judicial Branch: European Court of Justice
EU as a federal system
-Regulatory policies more harmonized within the EU than in the US (Donohue and Pollack 2001).
-EU court system better able to enforce environmental laws than in other federal states such as Canada and Australia (Kelemen 2004).
Competency comparison
-Hix chart
-p. 20
-in founding of US constitution, all decided at state level
-1940 see more 2’s and 3’s being decided at federal government
-EU jargon: competence, meaning able to make decision over an issue
-EU looks a lot like US, took later to become like this
-Europe came more centrally governed later than US
Why is the EU important?
-National parliaments must enact EU legislation.
-laws of national parliaments have to be in line of European integration
-Between 1998-2002 35% of all legislation passed by the German Bundestag was at the behest of the EU.
-had to pass legislation because EU said so
-EU sets standard and country has to implement it
-69.2% of all agriculture bills passed came from the EU between 1998-2002.
-The ration of EU bills to total bills passed has increased from 24% to 35% since the 1990-1994 parliamentary session.
-people vote same way cause have no choice if want to stay in the EU
Why is the EU important?
International Business
-New chemical directive REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals) regulates over 30,000 toxic substances
-in EU laws are called directives
-perhaps renaming things to make more palatable to people
-this affects a lot of people beyond EU
-“This will have a huge impact beyond the chemical industry…”
-Steven Russell
-if Dupont, have to meet standards in EU in order to sell to EU
-e.g., Microsoft got away with anti-trust violations in US, but not in EU
Why is the EU important?
International Politics
-World Trade Organization
-Middle east peace process
-Javier Solana integral in this process
-Iran nuclear weapons
-Climate Change
-Europe’s response to this
-US doesn’t talk to member state governments, but it talks to EU officials
Talk of integration
-Charlemagne, Charles V, Napoleon, Hitler
-Charlemagne talked about united Europe in 750
-leader of Francs
-Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor in 1500s tried to making unified Europe through force
and marriage
-Napoleon tried to do so through force
-Hitler as well
-Rousseau, Marx, Kant
-all talked about unified Europe
-Winston Churchill, 1946, calls for a “United States of Europe”
-ironic cause UK plays an interesting outside role in regards to integration
How did the EU come about?
-Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman seen as founding fathers of EU
-both Frenchman
-Monnet born to family of cognac producers
-problem solver and technocrat
-never elected
-developed a plan to coordinate war supplies across English and France
-while in committee of national integration in Algiers he said:
-“no peace in Europe if states realign on national sovereignty…”
-have to form into a single economic entity
-have to have some plan around union, but around economic integration
-Schuman was French foreign minister in 1950’s
-personally lived through a lack of integration
-thus amenable to Monnet’s idea of integration
-group on in area near border of Germany, area was French then German then French
Europe after WWII
-Destruction and devastation.
-Mistrust between the French and Germans
-French wary of Germans for conquering them
-Germans wary of being harshly punished
-harsh penalties after WWI did not work well
-created climate for Hitler to rise
-how do you rebuild Germany in such a way where no threat
-Growing threat of Communism leads to US Marshall Plan
-biggest source of aid to rebuilding Europe
-problem: more money in France and East Germany, thus French worried about
Germany being able to rebuild military
The Ruhr Valley
-German Ruhr Valley located in the British occupation zone
-Contains vast quantities of coal important for making steel.
-France concerned that if Germany regains control of Ruhr Valley, it can rebuild industry and war machine.
-Jean Monnet and Schuman recognized this
Schuman Plan
-Monnet proposes a plan to unify European Coal and Steel production to French Prime Minister and to Robert Schuman.
-use French iron ore and German coal
-Schuman thought great idea
-Schuman sees the potential of the plan and its importance for creating a stable Europe.
-Presents plan to German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
-Schuman a Christian Democrat
-Adeneur a Christian Democrat
-similar political views
-Adeneur agrees
-May 9th 1950: Schuman Declaration announcing creation of the European Coal and Steel Community
-seen as birthday for EU
ECSC
-Who belongs? Germany, France, Benelux, Italy
-Who’s missing? UK
-UK wary of a plan that would limit its national sovereignty and jeopardize its “special relationship” with the US.
-French thought moving away from Atlancists trend better
-weary though of including UK
-Atlanticists is moving things through NATO
-then federalist plan
-America less involved
-see last semester’s notes for all three
-ECSC starts up in August 1952.
-regulate steel prices, steel amounts made, etc. at supranational level
-Institutions mirror those of the EU today: High Authority, Council, Common Assembly, and Court of Justice.
-Jean Monney 1st president of ECSC High Authority
-Common Assembly precursor to Parliament
-Regulates the free trade of coal and steel across the member states.
Other Treaties
-European Defense Community – and attempt to create a European army, but also included a plan for economic and monetary union.
-EDC
-Plan pushed integration too far. Died in France during the ratification stage.
-did not like the fact that cannot control money spent
-Gaullist politicians unwilling to sacrifice French control of military; Communists unwilling to accept German rearmament even under European auspices.
-perhaps way to allow Germany to rearm while giving France a chance to watch over them
-Charles De Gaulle a war hero
-spent most of WWII in London
-sentenced to death by Vichy government in France
-he had radio broadcasts urging France to stand up to Vichy government
-after founding Fourth Republic, he stepped away since no powerful enough post for him to take
-Gaullist are right wing nationalists
Birth of European Economic Community
-Dutch plan to create a European Community survived the EDC debacle.
-Called for states to abolish quotas and tariffs, set a joint external tariff, and unify trade policy with the rest of the world.
-joint external tariff is same tariff levied by all countries in EU to outside EU goods
-1957: Creation of the European Economic Community with the Treaties of Rome.
-in 1957 have all institutions in place that set up the heart of the EU
-two treaties at same time
-European Economic Community
-EurAtom
-oversee nuclear proliferation
Birth of European Economic Community
-1st name of EU
-comes into place in 1962
-it sparked an interest in integrating Europe further
-EDC first plan
-European Army overseeing Germany and France
-French like, Americans like
-too controversial for Gaullists
-De Gaulle’s supporters did not want to give up army
-French commies did not want to rearm Germany
EEC
-“To lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the people of Europe.”
-EEC tried to avoid federalist language and appear as if it was a superstate
-Retained the institutions of the ECSC with some name changes
-high authority became the commission
-the French opposed any name that sounded like European Bureaucrats had too much power
-Much more far-reaching
-first time four freedoms mentioned
-1) people
2) movement
3) goods
4) capital
-set up institutions to achieve these four freedoms
-was some resistance to these freedoms
-French most skeptical, they wanted protection of agriculture
-protecting wine, cheeses
-afraid that inferior products from other countries would come in
-France got their protections
-treaty ratified in French parliament
Rise of Charles de Gaulle
-Jean Monnet, De Gaulle and Delors very important in EU integration
-period of post colonialism in Europe
-Algiers give French real problems, in war for independence
-After crisis in Algeria, de Gaulle comes back from self-imposed retirement
-French military overthrew government in Aligiers then perhaps do so in
Paris
-4th Republic marked by weak government, weak coalitions
-De Gaulle says I will come back if you want me
-De Gaulle says he will save the day but have to rewrite constitution
-no more 4th Republic
-created a very strong presidential position
-he wins presidency
-Creates the French 5th republic
-Creates the Common Agriculture Policy (1958).
CAP
-Accounts for a large amount of the EU budget.
-agricultural subsidies
-some argue that bad policy, creates big problem international policy, hurts developing
countries
-A massive subsidy for French farmers
-Brits say this
-But was a very effective way to quickly modernize European agriculture.
-horse and plow to modernization
-kind of face for EU
-first big thing that De Gaulle did
Empty Chair Crisis
-another thing De Gaulle did, but not well for integration
-1965: Commission puts forward a plan to fund the CAP mainly through levies on agriculture imports.
-up until this point, all EU funding came from member states
-Commission wanted to created a source of funding for itself
-levies, or tariffs, would bypass member states and go directly to Commission
-Would give the EC its “own resources.”
Strongly opposed by De Gaulle.
-EC is called European Community
-De Gaulle attacks notion of Qualified Majority Voting. Insists France needs a veto over matters of national interest.
-Council of Ministers
-representatives of governments themselves that get together on policy
-before this all six had to agree to get policy passed
-but clause said that after 1965 could have qualified majority
-5 out of 6 could agree and policy would go forth
-De Gaulle did not like this, cause could get rid of nice CAP policy and
France would have no say
-Walks out of Council meeting and boycotts all meetings until issue is resolved.
-January 1966: interim agreement on CAP financing reached. QMV postponed.
-introduction of qualified majority voting is postponed
-idea of having policy with 5 of 6 supporting is scrapped
-De Gaulle gets France’s veto
-thus much harder to do anything
-much more difficult for EU to do everything
-could not leave France out cause big economy so vital to EC
UK Membership
-De Gaulle skeptical of British membership.
-cause British wanted to get rid of CAP
-also cause Brits tied to America with special relationship
-wanted to due things through NATO
-De Gaulle wants a “European” EC with the French at the helm.
-Skeptical of UK’s relationship with the US & UK’s trading relationships with the commonwealth countries.
-UK had special relationships with trade policies in commonwealth countries.
-hard to harmonize them in EC if Brits came in
UK Membership
-British bids for membership killed by de Gaulle in 1961 and 1967.
-UK gains membership in 1973.
-EC is becoming more and more important for the UK.
-trading relationship for UK used to be with commonwealth and America
-but by 70’s commonwealth relationship quite unimportant, so that issue
went away
-picture of Graph: UK Trade with EEC Countries
-within a few years of membership in EEC, half of trade going to member states of EC
-But British public opinion very divided.
-even today, they consider continental Europeans different then them
-Labour wins the election in 1975 calling for a referendum on British membership.
-conservatives bring Brits into EC cause they are pro business party
-labour and labour constituents quite skeptical
-picture of graph
-same time UK joined Ireland also joined
-but still unanimity, thus harder to reach agreement
Eurosclerosis
-Late 1960’s – early 1980’s known as period of Eurosclerosis.
-harder to do anything, thus less integration
-debate between ever deepening Europe vs. ever widening Europe
-ever deepening: Brussels doing more things
-ever widening: including more countries
-as more countries, need more agreement and harder to get deeper
-Beside enlargement, there is a lack of integration.
-Council decision-making blocked after Empty Chair Crisis
-British renegotiation and referendum
-Labour wants to pay less money to Brussels
-Thatcher budget rebate
-by this time, cost of CAP is becoming apparent
-it is becoming quite apparent to Thatcher
-money going to French farmers is largely from British
-UK has less agriculture, thus got less money
-she wanted money back
-Agriculture policy out of control
-by late 70’s CAP becoming a thorn in side of European integration
-25th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome (1982):
“a feeble cardiac patient whose condition is so poor that he cannot even be disturbed by a birthday party.” EP president
Currency Problems
-Fluctuations in currencies hinders trade.
-risk involved in trading with fluctuating currencies
-don’t want to risk if foreign currency plummets and have to sell things
cheaper
-shown with Airbus
-Bretton Woods system ends in early 1970s
-dollar pegged to gold, all other currencies pegged to the dollar
-all major world currencies tied together
-so no risk of French frank dropping
-in 60’s US spent a lot on Vietnam and Great Society
-US printed more money and thus dollar worth less
-not worth gold anymore
-created a problem in Europe, French with print more money in economic
crisis
-In mid-late 1970’s the D-Mark was strong while French Frank and British pound were weak.
-Also Italian Lira
-Attempts to link currencies together in the “snake” failed.
-did not work well cause no mechanism to protect people from printing money
-at time it looked to be a pretty bad thing
-disincentive to trade because of currency risk
-but did lead to next step of monetary union
Some high points
-Launch of the EMS in 1979 on a proposal from Roy Jenkins, Commission President.
-Consisted of a European Currency Unit (ECU). National currencies could fluctuate within a small band.
-different from snake cause there was a benchmark things were tied to
-also budget goals for governments
-so would not defaults on currencies
-Mitterand wins in 1981 and institutes socialist agenda of state intervention and regulation.
-French runs up big deficit
-With increased state spending, Frank plummets and must be revalued within the EMS.
-tried snake, but did not work
-tried ECU
-but no one would not commit to not being able to spend money
Some high points cont
-Direct election of the European Parliament in 1979.
-Treaty of Rome had called for a directly elected Parliament but it had never been implemented.
