DOCSLIB.ORG

Governance in a Partially Globalized World Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2000 ROBERT O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Governance in a Partially Globalized World Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2000 ROBERT O American Political Science Review Vol. 95, No. 1 March 2001 Governance in a Partially Globalized World Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2000 ROBERT O. KEOHANE Duke University acing globalization, the challenge for political science resembles that of the founders of the United States: how to design institutions for a polity of unprecedented size and diversity. Globalization F produces discord and requires effective governance, but effective institutions are difficult to create and maintain. Liberal-democratic institutions must also meet standards of accountability and participation, and should foster persuasion rather than rely on coercion and interest-based bargaining. Effective institutions must rely on self-interest rather than altruism, yet both liberal-democratic legitimacy and the meaning of self-interest depend on people’s values and beliefs. The analysis of beliefs, and their effect on institutional outcomes, must therefore be integrated into institutional analysis. Insights from branches of political science as diverse as game theory, rational-choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism, and democratic theory can help political scientists understand how to design institutions on a world—and human—scale. alk of globalization is common today in the press interdependence include war. As international rela- and increasingly in political science. Broadly tions “realists” have long recognized, interdependence T speaking, globalization means the shrinkage of and lack of governance make a deadly mixture. This distance on a world scale through the emergence and Hobbesian premise can be stated in a more positive thickening of networks of connections—environmental form: Globalization creates potential gains from coop- and social as well as economic (Held et al. 1999; eration. This argument is often seen as “liberal” and is Keohane and Nye [1977] 2001). Forms of limited associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo, but it globalization have existed for centuries, as exemplified is actually complementary to Hobbe’s point. The gains by the Silk Road. Globalization took place during the of cooperation loom larger relative to the alternative of last decades of the nineteenth century, only to be unregulated conflict. Both realists and liberals agree reversed sharply during the thirty years after World that under conditions of interdependence, institutions War I. It has returned even more strongly recently, are essential if people are to have opportunities to although it remains far from complete. We live in a pursue the good life (Hobbes [1651] 1967; Keohane partially globalized world. 1984; Keohane and Nye [1977] 2001). Globalization depends on effective governance, now My second premise is that institutions can foster as in the past. Effective governance is not inevitable. If exploitation or even oppression. As Judith Shklar it occurs, it is more likely to take place through (1984, 244) expresses it, “no liberal ever forgets that interstate cooperation and transnational networks than governments are coercive.” The result is what I will call through a world state. But even if national states retain the governance dilemma: Although institutions are many of their present functions, effective governance of essential for human life, they are also dangerous. a partially—and increasingly—globalized world will Pessimistic about voluntary cooperation, Hobbes firmly require more extensive international institutions. Gov- grasped the authoritarian horn of the governance ernance arrangements to promote cooperation and dilemma. We who are unwilling to accept Hobbe’s help resolve conflict must be developed if globalization solution incur an obligation to try to explain how is not to stall or go into reverse. effective institutions that serve human interests can be Not all patterns of globalization would be beneficial. designed and maintained. We must ask the question It is easy to conjure up nightmare scenarios of a that Plato propounded more than two millenia ago: globalized world controlled by self-serving elites work- Who guards the guardians? ing to depress wages and suppress local political au- Clearly, the stakes are high: no less than peace, tonomy. So we need to engage in normative as well as prosperity, and freedom. Political science as a profes- positive analysis. To make a partially globalized world sion should accept the challenge of discovering how benign, we need not just effective governance but the well-structured institutions could enable the world to right kind of governance. have “a new birth of freedom” (Lincoln 1863). We My analysis begins with two premises. The first is need to reflect on what we, as political scientists, know that increased interdependence among human beings that could help actors in global society design and produces discord, since self-regarding actions affect the maintain institutions that would make possible the welfare of others. At worst, the effects of international good life for our descendants. In the first section of this essay I sketch what might Robert O. Keohane is James B. Duke Professor of Political Science, be called the “ideal world.” What normative standards Duke University, Perkins Library 214, Durham, NC 27708-0204 should institutions meet, and what categories should ([email protected]). we use to evaluate institutions according to those For comments on earlier versions of this address, I am grateful to Ruth Grant, Stanley Hoffmann, Peter J. Katzenstein, Nannerl