Difference between revisions of "Dental Hygiene and Nuclear War: How International Relations look from Economics"
(New page: Barry Eichengreen’s article was published in International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998). The article has very little to do with dental hygiene or nuclear war. The title d...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Barry Eichengreen’s article was published in International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998). | Barry Eichengreen’s article was published in International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998). | ||
| − | The article has | + | The article has nothing to do with dental hygiene or nuclear war. The title derives from the introduction where he makes a short reference to how economists apply their theoretical tools to everything, from dental hygiene to nuclear war. The article is an understanding of international relations as an academic discipline from the view point of economics. |
Eichengreen makes a review of the most important schools of international relations: Interest group model, Institutional approach, Endogenous preferences, Waltz’ system of level analysis. The constant structure in his review of each model is that at the beginning he argues that the assumptions made are fairly close to those used in many economic models; but later he says that the inclusion of politics, ideology or international organizations make the hypothesis formulated by these theories hard to test. For example he compares the Interest Group model that assumes countries to be “black boxes” with the assumption made in microeconomics of firms following profit maximization. However in a second part of his arguments he says that, although it is easy to understand the interest of a firm, it is much harder to define the interest of a country when you include its politics, culture and history. Most importantly, an approach that includes any interest beyond the increase in wealth, though it creates interesting theories, it is hard to test empirically. | Eichengreen makes a review of the most important schools of international relations: Interest group model, Institutional approach, Endogenous preferences, Waltz’ system of level analysis. The constant structure in his review of each model is that at the beginning he argues that the assumptions made are fairly close to those used in many economic models; but later he says that the inclusion of politics, ideology or international organizations make the hypothesis formulated by these theories hard to test. For example he compares the Interest Group model that assumes countries to be “black boxes” with the assumption made in microeconomics of firms following profit maximization. However in a second part of his arguments he says that, although it is easy to understand the interest of a firm, it is much harder to define the interest of a country when you include its politics, culture and history. Most importantly, an approach that includes any interest beyond the increase in wealth, though it creates interesting theories, it is hard to test empirically. | ||
The paper finishes with a call for political scientist specialized in international relations to apply more statistical elements in their analysis. Or in other words, to move away from the case study methodology. | The paper finishes with a call for political scientist specialized in international relations to apply more statistical elements in their analysis. Or in other words, to move away from the case study methodology. | ||
Revision as of 22:20, 17 September 2010
Barry Eichengreen’s article was published in International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998).
The article has nothing to do with dental hygiene or nuclear war. The title derives from the introduction where he makes a short reference to how economists apply their theoretical tools to everything, from dental hygiene to nuclear war. The article is an understanding of international relations as an academic discipline from the view point of economics.
Eichengreen makes a review of the most important schools of international relations: Interest group model, Institutional approach, Endogenous preferences, Waltz’ system of level analysis. The constant structure in his review of each model is that at the beginning he argues that the assumptions made are fairly close to those used in many economic models; but later he says that the inclusion of politics, ideology or international organizations make the hypothesis formulated by these theories hard to test. For example he compares the Interest Group model that assumes countries to be “black boxes” with the assumption made in microeconomics of firms following profit maximization. However in a second part of his arguments he says that, although it is easy to understand the interest of a firm, it is much harder to define the interest of a country when you include its politics, culture and history. Most importantly, an approach that includes any interest beyond the increase in wealth, though it creates interesting theories, it is hard to test empirically.
The paper finishes with a call for political scientist specialized in international relations to apply more statistical elements in their analysis. Or in other words, to move away from the case study methodology.