-Alitero Spinelli, Italian MEP, leads drive for overhaul of EC treaty.
-big federalist
From EC to EU
-Jacques Delors becomes Commission President in 1985
-Sets goal of completing Common Market by 1992, ending Eurosclerosis.
-wanted common currency
-get rid of borders for free movement of people and goods
-Iberian Accession spurs plans for new treaty.
-Accession from Spain and Portugal
-Enlargement to 12 states meant current decision-making processes were untenable.
-The French collapse in 1981 demonstrated need for Economic and Monetary Union.
-But EMU could not occur without streamlined decision-making procedures.
-Delors said need a plan to streamlined decision-making before can move ahead with monetary union
-unanimity is hindrance
Single European Act
-Intergovernmental conference to reform treaties began in September 1985.
-Created Single European Act
-became the second most important documented after Treaty of Rome
-Treaty of Rome founded, then for first time after they made drafted changes to treaty
-Ended unanimity rule in the Council. Increased powers of the EP, paved the way for EMU, increased cooperation on foreign policy
Move to EMU
-Linked to events in Eastern Europe and German reunification.
-Helmet Kohl wanted reunification and wanted it fast
-but French wary
-De Gaulle: “I prefer Germany so much I want two of them”
-divided means less threat
-France wants EMU to tie hands and prevent currency fluctuations, but is wary of a united Germany.
-Germany wants to reunite but is wary of EMU with France as a member.
-France is not fiscally responsible
-Compromise
-France agrees to support German reunification.
-Germany agrees to EMU, but only under the conditions that mirror the German economic system – strong central bank with the specific aim of preventing inflation.
-strong federal reserve located in Frankfurt
-out of it, France gets a strong currency (cause their hand is tied)
1992 Treaty on European Union
-Once again increases power of EP. Gives it veto rights.
-Creates monetary union. Strong central bank in Frankfurt, modeled on German Bundesbank.
-Three pillar structure (Economic Union, Foreign policy, Justice and Home Affairs
-three pillar structure, thus called European Union
-Economic Union traditional realm of European Community
-Foreign policy hard to implement, never successful
-Justice and home affairs: policing, criminal activity
-had to start thinking of issues and criminal justices
-with people crossing borders can create issues when people make crime
Ratification difficulties
-Treaty revealed a strong federalist (Germany, France, etc.) vs. anti-federalist (UK, Denmark) divide.
-Ratification falls in Danish referendum.
-giving up currency was difficult to swallow for anti-federalist countries
-UK and Denmark ratify treaty only after securing an opt-out from monetary union.
-Denmark and UK doesn’t use the Euro
-Two-speed Europe?
-if really wanted to push integration, some states may have to be able or left behind
-or Europe a la carte
-order different things off the menu for integration
-this has not really happened, must people either for or against integration policies
Post Maastricht
-Enlargement to 15 (1994)
-Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
-attempts to reform decision making rules, countries in Eastern Europe that were communist falling, thus change decision making to be able to incorporate more states
-largely this failed
-Treaty of Nice (2001)
-Enlargement to 25 (2004)
-Failed Constitution (2005)
-Constitution drafted but after drafted it had to go ratification
-Constitution knocked down by France and Netherlands in popular referendum
-these countries originally part of the European Coal and Steel Community -it had EU National Anthem, flag, etc.
-this all gotten rid of, now just rules
-France said would not need to have a popular referendum to support
-Enlargement to 27 (2007)
-added Romania and Bulgaria
Explaining integration
-Sui Generis?
-early writings on EU said integration was sui generis theories
-explanations of EU integration that says EU is unique
-cannot be described by comparative and IR theories since nothing else like it
-Sui Generis means of its own kind
-Historians may look in depth at all the negotiations to explain the process of integration.
-Political scientists look for parsimonious explanations of political events
-parsimonious: few simple variables to explain integration
-We want to find a broad theory that can potentially explain not only EU integration, but other forms of regional integration as well.
-Why did Europe create EMU, while Asia has not? Why is the common market more integrated than NAFTA?
Theories
-Theories of EU integration have been dominated by an international relations tradition
-today, Slapin would argue that EU integration is better studies from a comparative perspective
-Liberalism
-Realism
Tenets of Realism
-Nation states are the primary actors in the international system.
-nation states are the most important
-domestic politics are not all that important
-whether Clinton, Bush, FDR does not matter
-US interests shaped by other state actors in the world
-thus it does not make a difference who is at the helm
-Interact in a state of anarchy
Supranational actors play no role.
-state of anarchy: no central government—nothing to punish states for breaking the law
-UN can set up all international rules it wants, but if US, Russia, or UK break the rules, nothing to punish states for doing so
-international systems is such no way to punish states
-Power politics.
Tenets of Liberal Theory
-Actors other than nation states can matter for politics.
-Domestic politics does matter
-look at interaction with domestic actors and international actors
-Realist say MNC don’t play much of a role in international environment, a liberal
says they can have an impact
-such as Intel making chips in Costa Rica
-Liberals more likely to see other international actors as structuring
-Economics greatly affects relations among states.
-Realists see economics bringing bigger army
-Liberals see cross-border trade
-As economies become more integrated, conflict is likely.
-goes back to Kant, more dependent on each other thus less likely to fight each other
-such as bombing China, need them for economy
Liberalism & European Integration
-Ernst B. Haas. 1958. The Uniting of Europe.
-most important work
-he is really looking at European Coal and Steel Community
-founded neo-functional tradition
-Supranational actors drive integration forward
-intricately related to economic integration
-Do so in incremental steps.
Neofunctionalism
-Supranational actor proposes à Member states à Spillover into other areas.
a modest plan for integration benefit from plan -coal in Germany, iron ore in France
-Jean Monnet -do so by railroad, thus need train
supranational actor schedules linked up, also need border
proposes control to be less cumbersome
-also see integration in other areas that would be beneficial for trade
V -integrating in steel can show effects in other areas
-Supranational actors propse
new plan to integration new areas à Member states agree.
pace Integration proceeds at a
modest, but steady
-this is liberal theory, supranational actors play a large role
-problem: does not explain Eurosclerosis
Realist critique
-Espoused most clearly by Stanley Hoffman.
-Neofunctionalism cannot explain Eurosclerosis and gives too much credit to supranational actors.
-Integration is driven by the geopolitical interests of rational member states.
-Supranational actors do not have any real power.
-France wants to contain Germany and balance against the USSR.
-Germany wants to rebuild and balance against USSR.
-US wants Germany to rebuild, balance against the USSR, and keep an eye on France.
-Integration in the 1950’s benefits everyone. No need to even consider supranational actors in our explanations.
-Jean Monnet all nice and good, but can really be anyone
-works nicely during this time cause explains why integration came to a halt
-not satisfying to the liberals
Modern manifestations
-Multilevel governance scholars
-Marks Hooghe and Blank
-come from Haasian tradtion
-supranational actors matter
-Liberal intergovernmentalism
-Moravscik
-reformed realist approach
-supranational actors and domestic politics has a role, but states matter most
-even comparative politics got in this to explain, Garrett and Tsebellis
The debate
-Are nation-states or supranational actors at the heart of EU integration?
-MHB (Marks Hooghe and Blank) say states do not monopolize European decision-making. Theories that suggest they do miss out on important aspects of integration.
-clear shot at Moravscik
Transaction costs
-costs associated with doing business with one another
-Member states need to negotiation and implement collective decisions.
-Doing so is costly.
-difficult to bring all heads of states together and have collective decisions
-they may not have enough information about all aspects of policy
-They set up supranational institutions to reduce costs of interactions.
-Commission set up to manage issues, see who broke law, etc.
-Willing to do so because national politicians have short time horizons.
-delegate authority to European Commission
-may create trouble later on if have too much power, but problem could
happen in a few years and a politician may not be around
-politician has shorter time horizon then bureaucrat
Principal – Agent Problem
-Setting up supranational institutions creates a principal-agent problem
-Member state governments want to get something done, but it would be too costly to do it themselves
-agent may not want to do the same thing the principal wants to do
-Principal makes policy but must rely on an agent to enforce the policy. Problem arises when the principal and agent have different goals.
-Monitoring what the agent doing is costly.
-Agent has an informational advantage over the principal.
-US: principal is president and agent is bureaucracy
-president wants environmental policy and sends to bureaucracy to implement
-EPA may want to monitor differently, thus president has to monitor closely
-but EPA has an informational advantage
-Principal must create oversight mechanisms to find out what agent is doing
-Particularly problematic in the EU.
-Multiple principals may not always agree on the best way to control the agent
-If the principals cannot agree, the agent is free to do as it wishes.
Multilevel governance
-Because of the principal – agent problem, supranational actors (Commission and Court) have attained a great deal of leeway.
-National governments do not possess the power to contain them.
-Supranational actors gain more and more power.
-perhaps thus get increasing federalism of the EU
Multilevel Governance
-Stresses the fact that supranational actors have power
-they are important actors
-The EU looks like a federal state, where various policies are decided at different levels of government
Liberal Intergovernmentalism
-Draws on “realist” tradition
-States remain to sovereigns and do not cede power to supranational actors to the extent that neofunctional (multilevel governance) scholars suggest.
-Integration reflects bargaining amongst the most powerful states
-just look at what Germany, France, and UK wants, we can understand how integration
occurs
-in this framework: the Commission works at the behest of the member states
-Member state governments have preferences over European integration
-France wants more agriculture
-Mirascek incorporations some liberalism
-states are not black boxes
-These preferences are a function of domestic interests (i.e. farmers, business).
-governments listen to voters
-interest groups may want more integration and others may want less
-Groups organize when benefits are targeted and costs are diffuse
-Ex: Farmers. They gain a great deal from subsidies, consumers only pay a little bit extra.
-ex. consumers only pay a cent or two more when goods subsidize
-farmers will fight for subsidy, cause benefit greatly
-people won’t fight against subsidy, their costs are so low
-This means producers voices are heard most often.
-In France farmers voices heard
-IN Germany businessmen’s voices are hear
-The integration occurs through rational decision-making of member states at intergovernmental conferences (treaty negotiations).
-forums where governments negotiates EU treaty laws
-you can understand integration if you can understand bargaining at intergovernmental
conferences
-Bargaining game with distributional consequences
-Status quo, exit/exclusion threats, issue linkages
-bargaining game as in a game theoretic model
-distributional consequences cause some will lose and some will gain
-but also negotiate
-see picture in notebook
-exclusion threat: one country will veto to keep status quo the same, but other
countries exclude the country that vetoes
-exit threat: if you don’t give me what I want I will leave
-issue linkages: logrolling, one state agrees on one thing if another state agrees
on another
-doesn’t work that well in the EU
-Two-level game: Negotiations occur at home first, then multilateral negotiations occur, then ratification happens at home
-state says: look guys, if you don’t give me what I want, I will never be able to get it passed at home
-use skeptical public as a bargaining tactic
-States face the problem that their negotiating partners may shirk on their responsibilities after the negotiations are signed.
-They create supranational institutions to monitor member states after the negotiations
-Commission is not to push integration forward, but monitor
-Moravscik argues that supranational organizations actually make it easier to sell their agreement to skeptical publics.
-also supranational actors will prevent integration from going to far
-strange: cause countries skeptical of integration are those skeptical of
supranational actors
-Supranational institutions are important for monitoring member states, but they do not have much policy-making power of their own.
-Member states make the most important decisions at IGCs!!
-last two bullet points are Moravscik in a bubble
-last two theories are from IR tradition
Institutionalist Critique
-Everett reading
-Liberal intergovernmentalists overlook all the integration that occurs between treaty negotiations.
-court decisions
-legislation
-Ignore daily politics (i.e., the important daily activities of EU’s political institutions)
-Ignore the legislative authority of the European Parliament and the role of the ECJ.
-Neofunctionalists (multilevel governance) correctly examine daily politics.
-But overlook the precise nature of institutional arrangements and the preferences of actors.
-“Council is locked in a complex relationship of cooperation and contestation with the Commission and the Parliament” MHB
-if talk about relationship between House and Senate, this explanation would be too complex
-What exactly are these relationships? What are the transaction costs? How are they reduced?
Institutionalism
-Treats political rules (system) as fixed. Examines daily politics within the EU.-not as interested with rules,
-Examines the EU just as we would examine US law-making.
-Preferences + Institutions = Policy
-have to look at actors and rules
-What are the rules by which the EU makes policy?
-If preferences change, or institutions change, how does policy change?
