Neoliberalist and neorealist both agree that National security and economic welfare are important, but the differences is in emphasis. The priority of state goals in neorealist is emphases in security issue, Grieco stated that anarchy requires states to be preoccupied with relative power, security, and survival. The priority of state goals in neoliberal is emphases in political economy. Fifth, is the concept of ‘intention versus capabilities’. Neorealism likely to emphasize capabilities more than intentions, because the uncertainties make state pay attention to capabilities.
Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction.
Literatures on the study of dichotomy in International Relations critiques dichotomies for its simple dualistic abstraction of complex world politics. However, despite its serious fallacies, scholars and even critiques uses dichotomies, knowingly or unknowingly, in some form or the other. This research attempts to study the use of dichotomy in International Relations. In doing so, the study will apply Marcelo Dascal’s notion of “strategic argument” on dichotomy which sees dichotomy as a strategy used by contenders in a debate to resolve it in their favour. Here dichotomy becomes a constructed and contextual phenomenon rather than a semantic, realistic category.
We show that implementing negligence involves allocating to the Court a higher status than under strict liability. The injurers will prefer considering the judges’ decisions rather than the regulator’s assessment. Consequently, this issue introduces a strong asymmetry between both regimes. This issue comes from the nature of the regulator’s utility function. The latter is benevolent, omniscient but of Negishi (1960)’s type.
Section A; 1) How does Kenneth Waltz’s idea of ‘capabilities’ differ from Hans Morgenthau’s idea of ‘power’? Does this have any effect on how each view the nature of international politics? Introduction This paper will focus on the main difference of certain points in two theories, idea of “capabilities” by neorealist Kenneth Waltz and idea of “power” by Hans Morgenthau. Both theorists tried to explain how the international system works and how its structure has an influence on the international politics. In first two parts of this essay, there will be described individual theories, and in the third part there will be a comparative analysis of colliding ideas about same factors.
The rationale for the realist theory is that the states care about the relative payoffs when they are jointly produced, since an asymmetrically advantaging state can have implications in negotiation and bargaining power among states and lead to further asymmetries. Hence, the problem of relative gains imbalances in a cooperative outcome leads to the realist theory of cooperative failure (Grieco, 1988). The neorealists emphasise two impediments of cooperation, the relative gains and enforcement. However, the neoliberalists disregard the former, which is argued to have real consequences on the understanding of the problem of cooperation (Snidal, 1991). These two views have implications on the how the states preferences are modelled in terms of utility.
Nevertheless, covariance-based approaches produce severe modeling errors, which lead unreliable results when a model is in mixed constructs. While, PLS is capable of estimating both reflective and formative constructs under athe same model (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014). PLS is sensitive to moderator effects than most of the covariance-based approaches are. Moreover, PLS is better handling measurement errors, thus this characteristic of PLS helps to studies that have smaller sample sizes. Furthermore, in case of a complex model, covariance-based approaches require an enormous sample size for precise estimations.
It is unique in its ability to deal with multiple players, multiple alternatives, and multiple dimensions, alliance decisions, and environmental decisions. It is inherently built on the assumption that policy makers simplify complicated decision problems by first using simple cognitive shortcuts and then applying a more detailed analytic decision calculus to arrive at a choice. (Mintz 2004a, 8) Analysis on study case through this model coming from how Obama criticized the realism perspective foreign policy that has been established in United States as a major factor on ineffectiveness of Foreign aid policy. Through that, the reform of foreign aid policy was created by looking on the benefit of having strength foreign aid policy and reducing the ineffectiveness of foreign aid policy as foreign policy. Withing this, Obama as policy makers using rejecting the latest policy and create alternative form in order to simplify the
More frequent in qualitative research is to generalize to theory rather than to population, it is looking for a system that their findings are included in it. In other words, the quality of the theoretical inferences that derive from the data, is the important issue when generalizing (Bryman, 2009) Janesick (2000) suggests alternative ways to think about the trinity of validity, reliabil-ity and generalization, in fact he offers to change the language to a more accurately describes the complexity and texture of qualitative research. He also argues that “the traditional view of generalizability limits the ability to reconceptualize the role of social science in education and human services” (p.
What is libertarian paternalism? Libertarian paternalism, championed by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, is a principle that strives to promote good decision-making in areas where people tend to behave in irrational ways—more concisely, in ways that do not align with their interests. This theory distinguishes itself from traditional ‘hard’ paternalism by its relatively unobtrusive methodology. Instead of seeking to influence people’s choices themselves, Thaler and Sunstein advocate for intentional manipulation of the ‘choice structure’. Some examples of this manipulation, also known as ‘nudging’, may include reordering options in a list, strategically positioning items on a shelf, or altering the relative visibility of products in a storefront.