O. standards? I turn next to what we know about real Keohane, and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. For insights into the issue of institutions—why they exist, how they are created and accountability, I am particularly indebted to Professor Nye. maintained, and what this implies about their actual 1 Governance in a Partially Globalized World March 2001 operation. In the concluding section I try to bring ideal objectives for which liberal democracy, or polyarchy, is and reality together to discuss institutional design. Are designed at the national level. there ways by which we can resolve the governance dilemma, using institutions to promote cooperation Consequences and create order, without succumbing to exploitation or tyranny? We can think of outcomes in terms of how global governance affects the life situations of individuals. In DESIRABLE INSTITUTIONS FOR A outlining these outcome-related objectives, I combine PARTIALLY GLOBALIZED WORLD Amartya Sen’s concept of capabilities with Rawls’s conception of justice. Sen (1999, 75) begins with the Democratic theorists emphasize that citizens should Aristotelian concept of “human functioning” and de- reflect on politics and exercise their collective will fines a person’s “capability” as “the alternative combi- (Rousseau [1762] 1978), based on what Jurgen Haber- nations of functionings that are feasible for her to mas (1996, 296) has called “a culturally established achieve.” A person’s “capability set represents the background consensus shared by the citizenry.” Gov- freedom to achieve: the alternative functioning combi- ernments derive their just powers from the consent of nations from which this person can choose” (p. 75). the governed, as the American Declaration of Inde- Governance should enhance the capability sets of the pendence proclaims, and also from their reflective people being governed, leading to enhancements in participation. their personal security, freedom to make choices, and To the potential utopianism of democratic thought I welfare as measured by such indices as the UN Human juxtapose what a former president of this association, Development Index. And it should do so in a just way, who was also my teacher, called the liberalism of fear which I think of in the terms made famous by Rawls (Shklar 1984). In the tradition of realistic liberalism, I (1971). Behind the “veil of ignorance,” not knowing believe that the people require institutional protection one’s future situation, people should regard the ar- both from self-serving elites and from their worst rangements for determining the distribution of capa- impulses, from what James Madison ([1787] 1961) in bilities as just. As a summary set of indicators, J. Federalist 10 called the “violence of faction.” Madison Roland Pennock’s (1966) list holds up quite well: and Shklar demonstrate that liberalism need not be security, liberty, welfare, and justice. optimistic about human nature. Indeed, at the global scale the supply of rogues may be expected to expand Functions with the extent of the market. Institutional protection from the arbitrary exercise of coercion, or authoritative The world for which we need to design institutions will exploitation, will be as important at the global level as be culturally and politically so diverse that most func- at the level of the national state. tions of governance should be performed at local and The discourse theory of Habermas restates liberal national levels, on the principle familiar to students of arguments in the language of communicative ration- federalism or of the European Union’s notion of ality. Legitimacy, in this view, rests on institutionalized “subsidiarity.” Five key functions, however, should be procedures for open communication and collective handled at least to some extent by regional or global reflection. Or, as Habermas (1996, 304) quotes John institutions. Dewey ([1927] 1954, 208), “the essential need is the The first of these functions is to limit the use of improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, large-scale violence. Warfare
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cosmopolitan Globalism and Human Community
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Philosophy Publications Department of Philosophy 2006 Cosmopolitan Globalism and Human Community Jeff Noonan University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/philosophypub Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Noonan, Jeff. (2006). Cosmopolitan Globalism and Human Community. Dialogue, 45 (4), 697-712. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/philosophypub/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dialogue http://journals.cambridge.org/DIA Additional services for Dialogue: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Cosmopolitan Globalism and Human Community Jeff Noonan Dialogue / Volume 45 / Issue 04 / September 2006, pp 697 ­ 712 DOI: 10.1017/S0012217300001244, Published online: 27 April 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0012217300001244 How to cite this article: Jeff Noonan (2006). Cosmopolitan Globalism and Human Community. Dialogue, 45, pp 697­712 doi:10.1017/ S0012217300001244 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/DIA, IP address: 137.207.184.12 on 31 Oct 2012 Cosmopolitan Globalism and Human Community JEFF NOONAN University of Windsor ABSTRACT: This article argues that the normative foundations and political impli- cations of David Held’s cosmopolitan social democracy are insufficient as solutions to the moral and social problems he criticizes. The article develops a life-grounded alternative critique of globalization that roots our ethical duties towards each other in consciousness of our shared needs and capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Glueck 2016 De-Westernisation
    Antje Glück De -Westernisation Key concept paper November 2015 1 The Working Papers in the MeCoDEM series serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the MeCoDEM Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors. Media, Conflict and Democratisation (MeCoDEM) ISSN 2057-4002 De-Westernisation: Key concept paper Copyright for this issue: ©2015 Antje Glück WP Coordination: University of Leeds / Katrin Voltmer Editor: Katy Parry Editorial assistance and English-language copy editing: Emma Tsoneva University of Leeds, United Kingdom 2015 All MeCoDEM Working Papers are available online and free of charge at www.mecodem.eu For further information please contact Barbara Thomass, [email protected] This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613370. Project Term: 1.2.2014 – 31.1.2017. Affiliation of the authors: Antje Glück University of Leeds [email protected] Table of contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 3. Clarifying the concept: What is De-Westernisation? .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Global Governance After COVID-19 Survey Report
    Global governance after COVID-19 Survey report Kemal Derviş Sebastián Strauss JULY 2021 Global governance after COVID-19 Survey report Kemal Derviş is a senior fellow in the Global Economy & Development program at the Brookings Institution Sebastián Strauss was a project manager and senior research analyst in the Global Economy & Development program at the Brookings Institution and is now a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Geoffrey Gertz for his many contributions to the project and thank Jose Antonio Ocampo, Amrita Narlikar, Dennis Snower, Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Vera Songwe, Nathalie Tocci, Wonhyuk Lim, Homi Kharas, Amar Bhattacharya, and Brahima Coulibaly for helpful comments and suggestions. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides is in its absolute commitment to quality, independence and impact. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment and the analysis and recommendations are not determined or influenced by any donation. A full list of contributors to the Brookings Institution can be found in the Annual Report at www.brookings.edu/about-us/annual-report/. About Global Economy & Development Founded in 2006, the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings Institution aims to play its part to ensure that the future of globalization is one of inclusive growth and shared prosperity.
    [Show full text]
  • Competition and Cooperation
    CONTRIBUTORS JAMES E. ALT is Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government and director of the Center of Basic Research in the Social Sciences at Harvard University. MARGARET LEVI is professor of political science and Harry Bridges Chair in Labor Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. She is also director of the University of Washington Center for Labor Studies. ELINOR OSTROM is codirector of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis and the Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environ- mental Change at Indiana University, Bloomington. She is also Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science. KENNETH J. ARROW is Joan Kenney Professor of Economics Emeritus and profes- sor of Operations Research Emeritus at Stanford University. He is also director of the Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation. GARY S. BECKER is professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago. JAMES M. BUCHANAN is advisory general director of the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University. NORMAN FROHLICH is professor of business administration at the University of Manitoba and senior researcher at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. BARBARA GEDDES is associate professor of political science at the University of California at Los Angeles. ROBERT E. GOODIN is professor of philosophy in the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. RUSSELL HARDIN is professor of politics at New York University. BRYAN D. JONES is professor of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle. ROBERT O. KEOHANE is James B. Duke Professor of Political Science at Duke University. xi xii Contributors DAVID D.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Powers and Emerging Trends in Global Governance
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Stephen, Matthew D. Article — Accepted Manuscript (Postprint) Emerging Powers and Emerging Trends in Global Governance Global Governance Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Stephen, Matthew D. (2017) : Emerging Powers and Emerging Trends in Global Governance, Global Governance, ISSN 1942-6720, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, Vol. 23, Iss. 3, pp. 483-502, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02303009 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/215866 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu This article was published by Brill in Global Governance, Vol. 23 (2017), Iss. 3, pp. 483–502 (2017/08/19): https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02303009.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Regionalism and Globalism European Union Trade Strategies.Pdf
    Revised version appears as “Between Regionalism and Globalism: European Union Transregional and Inter-Regional Trade Strategies” in Vinod Aggarwal and Edward Fogarty, eds., European Union Trade Strategies: Between Globalism and Regionalism (London: Palgrave, 2004). BETWEEN REGIONALISM AND GLOBALISM: EUROPEAN UNION TRANSREGIONAL AND INTER- REGIONAL TRADE STRATEGIES Vinod K. Aggarwal Berkeley APEC Study Center 802 Barrows Hall, #1970 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley CA 94720-1970 Email: [email protected] and Edward A. Fogarty Department of Political Science 210 Barrows Hall, #1950 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley CA 94720-1950 Email: [email protected] August 2003 1. Introduction The collapse of multilateral trade talks under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in November 1999 challenged international policymakers’ attempts to strengthen the institutional basis of the global economy. Yet these policymakers’ failure in Seattle did not attenuate the expansion of global market forces, nor the strong incentives for governments to seek to institutionalize their transnational commercial relations at the broadest possible level. Although the November 2001 Doha trade talks succeeded in launching a new round of multilateral discussions, there is little question that the trading system looks increasingly fragile and the deadlines for a new round unrealistic. Moreover, leading governments, and especially the United States, have consistently proven receptive to calls for protection
    [Show full text]
  • Rewriting the Epic of America
    One Rewriting the Epic of America IRA KATZNELSON “Is the traditional distinction between international relations and domes- tic politics dead?” Peter Gourevitch inquired at the start of his seminal 1978 article, “The Second Image Reversed.” His diagnosis—“perhaps”—was mo- tivated by the observation that while “we all understand that international politics and domestic structures affect each other,” the terms of trade across the domestic and international relations divide had been uneven: “reason- ing from international system to domestic structure” had been downplayed. Gourevitch’s review of the literature demonstrated that long-standing efforts by international relations scholars to trace the domestic roots of foreign pol- icy to the interplay of group interests, class dynamics, or national goals1 had not been matched by scholarship analyzing how domestic “structure itself derives from the exigencies of the international system.”2 Gourevitch counseled scholars to turn their attention to the international system as a cause as well as a consequence of domestic politics. He also cautioned that this reversal of the causal arrow must recognize that interna- tional forces exert pressures rather than determine outcomes. “The interna- tional system, be it in an economic or politico-military form, is underdeter- mining. The environment may exert strong pulls but short of actual occupation, some leeway in the response to that environment remains.”3 A decade later, Robert Putnam turned to two-level games to transcend the question as to “whether
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Theories of Global Governance: a Case Study of International Antitrust Regulation
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2003 Assessing Theories of Global Governance: A Case Study of International Antitrust Regulation Anu Bradford Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Anu Bradford, Assessing Theories of Global Governance: A Case Study of International Antitrust Regulation, STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VOL. 39, P. 207, 2003 (2003). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1975 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Assessing Theories of Global Governance: A Case Study of International Antitrust Regulation ANU PIILOLA* I. INTRODUCTION An effective, legitimate model of global governance must strike a delicate balance between national sovereignty and international cooperation. As such, governance on an international level is a constantly evolving discourse among multiple actors whose respective roles and influence vary across time and policy realms. The participation of multiple actors in global governance is widely recognized, but there is considerable disagreement as to the appropriate distribution of power among these participants and the optimal pattern for their interaction. We may never be able to construct an ideal global governance model. But the attempt to create such a model by examining the current needs of individual nations and the international community in key areas, such as global antitrust regulation, plays a critical role in promoting sound public policy.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Elinor Ostrom
    Annual Reviews Conversations Presents An Interview with Elinor Ostrom Annual Reviews Conversations. 2010 Host: You are listening to an Annual Reviews prefatory interview. In Annual Reviews Conversations interviews are online this interview, Margaret Levi, editor of the Annual Review of Political at www.annualreviews.org/page/audio Science, talks with Elinor Ostrom. Professor Ostrom is the cofounder, Copyright © 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved with her husband, Vincent Ostrom, and longtime codirector of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University, and she now serves as its senior research director. She is currently the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, as well as research professor and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity at Arizona State University. She is cowinner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Margaret Levi: I have a couple questions that I am going to prime the pump with here, Lin, and then we can let conversation flow however it does. There are many things about your history and what you’ve done in your career that are immensely impressive and have broken all kinds of barriers. But one of the things that I’ve been most intrigued by, and which I know very few other people have achieved, is the way in which you have not only tolerated and encouraged a multiple-method 1 approach to how one does work, but how you’ve conquered so many different methods. You really are very au courant in just almost—first, you learned game theory, and you learned microeconomics.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Governance: Old and New Challenges
