Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Course Description
This research seminar simultaneously examines two of the three subfields of international
relations – international political economy and international organizations (NOT international
security). In their current incarnations, both arose in response to the theoretical limitations
of realism, and they overlap in many ways. Readings are selected to present both an
adequate background and a current perspective to particular research programs.
Week Four: Trade, Domestic Political Cleavages and Domestic Institutions – Sept. 12
Kindleberger, Charles. 1975. “The Rise of Free Trade in Western Europe, 1820-1875.”
Journal of Economic History 35(1): 20-55.
Pincus, J. J. 1975. “Pressure Groups and the Pattern of Tariffs.” Journal of Political Economy
53(4): 757-778.
Mayer, W. 1984. “Endogenous Tariff Formation.” The American Economic Review 74: 970-
85. [ maybe replace with McGillivray & Smith.]
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 1991. “Specific Factors, Capital Markets, Portfolio Diversification, and
Free Trade: Domestic Determinants of the Repeal of the Corn Laws.” World Politics
43: 545-69.
Nielson, Daniel L. 2003. Supplying Trade Reform: Political Institutions and Liberalization in
Middle-Income Presidential Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47
(3):470-91.
Busch, M. L. 2000. "Democracy, Consultation and the Paneling of Disputes Under GATT."
Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(4): 425-446.
Guzman, A. and B. Simmons. 2002. "To Settle or Empanel? An Empirical Analysis of Litigation
and Settlement at the World Trade Organization." Journal of Legal Studies 31: S205-
S235.
Allee (will be provided)
Rose, Andrew K. 2004. “Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade?” American
Economic Review 94(1): 98-114.
Goldstein, Judith, Doug Rivers, and Michael Tomz. 2007. “Institutions in International
Relations: Understanding the Effects of GATT and the WTO on World Trade.” IO 61(1):
37-67.
Rosendorff, P. and H. Milner. 2001. “The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions:
Uncertainty and Escape.” IO 55(4): 829-857.
Steinberg, R. 2002. “In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and
outcomes in the GATT/WTO.” IO 56(2): 339-74.
Week Six: Hegemony, Trade and the International Monetary System – Sept. 26
Hegemonic Stability Theory was a dominant research program in international political
economy from the early 1970s through the early 1990s. This week’s readings demonstrate
the dangers of particularly intuitively appealing theories that are never specified very clearly,
and show that social scientists can join a feeding frenzy that never amounts to much. But
was HST disregarded too soon? Think about projects that might still be worth doing,
particularly now that we’ve got the post-Cold War era to inform our empirical work.
Krasner, Stephen. 1976. "State power and the structure of international trade." World
Politics 28(3): 317-347.
Keohane, Robert. 1997. “Problematic Lucidity.” World Politics 50 (1):150-70.
Lake, David. 1993. "Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor
or Tattered Monarch with Potential?" ISQ 37(4): 459-489.
Gowa, Joanne, and Edward Mansfield. 1993. Power Politics and International Trade.
American Political Science Review 87 (2):408-20.
Mansfield, Edward. 1998. “The Proliferation of Preferential Trading Arrangements.” Journal
of Conflict Resolution 42(5): 523-543.
Eichengreen, Barry. 1989. “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary
System.” In Can Nations Agree?. Eds. R. N. Cooper et al., pp. 255-89.
Simmons, B. 1994. Who Adjusts? Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policy during the
Interwar Years, 1923-1939. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Broz, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Frieden. 2001. “The Political Economy of International Monetary
Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 317-43.
Frieden, Jeffrey. 1991. “Invested Interests: The Politics of National Economic Policies in a
World of Global Finance.” IO 45(4): 425-451.
Leblang, David. 1997. "Domestic and Systemic Determinants of Capital Controls in the
Developed and Developing World." ISQ 41(3): 435-54.
Quinn, Dennis. and Carla Inclan. 1997. “The Origins of Financial Openness: A Study of
Current and Capital Account Liberalization.” AJPS 41(3): 771-813.
Lukauskas, Arvid, and Susan Minushkin 2000. "Explaining styles of financial market opening
in Chile, Mexico, South Korea, and Turkey." ISQ 44: 695-723.
Brooks, Sarah, and Marcus Kurtz. Forthcoming in AJPS. “Capital, Trade, and the Political
Economies of Reform.” Available at
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/sbrooks/brooks_kurtz.pdf
Nov. 28 – deadline for final paper submission to instructor. Incompletes will only be granted
in case of sickness or other emergency.