-We need to who the relevant actors are, what their preferences are, and what the rules are.
-Which insitiutions have what powers? How does that impact legislation.
-Agenda-setting rights, veto power.
-veto power: if you say not and by no you block change, you are a veto power
-agenda-setting rights: if you have agenda-setting rights, you can make a proposal in which someone says yes I take it, or no I will veto it (cannot amend)
-can put policy right next to you
-perhaps more important than veto power
-have ability to make take it or leave it
-US Congress, closed rule and open rules
-had example in class with ideological spectrum and either accepting or rejecting
power
-EU offers a great opportunity to study the impact of institutions because unlike most democracies, the rules change over time.
-Power of the EP has changed/increased over time
-see 2nd picture in notebook
-if policy inside box, member state says no
-under unanimity, can’t change policy
-countries on left won’t allow change to right and vice versa, they will veto
-great, cause court can come a long and can increase integration, nothing states can
do cause other actors will not allow
-Single European Act smaller box:
-anything to left or right outside box will be overruled
-5 against 2, legislation will pass
-only those sets of points that cant be beaten
-rules change, easier to pass legislation, thus court is not as powerful as before
-sometimes courts and bureaucrats are more free to make decisions, depends on rules and actors
-core: set of policies that cannot be overturned
-Power of the court should expand when as there are more veto players
-reduce number of veto players, easier for state to reign in power of supranational actors
-During the period of unanimous decision-making in the Council, ECJ made a series of landmark decisions.
-these decisions drive integration forward
-QMV makes decision-making easier, but reduces the power of the ECJ and Commission.
Problems with institutionalism
-Focuses on daily politics and leaves intergovernmental conferences aside.
-A complete theory of integration needs to deal effectively with both
At IGC, states create the rules à Daily politics works
within the rules
New problems
emerge à Call for institutional change
The EU Government
-see picture
EU Executive
-Dual Executive
-Commission and the Council
-EU only polity with dual executive
-Political Power (policy proposals, legislation)
-in parliamentary govt, governments draft bill first
-Administrative Power (implementation and distribution)
-implement policy
-distribute wealth and goods
-this is the power of the bureaucracy
Commission Responsibilities
-To propose policy for medium-term development
-To initiate legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process
-Commission is only body that can do this
-To represent EU in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations.
-negotiations such as at the WTO
-To issue rules and regulations.
-not everything done has to go through standard legislative process
-such as president of US and signing statement
-To manage EU budget.
-To scrutinize implementation of the primary treaty articles.
-make sure member states are implementing treaty law appropriately
-act as watchdog
Commission
-Currently 27 commissioners (1 per member state)
-sit in building in Brussels
-Until 2004 enlargement, each member state had 1 commissioner except for the 5 largest states (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain).
-everyone agreed that executive branch with more than 30 members would be difficult
-large member states gave up commissioners for more voting power
-Due to shrink in 2014 to fewer Commissioners than member states.
-perhaps use rotation system, no one understands what this means
-tradeoff of representation vs. efficiency
-Once Commission president, five VPs.
-below them is everybody else
-Commissioners appointed by member states in conjunction with Commission President.
-Commission President looks at nomination from member states to see if acceptable
-usually accepts
-Commission President chosen by the member states
-College of Commissioners meets once per week.
-decide about policy
-Attempt to reach decisions by consensus, but any commissioner may request a vote.
-try to avoid voting know
-Votes are taken by a show of hands, and absolute majority is required.
-no secret ballots
-Outcomes of votes are confidential, although sometimes leaked to media.
-Once Commission decides on a policy, all members must toe the line of the majority to the outside world.
-Collective responsibility.
-ministers in government responsible for actions of every other minister
-not suppose to disagree with each other
-more likely to happen in a national government, since all government can fall at once
-more likely to tow the same line
-not so much in the Commission, loyalties of commissioners perhaps lie more with state
-Collective responsibility implies Commissioners are not supposed to display nationalist tendencies.
-goals of Europe suppose to come before member states
-Oath of office says they must be completely independent of home country.
-Not always the case (e.g., Romanian immigrants case).
-states fiercely protect rights for EU Commissioner
-Economist article
-Romania joined EU, go to Italy
-many Romanian poor, lived in tent villages
-wife of high up Italian minister killed by a Romanian
-lots of pressure by Italians to kick out Romanians
-now Romanians are EU citizens, it is more difficult to do
-fight played itself out in the EU Commission
-Italian minister in charged of justice and home affairs
-Romanian minister in charge of language and translation
-he speaking out for Romanian side of story, but language and translation
has nothing to do with the issue
-also Spanish minister supporting Spanish fishing rights
-Tension between EU ideals and nationalist reality.
Commission
-Similar to a PM: “First among Equals”
-everyone in cabinet government same as PM, vote counts the same, but nevertheless the
PM is in charge
-Some have been more influential than others: Walter Hallstein, Jacques Delors most influential; Jacques Santer least.
-Hallstein is German, real EU federalist
-Delors is French, helped pull EU our of Eurosclerosis, one of forces driving for single European Act in 1986
-Santer, PM of Luxembourg, notoriously horrible, his commission was corrupt and mismanaging, his commission had to resign mid-term
-Typically career politician, having previously held high position in national government (PM, Econ/Finance Minister, Foreign Minister).
-Sets overall policy agenda of commission, set agenda and chairs meetings of College, in charge of Secretariat General, which oversees work of DGs.
-DG means Directorate General
-this is heart of EU bureaucracy
Commission Organization
-Each commissioner is responsible for a portfolio
-like Department in US system
-Department of State
-Department of Defense, etc.
-Western Europe calls these portfolio
-e.g., in UK, have PM and a minister responsible for exchequer portfolio, defense portfolio, etc.
-part of problem of having 27 Commissioners is that you have to give everyone something to do
-some get prestigious portfolio, such as justice, others get undesirable, such as language and multiculturalism
-Allocation of portfolio determined by Commission Pres in consultation with Commissioners and nominating governments
-if you want to get agricultural portfolio, you want to get an expert in agriculture policy
-Commissioners’ Cabinets – hand picked political advisors who listen to interest groups and lobbyists, act as policy advisors, help with intercommissioner coordination, and oversee directorates general (bureaucracy).
-intercommissioner coordination: hammer out differences
-36 Directorates General:
-EU Civil Service (Bureaucracy).
-can have one commissioner fulfill more than one role.
-see p. 48 Table 2.4
-Fulfill same role as ministries in parliamentary government: policy development, drafting legislation, monitoring implementation.
-Each Commissioner is responsible for 1 or more DGs.
Selection and Nomination
-President nominated by the Council using QMV (Since Treaty of Amsterdam)
-Since Maastricht Treaty (1992) President and entire Commission must be “confirmed” by EP (investiture vote).
-investiture vote: in order for a government to take power, it needs to get support of parliament
-same thing in EU, in order for Commission to take power, it needs to get majority support by European parliament in investiture vote
-IN 1994, Santer barely confirmed by EP. Buttiliglione appointment rejected.
-European Parliament can vote up or down entire Commission College
-Berlusconi PM of Italy at time, gave Buttiliglione position
-he is very conservative, did not support homosexual rights
-problem, majority in European Parliament headed by socialists and greens
-Buttiglione slated to get justice affairs DG
-Berlesconi withdrew him cause parliament amount to vote down whole commission (since they could not vote to not allow just one DG)
-Santer removed for corruption
-Like Commission Pres, most commissioners are career politicians.
-Have held senior positions on national cabinets and are likely national party leaders.
-Nominations made by national governments, but portfolios assigned by President.
Regulations and Quangos
-Commission can issue directives/regulations without going through typical legislative process.
-Typical in other democratic systems.
-EU Competition DG has vast powers to make rulings on competition policy.
-competition policy breaks up trust
-Microsoft got in trouble with competition DG
-Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations: Regulatory agencies.
-European Food Safety Agency, European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products, European Maritime Safety Agency, European Aviation Safety Agency
-fight over where food agency should be located
-Berlescuni made joke that Fins don’t know food
-Do not have the full regulatory authority that a national quango might.
-those in US have more power to enact regulations
-Facilitate operation of single market in a specific area, gather and disseminate information, promote cooperation between industry and labor unions, execute specific tasks for the EU (e.g. translation).
-agency for multilingualism and translation
-important cause all of the languages
-bureaucrats running around translating things
Theory: Why a Commission?
-goal of Pollack article
-Monitor member state compliance with treaties.
-Commission has authority to set up agency to see if ruling on food safety is happening
-Solve problems of incomplete contracting.
-if treaty not particularly clear on an issue, you have to have some way of dealing with lack of clarity
-Commission comes in and provides clarity
-at times member states draft treaty, they don’t know about all the other things down the line
-create Commission to take care of problems when they arise
-Information: some topics too complex to be handled by member state governments in international negotiations.
-rather then spending time to get all information, they have Commission effectively deal
with information
Principal – Agent Problem
-Member states (principals) rely on the Commission (agent) to get things done.
-Commission the one that has time and resources to accomplish task
-PM of member state government does not have time to deal with the issue
-EU Observer
-EU unveils plans for biometric border controls
-tightening up controls who enters and leaves the 27-nation bloc
1) good example of current news
2) perhaps good example for paper
-pick one legislation and see how process works
-another story: US wants air marshals on transatlantic fights and went to Eastern
European Countries individually, rather than going through Brussels
Principal – Agent Problems
-But agents may have different goals than principals.
-Commissioners are agents of all member states but may have different goals for member state
-but bureaucrats, or the agents, are there for a long time and not subject for electoral concerns
-principals have much shorter time horizon (mentioned in reading)
-also bureaucrats want to legislate things that keep them around
-Agency loss due to bureaucratic drift (or slippage).
-perhaps wiggle room they get may lead to this as well
Eliminating Agency Loss
-Various control mechanisms, but some more costly than others.
-actual costs in monitoring people, may have to hire people to watch
-Administrative procedures (ex ante)
-before you delegate authority to agent, due so in a way that gives them less wiggle-room
-write down how you want things administered
-Oversight procedures (ex post)
-after you give agent authority, as agent goes about implementing policy, you have mechanisms to oversee agent
Control Mechanisms
-Ex Ante: Member states can try to control Commission through their nominations, but difficult to get rid of a Commissioner once they are in office.
-Commissioners may go native
-take position of EU rather than country
-may have conservative Italian Commissioner, than government falls and get socialist government (thus stuck with Commissioner and get agency loss)
-Commissioners appointed for 5 year terms, govts usually don’t last that along
-also Commissioner’s ideology may not be clear
-see this with appointing Conservative judges who wind up being liberal
-Ex Post: Fire alarms and Police Patrols.
-fire alarms: costs low, don’t have to monitor everything
-police patrols: govt sets up regulatory agent to monitoring everything
-Police Patrol Oversight:
-Constant monitoring, very costly.
-like police looking for crime
-Fire Alarm Oversight:
-Set up institutions which allow citizens to inform government if policies are not being implemented appropriately. Less costly than police patrol.
-in American context: call up Congressman to fix DMV since not getting driver’s license
Overseeing the Commission: Police Patrols
-Comitology system (since 1987).
-System of oversight committees set up by Council.
-Council wants to know what Commission is doing
-Depending upon issue area, Commission must submit to various degrees of oversight.
Comitology
-three different types
Advisory:
-Commission must refer proposed actions to committee.
-The committee may vote if necessary
-and the Commission must take the “utmost account” of them committee’s opinion, but is not bound by it.
-in advisory role, comitology cannot tell the Commission what to do
-Competition policy
Management:
-Commission refers implementing measures to committee.
-Committee votes by QMV to take a favorable or unfavorable opinion.
-If Committee takes unfavorable opinion, measures are referred to Council, which then votes.
-member states in Council in vote
-Commission has less leeway cause has to submit stuff to Council and if Council says no then policy does not go forth
-usually does not go Council because if it did the bill would not be passed
-gives Council a little more power
-Agriculture policy
Regulatory
-Commission can only adopt measures accepted by QMV of committee.
-A minority on the committee can request that the measures be reviewed by the Council.
-only a minority needed, whereas QMV needed for management
-Council can block measures through QMV and sometimes simple majority.
-Customs regulations, veterinary and plant health, food.
-can be more emotional for voters, may not want their standards changed
-more visible policy area than anti-trust law
-most power committee and Council has here
-Very few measures are actually sent to the Council through the Comitology system.
-This does not mean it is not functioning.
-Commission anticipating how Comitology system would respond
-Commissioners do not make proposals they believe will be viewed unfavorably by comitology committee.
-commissioners work with comitology people on a daily basis
-Clear trade-off between member state control and decision-making speed/efficiency.
-more control to let agency loss less of a problem
-speed/efficiency
-advisory role allows this
-no votes needed (which can slow process)
-but this may lead to agency loss
-thus there is a tradeoff
-in area of competition policy, Council willing to have speed
-in area of food safety, Council less willing see if bureaucratic mistake, government officials can lose their jobs
Fire Alarm Oversight: The Court System and Institutions
-Member states and Individuals have the right to take the Commission to court.
-individuals can also take member states to court.
-Court of Auditors monitors and reports on Commission’s implementation of EU policies.
-also oversee budget to monitor if money being spent appropriately
-they dealt with Santer
-EP can approve and dismiss the Commission.
-European Parliament
Methods and Costs of sanctioning
-What can be done if Commission is refusing to comply with member state’s wishes?
-Cut the budget – blunt instrument
-if cut budget of bureaucrats, cant implement policies (even those you like)
-Dismiss Offenders – difficult given rule of Commission.
-hard to get rid of Commissioners.
-Overrule Commission decision – requires a high degree of cohesion among member states.
-need high threshold of member states to actually get things done.
-some member states may like implementation
-one agent and numerous principals
-Noncompliance – may involve significant costs in terms of reputation among other member states.
-at end of day, Commission relies on local level bureaucrats to actually implement things
-e.g., EU law regarding bathing waters
-Brits decided not to comply
-Austria says you jerks, next time we have to deal with you we won’t give
you anything
-Change Mandate – Treaty revision (nuclear option: exceedingly effective, but very difficult to use). Not very credible.
-chances to change create are exceedingly low
Commission Summary
-Commission has a great deal of power to implement policy.
-Member states do possess mechanisms to control “runaway” Commission bureaucrats.
-But using these methods involves a trade-off between agency loss and decision-making efficiency.
-Moreover, methods of sanctioning are often costly to use.
Council
-Commission forms only part of Executive branch, second part is composed of the Council
-Council, composed of member states, forms the second half of EU’s dual executive.
-Council sets long term goals of EU at treaty negotiations.
-Council has executive political power in terms of long term goals (through writing treaties)
-Two Councils:
-European Council (heads of government) sets medium term agenda.
-Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, come together to discuss medium and long term agenda
-Council of Ministers
-more of the legislative branch of Council
-if talking about finance, all finance ministers throughout member states come together to meet a and vote
-same with agriculture and other issues as well
Council’s Executive Power
-Member states must implement EU legislation
-local bureaucracies have to implement
-local bureaucracies have to test bathing water, for example
-Manage day-to-day administration of EU policies, along with Commission, through the comitology system.
-Sole executive authority over JHA and CFSP.
-Commission does not have any authority here
-JHA = justice and home affairs
-e.g., policing across borders
-CFSP = common and foreign security policy
-European Council meets four times per year.
-Chaired by rotating Council presidency (to be replaced by single chairperson serving a 2.5 year term).
-2.5yr term treaty not yet ratified yet
-some say ridiculous, cause small member states can chair, such as Slovenia
-Slovenia a small state, becomes face of EU
-two EU presidents
-president of Commission
-president of Council
-President sets outline for next six months. Guides work of lower-level Council meetings (COREPER).
-strange pressure, cause each presidency wants to do something so they will be remembered as a good presidency
-COREPER = Core of permanent representatives to the council
-thus want to get rid off, some things done may not be necessary
Review: Council as Executive
-European Council sets medium to long term goals of EU.
-Economist articles talks about how Germany take over European Council Presidency
-Angela Merkel talks about revised treaty, etc.
-through European Council member states have executive ability
-Goals include plans for enlargement, treaty revisions, major policy goals.
-Oversees daily executive authority through comitology.
Council as Legislative Branch
-also serves as Upper Branch of EU legislature
-The Council forms the upper branch of EU legislature.
-Like the US, EU has a two chamber legislature
-Directly elected EP representing the citizens
-Council composed of national governments
-represents states
-like US before direct election of senators
-Unlike other democratic systems, the upper chamber has more power than the lower chamber.
-in other systems, directly elected chamber should have more power than indirectly elected
-House of Commons and House of Lords
-House of Lords has less power
-similar in France
-in EU, directly elected lower branch has less power than council of ministers
Council of Ministers
-Consists of ministers of member state governments.
-Composition changes with issue areas:
-finance minister meet to decide on financial and economic issues.
-Agriculture ministers meet to decide agriculture issues.
-Frequency of meetings depend on issue area:
-Ecofin and Agriculture ministers meet approximately one per month. Others meet once or twice per year.
-areas that deal with a lot of issues, meet more often
COREPER
-Core or Permanent Representatives
-Much of the work of the Council is not done by the ministers themselves but by lower-level diplomats.
-COREPER II is the core of EU ambassadors.
-COREPER I consists of the ambassador’s deputies.
-70% of the work the Council accomplished by the national officialS below the level of the COREPER II.
Voting
-Council uses two basic voting rules:
-Qualified majority voting
-legislation can pass with less than unanimity
-Unanimity (largely confined to 2nd and 3rd Pillars (JHA and CFSP)
-In some areas of law where the Commission has the right of initiative, the Council can accept the proposal by QMV or amend it by unanimity.
-Commission has initiative in everything except foreign policy
-if no initiative, Council can draft own proposals
Qualified Majority Voting
-Not all member states are equal in the Council.
-Large states have more votes.
-But small states are over-represented per capita.
Nice Rules
-votes that are in table in book
-Luxembourg only 4 votes, but get 10 votes per million
Nice Rules
-prior to 2001 and Treaty of Nice, there was different rules
-Legislation passes the Council under QMV with 258 votes out of the 345 total votes. (Under QMV, abstentions count against the bill).
-under unanimity, however, abstaining does not count against decision
-20 states vote yes, 7 abstain, but bill still goes through
-perhaps unanimity in this case can actually be easier to pass bills than
QMV
-Legislation must be supported by a majority of member states, representing 62% of EU population.
-this comes into play
-three requirements to pass bill
1) 258 votes
2) majority of member states
3) those member states voting yes must represent 62% of population
-A coalition of Italy and all states smaller than Italy would have enough votes, but they would not represent a sufficient population.
-If a coalition does not include Germany and UK, it would need to include every other state to pass a bill.
-Having Germany on board is quite important
-Conversely, a coalition of the 14 largest member states could pass legislation even if the remaining 13 small states object.
-this never happened though
can meet all three requirements if this happened
QMV Rules
-Decisions over altering QMV are highly contested.
-biggest areas of contention was reweighing votes
-Poland and Spain benefited most from Nice revision
-Poland threaten to veto new treaty unless reweighed votes in way they like them
-Poland said Poland would have had larger population if so many
Poles not killed in WWII
-Member states clearly perceive the number of votes they have as an important commodity.
-Rodden finds states with more “voting power” get more money from the EU.
-Often conceived of as the number of winning coalitions in which a state is a pivotal member over the total number of winning coalitions.
-pivotal member: with support bill passes, without support bill does not pass
-Crude measure because it fails to take policy into account.
-assumes all coalitions are equally likely
-this is not the case
Voting Power and Transfers
-Nevertheless, states that are pivotal more often get more net transfers from the EU, all else equal.
-if have more voting power in EU, likely to get more money back from EU than put in
-States that have more votes per capita get more net transfers from the EU.
-smaller states
-this mirrors finding on US
-before reapportionment, districts overrepresented got more funding
-on top get more net transfers, on bottom more net transfers, in middle you get screwed.
-Why?
-why states overrepresented states get more money?
-places overrepresented look cheap in terms of vote buying
-vote for me and I’ll get you things in future
-Targeted payments
-States make side payments to gain political support from other states.
-Want to make the payments where it counts.
-Overrepresented states are relatively cheaper
-States more likely to be pivotal are a better buy as well
-this is like logrolling
-vote for my state’s bill and I’ll vote for you
Coalition Size
-Puzzle: If QMV matters, why is there so much unanimity in the Council?
-Between 1994 and 1998 79% of all Council decisions were taken by unanimous vote
-Even in issue areas where only QMV is needed, approx. 80% of votes are unanimous.
-puzzle about fighting over QMV, but when comes to using them they rarely dissent.
-in Council the people there do have member state agenda
Why Unanimity?
-Culture of consensus?
-perhaps should have pushed forth if not everybody agrees
-problem is then why fighting over QMV
-No state objects?
-if status quo is really bad, everyone agrees
-new issue areas
-problem is that many issues with unanimity are over issues 40 years old
-Unless policy status quo is very far away, or all states are in agreement, spatial models of voting suggest that at least one state should object.
Spatial Model
-see in notebook
-point: all votes suggest that you should see some abstentions under QMV
-see less unanimity and more consensus
Why Unanimity?
-these explanations more plausible than culture of consensus
-Even though unanimous consent is not necessary to pass a bill, all member must implement legislation at home
-council of minister passes a bill, other states who do not agree simply do not implement at home
-Even those who do not support a bill will vote for it once they realize it is going to receive majority support anyway.
-rather than pick a fight or extend procedure
-don’t be confrontational, no matter what they vote legislation will be passed
Votes Matter
-If QMV really did not matter because a culture of consensus, member states would not care about voting weights.
-Poland and Spain threatened to block new treaty unless voting power in council preserved
-member states would not make this argument if QMV did not matter
-Issues of reieghting cotes are always among the most contetentious issues …
Who Votes with Whom?
-Sweden, Germany, UK, and Italy cast more negative votes than anyone else
-Coalitions form creating a North/South divide.
-South is Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece
-North is Germany and Nordic countries
-Likely a rich/poor, agriculture/non-ag divide
-poor agriculture vs. rich non-ag
Council Coalitions
-graph
-see divide North/South as well as issues that can divide countries
Council Conclusions
-Less is known about how the Council operates than other branches of government.
-Minutes of Council meetings used to determine how member stats vote have only recently come available.
-if legislation fails, no idea how states voted on it
-Difficult to study close door proceedings.
European Parliament
-EU directly elected lower branch.
-No branch of EU government has changed more over the years than the EP.
-Council has more or less remained same
-Began life as the European Assembly, not elected, little power. Today, in many areas of EU law, it is a legislative co-equal with the Council.
European Parliament
-View of EP has changed over time. Once seen as a place to begin and end a career. Now more likely to be seen as a career destination.
-In many ways, it is like a typical legislative body – directly elected representatives, organized parties, committees.
-work divided into a committee structure
-In many ways it is not typical at all. Meets in two locations (Brussels and Strasbourg), multilingual, little media coverage.
-plenary sessions located in Strasbourg
-voting and debate
-offices located in Brussels
-multilingual: every single member in EP has a right to speak in his or her language
-translated into every language
-translators can hold EP hostage: if they go home at 5:00 so does EP
-big budget for translators
-passed big law on roaming charges in EU
-quite important on impact on businesses and media, but little media coverage
-no taping of debates
-no C-SPAN or CNN-like coverage for EU
-works like regular national parliament but in some ways it does not
Separation of powers vs. parliamentary government
-see picture in notebook
-parliament can get rid of government, and government can call for dissolution of parliament
-government is a part of parliament
-in order for government to survives, it needs majority support in parliament
-this leads to stronger party discipline and more cohesive parties
EU System
-see picture in notebook
-citizens election national parlimanets, which form national governments
-citizens elect European Parliament
-EP can veto Council, vice versa
-Commission appointed both by Council and European Parliament
-Commission doesn’t fall if it doesn’t have majority support in the parliament, things will
not just get done
EU System
-EU looks more like a separation-of-powers system. The Commission does not rely upon the support of a majority in the EP to be effective.
-Potentially lower party discipline than in a parliamentary system.
-In parliamentary system party discipline so high that doesn’t care about individual candidate
-In US you care about candidate
-White House does need support in Congress to keep job
-thus in EU you would expect that lower party discipline
-Formation of ad-hoc legislative coalitions
-in US you see different majorities on different bills
-more likely in EP than typical parliamentary legislature
-Parliament has more power to amend legislation from the Council and Commission.
-in other parliamentary systems, parliament is a rubber stamp
-this related to fact that executive is not reliant on the parliament for its existence
MEP Elections
-Sine 1979 elections have been held once every 5 years.
-not the case in national parliaments, they can call elections really at any time
-Member states chose their own electoral system. Goal of standard electoral system not yet achieved (although all states use some version of PR).
-PR is proportional representation
-UK has SMD for national elections, but PR for EP parliamentarians
-Each member state gets a fixed number of MEPs based on size. National parties select candidates to run for seats in the EP.
-conservatives vs labour in UK, etc.
-Campaigns run by national parties on national issues
-elections seen as referendums on national governments
-if don’t like what national government is doing, vote candidates to EP which are not a party in the national government
-elected on national issues but then have to decide on European ones
Legislative Organization
-Once in the EP, national parties form party groups.
-A group must consist of at least 19 MEPs from at least 1/5th of member states. Party groups receive secretarial and research staff, as well as other financial resources.
-national parties come to parliament, once they go there they have an incentive to gather together with other parties to get resources to actually draft legislation
-The groups are in charge of rapporteur and committee assignments, allocation of speaking time.
-rapporteur person in charge of seeing a bill through a legislative process
-writes reports on it, when bill goes to committee they have to explain why bill should be passed
-lobbyist wants to speak to them
-committee assignment: if want to be on finance committee, be nice to group leader
-allocation of speaking time: if want to make speech on floor, for or against bill, you are
allotted speaking time by leader of party group
-can really support someone’s career
EP Seat Shares
-see table
-Anti-European: don’t want EU to exist
-Jens Peter Bonde
-crazy speeches
Legislative Organization
-MEPs serve two masters: national party and European party group
-beholden to national party cause that gets them elected
-beholden to European party group cause they control their advancement and career
-controls rapporteur and committee assignments, etc.
-problem: do I vote for what national party wants, so I can keep getting elected, or do
I support European party group so I can get nice assignments
-when vote against European party group, you have to speak and say why
-can say you are doing so on behalf of own party
-Usually, national party and party group agree, but when they do not, MEPs must choose which side they are on.
-National party controls their electoral prospects, but EPG controls their ability to advance their career within the EP.
-Often MEPs side with national party, but not always.
-about 90%
-most of cases where don’t agree, MEPs tend to side with national party but not always
Legislation Organization
-EP President and 14 VPs.
-form EP Bureau
-responsible for general administrative function of EP
-keep debates on schedule
-for politically purposes, who holds president doesn’t matter much
-party groups may even switch presidency during term
-EP Bureau, Conference of Presidents, Conference of Committee Chairmen
-Conference of Presidents is leaders of party groups and President of Conference of Committee Chairmen
-all activity hammered out by conference groups
-Conference of Committee Chairmen
-in charge of who gets what bill and where bills get shuffled
-decides which bills go to which committee
-Committees are very powerful when drafting legislation.
-look more like American Congressional committees
-Propose amendments (often take-it-or-leave it)
-being on committee gives you tremendous legislative power
Party Groups
-see quote
-Me deligation will vote for this directive
-lady wants to vote for it, but she has to side with national party group
Jens-Peter Bonde
-quote
-Anti-Europeanists
-commemorating 20th anniversary of Single European Act
-Monnet is founder
-Spinelli real European federalist
Inside the European Parliament
-two You Tube Videos
-one with Hans-Gert Poettering, President of EP
-talked about working with different factions in European’s People’s Party
-clip of parliament in action:
-whether EP has the power to censure Poland for homophobia
-voted to talk about it
-lots of absenteeism
-because only decision needed to bring to debate, need simple majority
-each member sits in front of little box that says yes, no, or abstain
-vote was roll call vote, vote saved in minutes of the parliament
-Liberals asked for a roll call vote, any party group can request that
-Liberals called for roll call vote cause they wanted to show they were on the
right side of the issue
Coalition Politics
-what informs role call vote, national lines, party lines, or ideological lines?
-There is no government, so there is no stable coalition
-An informal “grand coalition” of PES and EPP often forms to pass legislation.
-two biggest parties on left and right get together
-also plays to the idea of power sharing
-This has been taken as an indication that ideology plays little role in the EP, a sign of “democratic deficit.”
-perhaps not representing ideology of people
-though Slapin says this is not so much the case
Why a grand coalition?
-Technical: Legislation usually requires absolute majority of votes to pass (393 of 785). High absenteeism (65% turnout), means over 75% of present members must vote yes.
-although only majority requirement, it turns out to be a high threshold
-because voting take place so far away from Brussels
-spatial disconnect
-also can have two jobs
-can be mayor of city and also be member in EP
-also Berlusconi
-had reimbursement of airfare for MPs and staff, but people were abusing
-give money for most expensive ticket, they buy cheap just go and sign
and collect money
-Pragmatic: EP can better strengthen itself as an institution when everyone works together,
-who cares about ideology, we can make institution better vis-à-vis council or commission
-Institutional: Must pas moderate proposals, otherwise they fail to pass through the Council.
-most plausible
-left wing in Council of Ministers wont agree
-right wing in Council of Ministers wont agree
-this has to be moderate
Why a grand coalition?
-If technical threshold were the sole factor, we would not expect to see a grand coalition absolute majority is not required.
-If pragmatic explanation is correct, we would always see grand coalition regardless of the type of vote.
-In sample of rc votes, 1987-1996, GC formed on 61% of simple majority votes when not needed and failed to form on 31% of votes when it was needed.
-pragmatic and technical approaches fail
-Amy article
-Grand coalitions are likely to form in less contentious issue areas
-areas of left and right
-Amy Grapell
-Whether a grand coalition forms depends upon underlying preferences of both the party groups and the member states in the Council of Ministers.
-For example, much less likely to form on issues of workplace safety. Also less likely to form on issues of consumer protection. More likely to form on issues of public health and environment.
Roll calls and coalitions
Hicks et al., article table
-if ideology did not matter at all, you would expect PES and EPP to coalesce the most
-not the case
-socialist party most likely to coalesce with centrist liberals than right wing
-EPP most likely to coalesce with centrist liberals than socialists
Roll call votes and cohesion
-Degree of party group cohesion often measured through roll call votes.
-Hicks
-How often do members of the EPG vote with other members of the EPG?
-Cohesion has increased over time as party groups have become more important.
-Party groups more cohesive than national delegations.
-German democrat more likely to vote with Austrian democrat than German socialist
Roll calls and Coalitions
-Ideological diversity predicts coalition formation.
-During periods when the EPP and PES hold more similar ideological views, they form coalitions more frequently.
Coalition politics
-Hicks
-Ideal Points Plot
-S’s tend to vote similar to each other
-E’s vote really the same
-except for small group, who are British Conservatives
-vote more nationally
-on left get more left wing and more Euro skeptics
-on top you have pro Europe socialists
-picture sums up that party groups are pretty cohesive and there is an ideological
divide
-ideology plays a role
World Politics Notes
Chapter 1 Summary
* IR affects daily life profoundly; we all participate in IR.
* IR is a field of political science, concerned mainly with explaining political outcomes in international security affairs and international political economy.
* Theories complement descriptive narratives in explaining international events and outcomes, but scholars do not agree on a single set of theories or methods to use in studying IR.
* States are the most important actors in IR; the international system is based on the sovereignty of (about 200) independent territorial states.
* States vary greatly in size of population and economy, from tiny microstates to great powers.
* Nonstate actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) exert a growing influence on international relations.
* The worldwide revolution in information technologies will profoundly reshape the capabilities and preferences of actors in IR, in ways that we do not yet understand.
* Four levels of analysis—individual, domestic, interstate, and global—suggest multiple explanations (operating simultaneously) for outcomes observed in IR.
* The global level of analysis—a recent addition—draws attention especially to technological change and the global gap in wealth between the industrialized North and the poor South.
* A variety of world civilizations were conquered by Europeans over several centuries and forcefully absorbed into a single global international system initially centered in Europe.
* The great-power system is made up of about half a dozen states (with membership changing over time as state power rises and falls).
* Great powers have restructured world order through recurrent wars, alliances, and the reign of hegemons (states that temporarily gain a preponderance of power in the international system). The most important wars have been the Thirty Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II. Periods of hegemony include Britain in the nineteenth century and the United States after World War II.
* European states colonized most of the rest of the world during the past five centuries.
* Latin American countries gained independence shortly after the United States did (about 200 years ago), while those in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East became independent states only in the decades after World War II.
* Nationalism strongly influences IR; conflict often results from the perception of nationhood leading to demands for statehood or for the adjustment of state borders.
* Democracy is a force of growing importance: more states are becoming democratically governed, and democracies rarely fight each other in wars.
* The world economy has generated wealth at an accelerating pace in the past two centuries and is increasingly integrated on a global scale, although with huge inequalities.
* World Wars I and II dominated the twentieth century, yet they seem to offer contradictory lessons about the utility of hard-line or conciliatory foreign policies.
* For most of the 50 years since World War II, world politics revolved around the East- West rivalry of the Cold War. This bipolar standoff created stability and avoided great-power wars, including nuclear war, but it had harmful consequences for states in the global South that became proxy battlegrounds.
* The post–Cold War era that began in the 1990s holds hope of general great-power cooperation despite the appearance of new ethnic and regional conflicts.
* A “war on terrorism”—with broad international support but uncertain scope and duration— began in 2001 after terrorist attacks on the United States.
* The U.S. military campaign in Iraq overthrew a genocidal dictator, but divided the great powers and heightened anti-Americanism worldwide.
Chapter 2 Summary
* Realism explains international relations in terms of power.
* Realists and idealists differ in their assumptions about human nature, international order, and the potential for peace.
* Power can be conceptualized as influence or as capabilities that can create influence.
* The most important single indicator of a state’s power is its GDP.
* Short-term power capabilities depend on long-term resources, both tangible and intangible.
* Realists consider military force the most important power capability. International affairs can be seen as a series of bargaining interactions in which states use power capabilities as leverage to influence the outcomes.
* Bargaining outcomes depend not only on raw power but also on strategies and luck.
* Reciprocity can be an effective strategy for reaching cooperation in ongoing relationships but carries a danger of turning into runaway hostility or arms races.
* Rational-actor approaches treat states as though they were individuals acting to maximize their own interests. These simplifications are debatable but allow realists to develop concise and general models and explanations.
* Game theory draws insights from simplified models of bargaining situations.
* International anarchy—the absence of world government—means that each state is a sovereign and autonomous actor pursuing its own national interests.
* The international system traditionally places great emphasis on the sovereignty of states, their right to control affairs in their own territory, and their responsibility to respect internationally recognized borders.
* Seven great powers account for half of the world’s GDP as well as the great majority of military forces and other power capabilities.
* Power transition theory says that wars often result from shifts in relative power distribution in the international system.
* Hegemony—the predominance of one state in the international system—can help provide stability and peace in international relations, but with some drawbacks.
* States form alliances to increase their effective power relative to another state or alliance.
* Alliances can shift rapidly, with major effects on power relations.
* The world’s main alliances, including NATO and the U.S.-Japanese alliance, face uncertain roles in a changing world order.
Chapter 3 Summary
* The central claims of realism—regarding anarchy, state actors, rationality, and the utility of military force—have been challenged on a variety of grounds.
* Liberals dispute the realist notion that narrow self-interest is more rational than mutually beneficial cooperation.
* Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can emerge through the building of norms, regimes, and institutions.
* Collective goods are benefits received by all members of a group regardless of their individual contribution. Shared norms and rules are important in getting members to pay for collective goods.
* International regimes—convergent expectations of state leaders about the rules for issue areas in IR—help provide stability in the absence of a world government.
* Hegemonic stability theory suggests that the holding of predominant power by one state lends stability to international relations and helps create regimes.
* In a collective security arrangement, a group of states agrees to respond together to aggression by any participating state; the UN and other IGOs perform this function.
* Feminist scholars of IR agree that gender is important in understanding IR but diverge into several strands regarding their conception of the role of gender.
* Difference feminists argue that real (not arbitrary) differences between men and women exist. Men think about social relations more often in terms of autonomy (as do realists), but women think in terms of connection.
* Difference feminists argue that men are more warlike on average than women. They believe that although individual women participants (such as state leaders) may not reflect this difference, the participation of large numbers of women would change the character of the international system, making it more peaceful.
* Liberal feminists disagree that women have substantially different capabilities or tendencies as participants in IR. They argue that women are equivalent to men in virtually all IR roles. As evidence, liberal feminists point to historical and present-day women leaders and women soldiers.
* Constructivists reject realist assumptions about state interests, tracing those interests in part to social interactions and norms.
* Postmodern critics reject the entire framework and language of realism, with its unitary state actors. Postmodernists argue that no simple categories can capture the multiple realities experienced by participants in IR.
* Postmodern feminists seek to uncover gender-related subtexts implicit in realist discourse, including sexual themes connected with the concept of power.
* Peace studies programs are interdisciplinary and seek to broaden the study of international security to include social and economic factors ignored by realism.
* Peace studies acknowledges a normative bias—that peace is good and war is bad—and a willingness to put theory into practice by participating in politics.
* Mediation and other forms of conflict resolution are alternative means of exerting leverage on participants in bargaining. Increasingly, these means are succeeding in settling conflicts without (or with no further) use of violence.
* For scholars in peace studies, militarism in many cultures contributes to states’ propensity to resort to force in international bargaining.
* Positive peace implies not just the absence of war but addressing conditions that scholars in peace studies connect with violence—especially injustice and poverty.
* Peace movements try to influence state foreign policies regarding military force; such movements are of great interest in peace studies.
* Nonviolence—the renunciation of force—can be an effective means of leverage, especially for poor or oppressed people with few other means available.
Chapter 4 Summary
* Foreign policies are strategies governments use to guide their actions toward other states. The foreign policy process is the set of procedures and structures that states use to arrive at foreign policy decisions and to implement them.
* In the rational model of decision making, officials choose the action whose consequences best help to meet the state’s established goals. By contrast, in the organizational process model, decisions result from routine administrative procedures, and in the government bargaining (or bureaucratic politics) model, decisions result from negotiations among governmental agencies with different interests in the outcome.
* The actions of individual decision makers are influenced by their personalities, values, and beliefs as well as by common psychological factors that diverge from rationality. These factors include misperception, selective perception, emotional biases, and cognitive biases (including the effort to reduce cognitive dissonance).
* Foreign policy decisions are also influenced by the psychology of groups (including “groupthink”), the procedures used to reach decisions, and the roles of participants.
* During crises, the potentials for misperception and error are amplified.
* Struggles over the direction of foreign policy are common between professional bureaucrats and politicians, as well as between different government agencies.
* Domestic constituencies (interest groups) have distinct interests in foreign policies and often organize politically to promote those interests.
* Prominent among domestic constituencies—especially in the United States and Russia, and especially during the Cold War—have been military-industrial complexes consisting of military industries and others with an interest in high military spending.
* Public opinion influences governments’ foreign policy decisions (more so in democracies than in authoritarian states), but governments also manipulate public opinion.
* Democracies have historically fought as many wars as authoritarian states, but democracies have almost never fought wars against other democracies. This is called the democratic peace.
Chapter 5 Summary
* War and other forms of international violence are used as leverage to try to improve the terms of settlement of conflicts.
* Many theories have been offered as general explanations about when such forms of leverage come into play—the causes of war. Contradictory theories have been proposed at each level of analysis and, with two exceptions, none has strong empirical support. Thus, political scientists cannot reliably predict the outbreak of war. The two exceptions are: (1) that there are virtually no societies in which war and intergroup violence as means of leverage are unknown, and (2) that democratic states almost never fight wars against other democracies.
* States come into conflict with each other and with nonstate actors for a variety of reasons. Conflicts will always exist among international actors.
* Territorial disputes are among the most serious international conflicts because states place great value on territorial integrity. With a few exceptions, however, almost the entire world’s borders are now firmly fixed and internationally recognized.
* Conflicts over the control of entire states (through control of governments) are also serious and are relatively likely to lead to the use of force.
* Economic conflicts lead to violence much less often, because positive gains from economic activities are more important inducements than negative threats of violence.
* Some particular kinds of economic conflict, however, have special implications for national security.
* Drug trafficking creates several kinds of conflict that draw in state and nonstate actors alike.
* Ethnic conflicts, especially when linked with territorial disputes, are very difficult to resolve because of psychological biases. It is hard to explain why people’s loyalties are sometimes to their ethnic group, sometimes to a multiethnic nation.
* Fundamentalist religious movements pose a broad challenge to the rules of the international system in general and state sovereignty in particular.
* Ideologies do not matter very much in international relations, with the possible exception of democracy as an ideology. State leaders can use ideologies to justify whatever actions are in their interests.
* When violent means are used as leverage in international conflicts, a variety of types of war result. These vary greatly in size and character, from guerrilla wars and raids to hegemonic war for leadership of the international system. Along this spectrum of uses of violence, the exact definition of war is uncertain.
* Like other violent means of leverage, terrorism is used to gain advantage in international bargaining situations. Terrorism is effective if it damages morale in a population and gains media exposure for the cause.
* The September 2001 attacks differed from earlier terrorism both in their scale of destruction and in the long reach of the global al Qaeda terrorist network. The attacks forced dramatic changes in U.S. and worldwide security arrangements, and sparked U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime and destroy the al Qaeda bases there.
Chapter 6 Summary
* Military forces provide states with means of leverage beyond the various nonmilitary means of influence widely used in international bargaining.
* Political leaders face difficult choices in configuring military forces and paying for them. Military spending tends to stimulate economic growth in the short term but reduce growth over the long term.
* In the 1990s, military forces and expenditures of the great powers—especially Russia— were reduced and restructured.
* Military forces include a wide variety of capabilities suited to different purposes. Conventional warfare requires different kinds of forces than those needed to threaten the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
* Except in time of civil war, state leaders—whether civilian or military—control military forces through a single hierarchical chain of command.
* Military forces can threaten the domestic power of state leaders, who are vulnerable to being overthrown by coups d’état.
* Control of territory is fundamental to state sovereignty and is accomplished primarily with ground forces.
* Air war, using precision-guided bombs against battlefield targets, proved extremely effective in the U.S. campaigns in Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.
* Small missiles and electronic warfare are increasingly important, especially for naval and air forces. The role of satellites is expanding in communications, navigation, and reconnaissance.
* Weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical, and biological—have been used only a handful of times in war.
* The production of nuclear weapons is technically within the means of many states and some nonstate actors, but the necessary fissionable material (uranium-235 or plutonium) is very difficult to obtain.
* Most industrialized states, and many poor ones, have refrained voluntarily from acquiring nuclear weapons. These states include two great powers, Germany and Japan.
* More states are acquiring ballistic missiles capable of striking other states from hundreds of miles away (or farther, depending on the missile’s range). But no state has ever attacked another with weapons of mass destruction mounted on ballistic missiles.
* Chemical weapons are cheaper to build than nuclear weapons, they have similar threat value, and their production is harder to detect. More middle powers have chemical weapons than nuclear ones. A new treaty bans the possession and use of chemical weapons.
* Several states conduct research into biological warfare, but by treaty the possession of such weapons is banned.
* Slowing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the global South is a central concern of the great powers.
* The United States is testing systems to defend against ballistic missile attack, although none has yet proven feasible, and withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia to pursue this program.
* The United States and Russia have arsenals of thousands of nuclear weapons; China, Britain, and France have hundreds. Israel, India, and Pakistan each have scores. Weapons deployments are guided by nuclear strategy based on the concept of deterrence.
* Arms control agreements formally define the contours of an arms race or mutual disarmament process. Arms control helped build confidence between the superpowers during the Cold War.
Chapter 7 Summary
* International anarchy is balanced by world order—rules and institutions through which states cooperate for mutual benefit.
* World order has always been grounded in power, but order mediates raw power by establishing norms and habits that govern interactions among states.
* States follow the rules—both moral norms and formal international laws—much more often than not.
* International rules operate through institutions (IOs), with the UN at the center of the institutional network.
* The UN embodies a tension between state sovereignty and supranational authority. In its Charter and history, the UN has made sovereignty the more important principle. This has limited the UN’s power.
* The UN particularly defers to the sovereignty of great powers, five of whom as permanent Security Council members can each block any security-related resolution binding on UN member states.
* In part because of its deference to state sovereignty, the UN has attracted virtually universal membership of the world’s states, including all the great powers.
* Each of the 191 UN member states has one vote in the General Assembly, which serves mainly as a world forum and an umbrella organization for social and economic development efforts.
* The Security Council has ten rotating member states and five permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France.
* The UN is administered by international civil servants in the Secretariat, headed by the secretary-general.
* The regular UN budget plus all peacekeeping missions together amount to far less than 1 percent of what the world spends on military forces.
* Voting patterns and coalitions in the UN have changed over the years with the expanding membership and changing conditions. Currently U.S.-UN relations are tense because of conflicts over Iraq.
* UN peacekeeping forces are deployed in regional conflicts in five world regions. Their main role is to monitor compliance with agreements such as cease-fires, disarmament plans, and fair election rules. They were scaled back dramatically in 1995–1997, then grew rapidly again in 1998–2001.
* UN peacekeepers operate under UN command and flag. Sometimes national troops operate under their own flag and command to carry out UN resolutions.
* IOs include UN programs (mostly on economic and social issues), autonomous UN agencies, and organizations with no formal tie to the UN. This institutional network helps to strengthen and stabilize the rules of IR.
* International law, the formal body of rules for state relations, derives from treaties (most importantly), custom, general principles, and legal scholarship—not from legislation passed by any government.
* International law is difficult to enforce and is enforced in practice by national power, international coalitions, and the practice of reciprocity.
* The World Court hears grievances of one state against another but cannot infringe on state sovereignty in most cases. It is an increasingly useful avenue for arbitrating relatively minor conflicts.
* Most cases involving international relations are tried in national courts, where a state can enforce judgments within its own territory.
* A permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) began operations in 2003. Taking over from two UN tribunals, it will hear cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, starting with war crimes in Sudan.
* In international law, the rights of diplomats have long had special status. Embassies are considered to be the territory of their home country.
* Laws of war are also long-standing and well established. They distinguish combatants from civilians, giving each certain rights and responsibilities. Guerrilla wars and ethnic conflicts have blurred these distinctions.
* Wars of aggression violate norms of just war—one waged only to repel or punish aggression. It is sometimes (but not always) difficult to identify the aggressor in a violent international conflict.
* International norms concerning human rights are becoming stronger and more widely accepted. However, human rights law is problematical because it entails interference by one state in another’s internal affairs.
Chapter 8 Summary
* Mercantilism emphasizes the use of economic policy to increase state power relative to other states. It is related to realism.
* Liberalism emphasizes international cooperation—especially through worldwide free trade—to increase the total creation of wealth (regardless of its distribution among states). Liberalism is conceptually related to idealism.
* Most international exchanges entail some conflicting interests and some mutual interests on the part of the states involved. Deals can be made because both sides benefit, but conflict over specific outcomes necessitates bargaining.
* Globalization is conceived differently by various scholars, but generally refers to the growing scope, speed, and intensity of connectedness worldwide. The process may be weakening, strengthening, or transforming the power of states. Antiglobalization activists oppose growing corporate power but disagree on goals and tactics.
* The volume of world trade is very large—about one-sixth of global economic activity— and is concentrated heavily in the states of the industrialized West (Western Europe, North America, and Japan/Pacific).
* Trade creates wealth by allowing states to specialize in producing goods and services for which they have a comparative advantage (and importing other needed goods).
* The distribution of benefits from an exchange is determined by the price of the goods exchanged. With many buyers and sellers, prices are generally determined by market equilibrium (supply and demand).
* Communist states during the Cold War operated centrally planned economies in which national governments set prices and allocated resources. Almost all these states are now in transition toward market-based economies, which seem to be more efficient in generating wealth. The transition has been very painful in Russia and Eastern Europe, less so in China.
* Politics intrudes into international markets in many ways, including the use of economic sanctions as political leverage on a target state. However, sanctions are difficult to enforce unless all major economic actors agree to abide by them.
* Mercantilists favor trade policies that produce a trade surplus for their own state. Such a positive trade balance generates money that can be used to enhance state power.
* States are becoming more and more interdependent, in that the well-being of states depends on each other’s cooperation. Some scholars have long argued that rising interdependence makes military force a less useful form of leverage in international bargaining.
* States that have reduced their dependence on others, by pursuing self-sufficient autarky, have failed to generate new wealth to increase their well-being. Self-reliance, like central planning, has been largely discredited as a viable economic strategy.
* Through protectionist policies, many states try to protect certain domestic industries from international competition. Such policies tend to slow down the global creation of wealth but do help the particular industry in question.
* Protectionism can be pursued through various means, including import tariffs (the favored method), quotas, subsidies, and other nontariff barriers.
* Industries often lobby their own governments for protection. Governments in many states develop industrial policies to guide their efforts to strengthen domestic industries in the context of global markets.
* Certain products—especially food, intellectual property, services, and military goods— tend to deviate more than others from market principles. Political conflicts among states concerning trade in these products are frequent.
* A world market based on free trade is a collective good (available to all members regardless of their individual contribution) inasmuch as states benefit from access to foreign markets whether or not they have opened their own markets to foreign products.
* Because there is no world government to enforce rules of trade, such enforcement depends on reciprocity and state power. In particular, states reciprocate each other’s cooperation in opening markets (or punish each other’s refusal to let in foreign products). Although it leads to trade wars on occasion, reciprocity has achieved substantial cooperation in trade.
* Over time, the rules embodied in trade regimes (and other issue areas in IR) become the basis for permanent institutions, whose administrative functions provide yet further stability and efficiency in global trade.
* The World Trade Organization (WTO), formerly the GATT, is the most important multilateral global trade agreement. The GATT was institutionalized in 1995 with the creation of the WTO, which expanded the focus on manufactured goods to consider agriculture and services. Intellectual property is another recent focus.
* In successive rounds of GATT negotiations over 50 years, states have lowered overall tariff rates (especially on manufactured goods). The Uruguay Round of the GATT, completed in 1994, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the global creation of wealth. The Doha Round began in 2003 and might conclude by 2006. Meanwhile textile tariffs were dropped worldwide in January 2005.
* Although the WTO provides a global framework, states continue to operate under thousands of bilateral trade agreements specifying the rules for trade in specific products between specific countries.
* Regional free trade areas (with few if any tariffs or nontariff barriers) have been created in Europe, North America, and several other less important instances. NAFTA includes Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
* International cartels are occasionally used by leading producers (sometimes in conjunction with leading consumers) to control and stabilize prices for a commodity on world markets. The most visible example in recent decades has been the oil producers’ cartel, OPEC, whose members control more than half the world’s exports of a vital commodity, oil.
* Free trade agreements have led to a backlash from politically active interest groups adversely affected by globalization; these include labor unions, environmental and human rights NGOs, and certain consumers.
Chapter 9 Summary
* Each state uses its own currency. These currencies have no inherent value but depend on people’s belief that they can be traded for future goods and services.
* Gold and silver were once used as world currencies that had value in different countries. Today’s system is more abstract: national currencies are valued against each other through exchange rates.
* The most important currencies—against which most other states’ currencies are compared— are the U.S. dollar, euro, and Japanese yen.
* Inflation, most often resulting from the printing of currency faster than the creation of new goods and services, causes the value of a currency to fall relative to other currencies. Inflation rates vary widely but are generally much higher in the global South and former Soviet bloc than in the industrialized West.
* States maintain reserves of hard currency and gold. These reserves back a national currency and cover short-term imbalances in international financial flows.
* Fixed exchange rates can be used to set the relative value of currencies, but more often states use floating exchange rates driven by supply and demand on world currency markets.
* Governments cooperate to manage the fluctuations of (floating) exchange rates but are limited in this effort by the fact that most money traded on world markets is privately owned.
* Over the long term, the relative values of national currencies are determined by the underlying health of the national economies and by the monetary policies of governments (how much money they print).
* Governments often prefer a low (weak) value for their own currency, as this promotes exports, discourages imports, and hence improves the state’s balance of trade. However, a sudden unilateral devaluation of the currency is a risky strategy because it undermines confidence in the currency.
* To ensure discipline in printing money—and to avoid inflation—industrialized states turn monetary policy over to semiautonomous central banks such as the U.S. Federal Reserve. By adjusting interest rates on government money loaned to private banks, a central bank can control the supply of money in a national economy.
* The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) work with states’ central banks to maintain stable international monetary relations. From 1945 to 1971, this was done by pegging state currencies to the U.S. dollar and the dollar in turn to gold (backed by gold reserves held by the U.S. government). Since then the system has used Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)—a kind of world currency controlled by the IMF—in place of gold.
* The IMF operates a system of national accounts to keep track of the flow of money into and out of states. The balance of trade (exports minus imports) must be balanced by capital flows (investments and loans) and changes in reserves.
* International debt results from a protracted imbalance in capital flows—a state borrowing more than it lends—in order to cover a chronic trade deficit or government budget deficit. The result is that the net worth of the debtor state is reduced and wealth generated is diverted to pay interest (with the creditor state’s wealth increasing accordingly).
* The U.S. financial position declined naturally from an extraordinary predominance immediately after World War II. The fall of the dollar-gold standard in 1971 reflects this decline.
* In the 1980s, the U.S. position worsened dramatically. A chronic budget deficit and trade deficit expanded the country’s debt burden. Economic growth in the mid-1990s helped bring the budget deficit down temporarily, but it exploded again after 2001.
* The positions of Russia and the other states of the former Soviet bloc have declined drastically in the past decade as they have tried to make the difficult transition from communism to capitalism. Though the uncontrolled inflation of the early 1990s has subsided, the economies of the former Soviet republics are about half their former size. Western states have not extended massive economic assistance to Russia and Eastern Europe.
* Multinational corporations (MNCs) do business in more than one state simultaneously. The largest are based in the leading industrialized states, and most are privately owned. MNCs are increasingly powerful in international economic affairs.
* MNCs contribute to international interdependence in various ways. States depend on MNCs to create new wealth, and MNCs depend on states to maintain international stability conducive to doing business globally.
* MNCs try to negotiate favorable terms and look for states with stable currencies and political environments in which to make direct investments. Governments seek such foreign investments on their territories so as to benefit from the future stream of income.
* MNCs try to influence the international political policies of both their headquarters state and the other states in which they operate. Generally MNCs promote policies favorable to business—low taxes, light regulation, stable currencies, and free trade. They also support stable international security relations, because war generally disrupts business.
* Increasingly, MNCs headquartered in different states are forming international alliances with each other. These inter-MNC alliances, even more than other MNC operations across national borders, are creating international interdependence and promoting liberal international cooperation.
* MNCs sometimes promote economic nationalism over liberalism, however, especially in the case of state-owned MNCs or alliances of MNCs based in a single country.
Chapter 10 Summary
* Supranational processes bring states together in larger structures and identities. These processes generally lead to an ongoing struggle between nationalism and supranationalism.
* International integration—the partial shifting of sovereignty from the state toward supranational institutions—is considered an outgrowth of international cooperation in functional (technical and economic) issue areas.
* Integration theorists thought that functional cooperation would spill over into political integration in foreign policy and military issue areas. Instead, powerful forces of disintegration are tearing apart previously existing states in some regions (especially in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia).
* The European Union (EU) is the most advanced case of integration. Its 25 member states have given considerable power to the EU in economic decision making and 12 have adopted a common currency, the euro. However, national power still outweighs supranational power even in the EU.
* Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952, the mission and membership of what is now the EU have expanded continually.
* The most important and most successful element in the EU is its customs union (and the associated free trade area). Goods can cross borders of member states freely, and the members adopt unified tariffs with regard to goods entering from outside the EU.
* Under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), subsidies to farmers are made uniform within the community. Carrying out the CAP consumes 40 percent of the EU’s budget. EU agricultural subsidies are a major source of trade conflict with the United States.
* The EU has a new monetary union with a single European currency (the euro) in 12 of the 25 EU states. It is the biggest experiment with money in history and had great success in its first years. Such a union requires roughly comparable inflation rates and financial stability in participating states.
* In structure, the EU revolves around the permanent staff of Eurocrats under the European Commission. The Commission’s president, individual members, and staff all serve Europe as a whole—a supranational role. However, the Council of Ministers representing member states (in national roles) has power over the Commission.
* The European Parliament has members directly elected by citizens in EU states, but it has few powers and cannot legislate the rules for the community. The European Court of Justice also has limited powers, but has extended its jurisdiction more successfully than any other international court, and can overrule national laws.
* The Single European Act, or “Europe 1992,” created a common market throughout the EU, with uniform standards, open borders, and freedom of goods, services, labor, and capital within the EU.
* The 1991 Maastricht Treaty on closer European integration (monetary union and political- military coordination) provoked a public backlash in several countries. Some citizens began to resent the power of EU bureaucrats over national culture and daily life. The treaty was ratified despite these difficulties, however.
* The EU took in three new members in 1995—Austria, Finland, and Sweden—but Norwegians voted not to join. Ten new members, mostly Eastern European, joined the EU in 2004. The EU’s structures and procedures are being adapted as it moves from 15 to 25 members. The EU faces challenges in deciding how far to expand its membership, particularly regarding Turkey. To some extent, the broadening of membership conflicts with the deepening of ties among the existing members.
* In addition to the EU and the associated European Free Trade Association (EFTA), a variety of overlapping groupings, formal and informal, reflect the process of integration in Europe.
* A different type of international integration can be seen in the growing role of communication and information operating across national borders. Supranational relationships and identities are being fostered by new information technologies—especially mass media such as TV, radio, and the Internet—although such a process is still in an early stage.
* Greater access to information increases government power both domestically and internationally. Governments also use the dissemination of information across borders as a means of influencing other states. Thus information technologies can serve national and not just supranational purposes.
* Government access to information increases the stability of international relationships. The security dilemma and other collective goods problems are made less difficult in a transparent world where governments have information about each others’ actions.
* The greater and freer flow of information around the world can undermine the authority and power of governments as well. It is now extremely difficult for authoritarian governments to limit the flow of information in and out of their states. Information technologies can empower ordinary citizens and contribute to transnational and supranational structures that bypass the state.
* Telecommunications are contributing to the development of global cultural integration. This process may hold the potential for the development of a single world culture. However, some politicians and citizens worry about cultural imperialism—that such a culture would be too strongly dominated by the United States.
* Transnational communities are developing in areas such as sports, music, and tourism. Such communities may foster supranational identities that could compete with the state for the loyalty of citizens someday.
Chapter 11 Summary
* Environmental problems are an example of international interdependence and often create collective goods problems for the states involved. The large numbers of actors involved in global environmental problems make them more difficult to solve.
* To resolve such collective goods problems, states have used international regimes and IOs, and have in some cases extended state sovereignty (notably over territorial waters) to make management a national rather than an international matter.
* International efforts to solve environmental problems aim to bring about sustainable economic development. This was the theme of the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
* Global warming results from burning fossil fuels—the basis of industrial economies today. The industrialized states are much more responsible for the problem than are third world states. Solutions are difficult to reach because costs are substantial and dangers are somewhat distant and uncertain.
* Damage to the earth’s ozone layer results from the use of specific chemicals, which are now being phased out under international agreements. Unlike global warming, the costs of solutions are much lower and the problem is better understood.
* Many species are threatened with extinction due to loss of habitats such as rain forests. An international treaty on biodiversity and an agreement on forests aim to reduce the destruction of local ecosystems, with costs spread among states.
* The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes an ocean regime that puts most commercial fisheries and offshore oil under control of states as territorial waters. The United States signed the treaty after a decade’s delay.
* Pollution—including acid rain, water and air pollution, and toxic and nuclear waste— tends to be more localized than global and has been addressed mainly through unilateral, bilateral, and regional measures rather than global ones.
* The economies of the industrialized West depend on fossil fuels. Overall, these economies import energy resources, mostly oil, whereas the other world regions export them. Oil prices rose dramatically in the 1970s but declined in the 1980s as the world economy adjusted by increasing supply and reducing demand. Prices spiked again around 1991 and have been high since 2000. Such fluctuations undermine world economic stability.
* The most important source of oil traded worldwide is the Persian Gulf area of the Middle East. Consequently, this area has long been a focal point of international political conflict, including the 1991 Gulf War.
* States need other raw materials such as minerals, but no such materials have assumed the importance or political status of oil. Water resources are a growing source of local international conflicts, however.
* War and other military activities cause considerable environmental damage—sometimes deliberately inflicted as part of a war strategy.
* World population—now at 6.4 billion—will reach 7 to 8 billion within 25 years and may eventually level out around 9 to 10 billion. Virtually all of the increase will come in the global South.
* Future world population growth will be largely driven by the demographic transition. Death rates have fallen throughout the world, but birthrates will fall proportionally only as per capita incomes go up. The faster the economies of poor states develop, the sooner their populations will level out.
* The demographic transition sharpens disparities of wealth globally and locally. High per capita incomes and low population growth make rich states or groups richer, whereas low incomes and high population growth reinforce each other to keep poor states and groups poor.
* Within the overall shape of the demographic transition, government policies can reduce birthrates somewhat at a given level of per capita income. Effective policies are those that improve access to birth control and raise the status of women in society. Actual policies vary, from China’s very strict rules on childbearing to pronatalist governments that encourage maximum birthrates and outlaw birth control.
* Death rates are stable and little affected in the large picture by wars, famines, and other disasters. Raising the death rate is not a feasible way to limit population growth.
* Although the global AIDS epidemic may not greatly slow world population growth, it will impose huge costs on many poor states in the coming years. Currently 40 million people are infected with HIV, and 30 million more have died. Most are in Africa, and new infections are growing rapidly in Asia and Russia.
* AIDS demonstrates that growing international interdependence—the shrinking world—has costs and not just benefits. Because states cannot wall themselves off from the outside world, international cooperation in addition to unilateral state actions will be necessary to contain AIDS.
* Population pressures do not cause, but do contribute to, a variety of international conflicts including ethnic conflicts, economic competition, and territorial disputes.
Chapter 12 Summary
* Most of the world’s people live in poverty in the global South. About a billion live in extreme poverty, without access to adequate food, water, and other necessities.
* Moving from poverty to well-being requires the accumulation of capital. Capitalism and socialism take different views on this process. Capitalism emphasizes overall growth with considerable concentration of wealth, whereas socialism emphasizes a fair distribution of wealth.
* Most states have a mixed economy with some degree of private ownership of capital and some degree of state ownership. However, state ownership has not been very successful in accumulating wealth. Consequently, many states have been selling off stateowned enterprises (privatization), especially in Russia and Eastern Europe.
* Marxists view international relations, including global North-South relations, in terms of a struggle between economic classes (especially workers and owners) that have different roles in society and different access to power.
* Since Lenin’s time, many Marxists have attributed poverty in the South to the concentration of wealth in the North. In this theory, capitalists in the North exploit the South economically and use the wealth thus generated to buy off workers in the North. Revolutions thus occur in the South and are ultimately directed against the North.
* IR scholars in the world-system school argue that the North is a core region specializing in producing manufactured goods and the South is a periphery specializing in extracting raw materials through agriculture and mining. Between these are semiperiphery states with light manufacturing.
* Today’s North-South gap traces its roots to the colonization of the Southern world regions by Europe over the past several centuries. This colonization occurred at different times in different parts of the world, as did decolonization.
* Because of the negative impact of colonialism on local populations, anticolonial movements arose throughout the global South at various times and using various methods. These culminated in a wave of successful independence movements after World War II in Asia and Africa. (Latin American states gained independence much earlier.)
* Following independence, third world states were left with legacies of colonialism, including their basic economic infrastructures, that made wealth accumulation difficult in certain ways. These problems still remain in many countries.
* Wealth accumulation (including the demographic transition discussed in Chapter 11) depends on the meeting of basic human needs such as access to food, water, education, shelter, and health care. Third world states have had mixed success in meeting their populations’ basic needs.
* War has been a major impediment to meeting basic needs, and to wealth accumulation generally, in poor countries. Almost all the wars of the past 50 years have been fought in the global South.
* Hunger and malnutrition are rampant in the global South. The most important cause is the displacement of subsistence farmers from their land because of war, population pressures, and the conversion of agricultural land into plantations growing export crops to earn hard currency.
* Urbanization is increasing throughout the global South as more people move from the countryside to cities. Huge slums have grown in the cities as poor people arrive and cannot find jobs.
* Women’s central role in the process of accumulation has begun to be recognized. International agencies based in the North have started taking women’s contributions into account in analyzing economic development in the South.
* Poverty in the South has led huge numbers of migrants to seek a better life in the North; this has created international political frictions. War and repression in the South have generated millions of refugees seeking safe haven. Under international law and norms, states are generally supposed to accept refugees but do not have to accept migrants.
* Many people throughout the global South have turned to political revolution as a strategy for changing economic inequality and poverty. Often, especially during the Cold War, states in the North were drawn into supporting one side or the other during such revolutions.
* Today the most potent third world revolutions are the Islamic revolutions in the Middle East. Even more than the communist revolutions of the past, Islamic revolutions are directed against the North and reject the Western values on which the international system is based. Like communist ones, Islamic revolutions draw support and legitimacy from the plight of poor people.
* When revolutionaries succeed in taking power, they usually change their state’s foreign policy. Over time, however, old national interests and strategies tend to reappear. After several decades in power, revolutionaries usually become conservative and in particular come to support the norms and rules of the international system (which are favorable to them as state leaders).
* North-South relations, although rooted in a basic economic reality—the huge gap in accumulated wealth—reflect the close connections of economics with international security.
Chapter 13 Summary
* Economic development in the global South has been uneven; per capita GDP increased in the 1970s but, except in Asia, decreased in the 1980s. Growth in the 1990s was brisk in Asia but slow elsewhere, with parts of Africa sliding backwards. The 2001 recession created further obstacles for development, but robust growth has returned since 2003.
* Evidence does not support a strong association of economic growth either with internal equality of wealth distribution or with internal inequality.
* The newly industrializing countries (NICs) in Asia—South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore—show that it is possible to rise out of poverty into sustained economic accumulation. Other third world states are trying to emulate these successes, but it is unclear whether these experiences can apply elsewhere.
* China has registered strong economic growth in the past 25 years of market-oriented economic reforms. Though still poor, China is the leading success story in economic development.
* Economic development in other large third world countries such as India, Brazil, and Nigeria has been slowed by the inefficiency of state-owned enterprises, by corruption, and by debt.
* Import substitution has been largely rejected as a development strategy in favor of export- led growth. This reflects both the experiences of the NICs and the theory of comparative advantage.
* Most poor states want to develop a manufacturing base, but this is a difficult thing to do. Even when focused on low-capital industries, states have generally had to sharpen income disparities in the process of concentrating capital for manufacturing.
* The theory that democratization would accompany and strengthen economic development has not been supported by the actual experiences of third world countries. But the opposite theory—that authoritarian government is necessary to maintain control while concentrating capital for industrialization—has also not been supported.
* Government corruption is a major obstacle to development throughout the global South.
* Given the shortage of local capital in most poor states, foreign investment by MNCs is often courted as a means of stimulating economic growth. MNCs look for favorable local conditions, including political and economic stability, in deciding where to invest.
* States in the global South seek the transfer of technology to support their future economic development. Technology transfer can be appropriate or inappropriate to local needs depending on the circumstances of each case.
* The green revolution of the 1960s was a massive North-South transfer of agricultural technology, which had both good and bad effects. Today’s “green” technologies being transferred to the global South are techniques for environmentally sustainable development.
* Third world debt, resulting largely from overborrowing in the 1970s and early 1980s, is a major problem. Through renegotiations and other debt management efforts, the North and South have improved the debt situation in recent years. However, the South remains almost $2 trillion in debt to the North, and annual debt service consumes about one-sixth of all hard-currency earnings from exports of the South (much more in some regions and states).
* The IMF makes loans to states in the South conditional on economic and governmental reforms. These conditionality agreements often necessitate politically unpopular measures such as cutting food subsidies.
* The WTO trading regime works against the global South by allowing richer nations to protect sectors in which the global South has advantages—notably agriculture and textiles. The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) tries to compensate by lowering barriers to third world exports.
* Efforts to improve the South’s solidarity, cooperation, and bargaining position relative to the North—such as the New International Economic Order (NIEO)—have had little success.
* Foreign assistance, most of it from governments in the North, plays an important part in the economic development plans of the poorer states of the South.
* Only a few states in the North meet the goal of contributing 0.7 percent of their GNPs as foreign assistance to the South. The United States, at 0.1 percent of its GNP, contributes the smallest share of any industrialized state, and its contributions decreased sharply in the past decade.
* Most foreign aid consists of bilateral grants and loans from governments in the North to specific governments in the South. Such aid is often used for political leverage, and promotes the export of products from the donor state.
* About one-fifth of foreign aid is not bilateral but is funneled through multilateral agencies—mostly UN programs.
* Disaster relief provides short-term aid to prevent a natural disaster from reversing a poor state’s economic development efforts. Disaster relief generally involves cooperation by various donor governments, local governments, the UN, and private agencies.
* Handouts to poor communities to meet immediate needs for food and supplies outside times of disaster—here called the missionary model—can be helpful but also have several drawbacks. Such aid can be inappropriate to local needs and can encourage dependence.
* Efforts to support local organizations working to empower poor people and generate community economic development—here called the Oxfam model—are promising but have been tried only on a small scale.
Chapter 14 Summary
* Economic development in the third world has been uneven; per capita GDP increased in the 1970s but, except in Asia, decreased in the 1980s. Growth in the 1990s was brisk in Asia but slow elsewhere.
* Evidence does not support a strong association of economic growth either with internal equality of wealth distribution or with internal inequality.
* The newly industrializing countries (NICs) in Asia—South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore—show that it is possible to rise out of poverty into sustained economic accumulation. Other third world states are trying to emulate these successes, but it is unclear whether these experiences can apply elsewhere.
* China has registered strong economic growth in the past 15 years of market-oriented economic reforms. Though still quite poor, China may be emerging as a leading success story in third world economic development.
* Economic development in other large third world countries such as India, Brazil, and Nigeria has been slowed by the inefficiency of state-owned enterprises, by corruption, and by debt.
* Import substitution has been largely rejected as a development strategy in favor of export-led growth. This reflects both the experiences of the NICs and the theory of comparative advantage.
* Most poor states want to develop a manufacturing base, but this is a difficult thing to do. Even when focused on low-capital industries, states have generally had to sharpen income disparities in the process of concentrating capital for manufacturing.
* The theory that democratization would accompany and strengthen economic development has not been supported by the actual experiences of third world countries. But the opposite theory—that authoritarian government is necessary to maintain control while concentrating capital for industrialization—has also not been supported.
* Government corruption is a major obstacle to development throughout the third world.
* Given the shortage of local capital in most poor states, foreign investment by MNCs is often courted as a means of stimulating economic growth. MNCs look for favorable local conditions, including political and economic stability, in deciding where to invest.
* States in the global South seek the transfer of technology to support their future economic development. Technology transfer can be appropriate or inappropriate to local needs depending on the circumstances of each case.
* The green revolution of the 1960s was a massive North-South transfer of agricultural technology, which had both good and bad effects. Today’s "green" technologies being transferred to the third world are techniques for environmentally sustainable development.
* Third world debt, resulting largely from overborrowing in the 1970s and early 1980s, is a major problem. Through renegotiations and other debt management efforts, the North and South have improved the debt situation in recent years. However, the South remains almost $2 trillion in debt to the North, and annual debt service consumes about one-sixth of all hard-currency earnings from exports of the South (much more in some regions and states).
* The IMF makes loans to states in the South conditional on economic and governmental reforms. These conditionality agreements often necessitate politically unpopular measures such as cutting food subsidies.
* The WTO trading regime works against the third world by allowing richer nations to protect sectors in which the third world has advantages—notably agriculture and textiles. The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) tries to compensate by lowering barriers to third world exports.
* Efforts to improve the South’s solidarity, cooperation, and bargaining position relative to the North—such as the New International Economic Order (NIEO)—have had little success.
* Foreign assistance, most of it from governments in the North, plays an important part in the economic development plans of the poorer states of the South.
* Only a few states in the North meet the goal of contributing 0.7 percent of their GNPs as foreign assistance to the South. The United States, at 0.1 percent of its GNP, contributes the smallest share of any industrialized state, and its contributions have decreased by nearly half in recent years.
* Most foreign aid consists of bilateral grants and loans from governments in the North to specific governments in the South. Such aid is often used for political leverage, and promotes the export of products from the donor state.
* About one-fifth of foreign aid is not bilateral but is funneled through multilateral agencies—mostly UN programs.
* Disaster relief provides short-term aid to prevent a natural disaster from reversing a poor state’s economic development efforts. Disaster relief generally involves cooperation by various donor governments, local governments, the UN, and private agencies.
* Handouts to poor communities to meet immediate needs for food and supplies outside times of disaster—here called the missionary model—can be helpful but also have several drawbacks. Such aid can be inappropriate to local needs and can encourage dependence.
* Efforts to support local organizations working to empower poor people and generate community economic development—here called the Oxfam model—are promising but have been tried only on a small scale.