    CHAPTER 13 Global governance: old and new challenges Balakrishnan Rajagopal* I. Introduction cal factors.1 Indeed, it was realized from the begin- ning of the articulation of the right to development The current world economic crisis has high- in the 1980s that its achievement hinged on deep- lighted a profound challenge to conventional thinking rooted transformations in the authorities, institutions on and approaches to human rights, especially the and processes of decision-making at multiple levels right to development. Human rights, primarily eco- within which nation States pursued their development nomic and social rights, are based on a theory of goals. These levels were not only national and inter- constant expansion of the economic pie for all, and national but also sub-State and within social systems the right to development is explicitly predicated on the in constant interaction—in other words, a transforma- idea of the nation State leading the ever-increasing tion of global governance rather than simply interna- process of economic and social well-being of its citi- tional governance. It is in this sense that I use the term zens through international cooperation and solidarity. “global governance” instead of seeing “global” as the These assumptions have never been more under chal- arena beyond/outside the State and “governance” as lenge than now: perpetual world economic expansion a one-dimensional exercise of authority rather than an is under threat; the real wealth of the world—not just interactive one among layers of decision-making. In the economic wealth—may be shrinking rather than this chapter, I analyse the older, inherited challenges expanding; economic and social well-being are more of global governance to the realization of right to and more undermined for the most vulnerable popula- development and emerging new challenges, which tions of the world; the role of the nation State is more have become apparent.
    [Show full text]
  • American Political Science Review
    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW AMERICAN https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000060 . POLITICAL SCIENCE https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms REVIEW , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 08 Oct 2021 at 13:45:36 , on May 2018, Volume 112, Issue 2 112, Volume May 2018, University of Athens . May 2018 Volume 112, Issue 2 Cambridge Core For further information about this journal https://www.cambridge.org/core ISSN: 0003-0554 please go to the journal website at: cambridge.org/apsr Downloaded from 00030554_112-2.indd 1 21/03/18 7:36 AM LEAD EDITOR Jennifer Gandhi Andreas Schedler Thomas König Emory University Centro de Investigación y Docencia University of Mannheim, Germany Claudine Gay Económicas, Mexico Harvard University Frank Schimmelfennig ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Gerring ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kenneth Benoit University of Texas, Austin Carsten Q. Schneider London School of Economics Sona N. Golder Central European University, and Political Science Pennsylvania State University Budapest, Hungary Thomas Bräuninger Ruth W. Grant Sanjay Seth University of Mannheim Duke University Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Sabine Carey Julia Gray Carl K. Y. Shaw University of Mannheim University of Pennsylvania Academia Sinica, Taiwan Leigh Jenco Mary Alice Haddad Betsy Sinclair London School of Economics Wesleyan University Washington University in St. Louis and Political Science Peter A. Hall Beth A. Simmons Benjamin Lauderdale Harvard University University of Pennsylvania London School of Economics Mary Hawkesworth Dan Slater and Political Science Rutgers University University of Chicago Ingo Rohlfi ng Gretchen Helmke Rune Slothuus University of Cologne University of Rochester Aarhus University, Denmark D.
    [Show full text]
  • Rochester Phd Program in Political Science
    Rochester PhD Program in Political Science Contents Introduction to the Program......................... 1 Main Fields of Study in Political Science American Politics............................... 5 Comparative Politics.......................... 6 Formal Political Theory...................... 7 International Relations....................... 8 Political Methodology......................... 9 Rochester Political Economy....................... 10 Selected Faculty Publications...................... 11 Rules & Requirements................................ 17 Timeline of Milestones................................ 28 Introduction to the Rochester PhD Program in Political Science Rigorous Analysis of Politics Introduction The Ph.D. program in Political Science at the University of Rochester is designed to train scholars to conduct rigorous analysis of politics at the highest level. Students learn the most advanced formal and statistical techniques to address substantive problems in political science, while some develop the technical skills needed to do work in pure formal theory or statistical methods, and others acquire skills for qualitative or historical work. The program has a storied history and long tradition of excellence. After joining Richard Fenno in Rochester in 1962, William Riker pushed the department – and the discipline – in a new direction, creating the field of “positive political theory,” which uses modeling techniques from mathematics, prob- ability theory, and game theory to study political phenomena of interest. To reflect
    [Show full text]