Devoted class participation is essential for this course’s success; as such, students’ final
grades will depend in large part (40%) on their preparation, participation in class discussion,
and general contribution to the course’s intellectual climate.
The remainder of the course grade will be comprised of two assignments – one short paper
and one research paper. The short paper (20%) should be a five to seven page critical
literature review with identification of a research question, initial hypotheses, and potential
data sources. The topics should be drawn from our readings, detailed above, or from special
permission of the instructor. The short paper is due by Oct. 17.
The longer paper (40%) can be a follow-up to that initial short paper, or can be a separate
research paper that either explores new theoretical ground or tests hypotheses already
existing in the literature. In either case, the paper should be an original contribution to the
research program, and it should be the quality expected at the highest level of political
science conferences. The research paper is due on Wednesday, Nov. 28.
Each class will begin with a brief summary from each student of his or her thoughts and
impressions of the week’s readings. Following these initial remarks, one (pre-selected)
student will provide a 10-minute overview of the readings. At that point, the floor will be
opened to all students again.
The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and
regulations for the orderly and efficient conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of
each student and each student organization to be knowledgeable about the rules and
regulations which govern student conduct and activities. General information on student
conduct and discipline is contained in the UTD publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to
all registered students each academic year.
The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the procedures of
recognized and established due process. Procedures are defined and described in the Rules
and Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Part 1, Chapter VI,
Section 3, and in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities of the university’s
Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of these rules and regulations are available to
students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff members are available to assist
students in interpreting the rules and regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).
A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of
citizenship. He or she is expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the
Regents’ Rules, university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject to
discipline for violating the standards of conduct whether such conduct takes place on or off
campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties are also imposed for such conduct.
Academic Integrity
Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements, acts or omissions related to
applications for enrollment or the award of a degree, and/or the submission as one’s own
work or material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic dishonesty involves one
of the following acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or falsifying academic records.
Students suspected of academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and from any
other source is unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism
(see general catalog for details). This course will use the resources of turnitin.com, which
searches the web for possible plagiarism and is over 90% effective.
Email Use
The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of communication
between faculty/staff and students through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises
some issues concerning security and the identity of each individual in an email exchange.
The university encourages all official student email correspondence be sent only to a
student’s U.T. Dallas email address and that faculty and staff consider email from students
official only if it originates from a UTD student account. This allows the university to maintain
a high degree of confidence in the identity of all individual corresponding and the security of
the transmitted information. UTD furnishes each student with a free email account that is to
be used in all communication with university personnel. The Department of Information
Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T. Dallas mail
forwarded to other accounts.
The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level
courses. These dates and times are published in that semester's course catalog.
Administration procedures must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to handle
withdrawal requirements from any class. In other words, I cannot drop or withdraw any
student. You must do the proper paperwork to ensure that you will not receive a final grade of
"F" in a course if you choose not to attend the class once you are enrolled.
Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and
Activities, of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.
Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of
Students, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and
regulations.
As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work unavoidably missed at
the semester’s end and only if 70% of the course work has been completed. An incomplete
grade must be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the first day of the subsequent long
semester. If the required work to complete the course and to remove the incomplete grade is
not submitted by the specified deadline, the incomplete grade is changed automatically to a
grade of F.
Disability Services
Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make those reasonable
adjustments necessary to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. For example, it
may be necessary to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders or animals (in the
case of dog guides) for students who are blind. Occasionally an assignment requirement may
be substituted (for example, a research paper versus an oral presentation for a student who
is hearing impaired). Classes enrolled students with mobility impairments may have to be
rescheduled in accessible facilities. The college or university may need to provide special
services such as registration, note-taking, or mobility assistance.
It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an
accommodation. Disability Services provides students with letters to present to faculty
members to verify that the student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals
requiring special accommodation should contact the professor after class or during office
hours.
The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other required activities
for the travel to and observance of a religious holy day for a religion whose places of worship
are exempt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code, Texas Code Annotated.
The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity sponsor as soon as possible
regarding the absence, preferably in advance of the assignment. The student, so excused,
will be allowed to take the exam or complete the assignment within a reasonable time after
the absence: a period equal to the length of the absence, up to a maximum of one week. A
student who notifies the instructor and completes any missed exam or assignment may not
If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the absence [i.e., for the purpose of
observing a religious holy day] or if there is similar disagreement about whether the student
has been given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or examinations,
either the student or the instructor may request a ruling from the chief executive officer of the
institution, or his or her designee. The chief executive officer or designee must take into
account the legislative intent of TEC 51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by
the decision of the chief executive officer or designee.
These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor.