Syllabus

There are five major objectives to this research seminar:

1)      To explore issues in the development of research in international politics, including hands-on experience with a specific research assignment,
and to gain experience with both collaborative research and the creation of a data base.

2)      To explore a significant substantive research question in international politics. By substantive research question I mean one that is important
both from a theoretical point of view and one that is important in terms of unexplored knowledge in the discipline;

3)      In the context of the above, to explore in greater depth one part of the theoretical and empirical literature in the field;

4)      To provide the student with an opportunity to explore strategies of scholarship creation and publication. If this course is successful, it should
provide you with the type of skills that will allow you to submit successfully to journals of high quality in the field; and

5)      If we are very successful, then the products of this seminar may become co-authored publications in one or more prestigious journals in the field.

The research questions: All inquiry starts with some type of research question. Here, we will explore two general questions, and if time and resources permit,
three:

1)      What does the architecture of international politics look like? By architecture, I mean the web of global, and intercontinental intergovernmental institutions
(IGOs), and regional intergovernmental organizations (RGOs) that have been created by actors in international politics. Further, I am interested in how that
web has developed, and whether or not the global, or the intercontinental, or the regional web is more numerous and being used in the post-Cold War
international system. Then, given that web,

2)      Why do states choose to participate in the web and what choices do they make? These are actually two separate questions. The first seeks to account
for reasons why states join the web, and assumes that there is substantial variation across states in their willingness to join. The second, albeit related
question, is asking whether or not states are making choices to participate across the spectrum of global, regional, and intercontinental webs, or are
primarily choosing one form over another, and if so, why?

3)      (To the extent that we have time to pursue this question) What impact, if any, have various patterns of involvement with regional webs had on participating
states? How can we assess that impact?

The issue of salience: why should we care about this particular research topic?

            I suggest three reasons:  First, much of the literature from both neorealist and liberal-institutionalist perspectives suggests that these institutions matter in
international politics. Neorealists argue that these organizations are one way in which the powerful control and manage the ebb and flow of international politics. Liberal-institutionalists argue that working within these institutions, state derive substantial benefits from the institutional context, leading to more usage of these
institutions for foreign policy objectives, and furthering cooperative behaviors between states to an extent unlikely to be achieved outside of the institutional
context. Regardless of which side is correct, both are in essence arguing that participation in the web matters, as does the web itself.

            Second, the sheer size of the web illustrates that it is likely to be significant. There are no fewer than 1,000+ IGOs and RGOs operating in the
international system, and through them, states are expending a very substantial amount of energy and resources by pursuing some or many of their
objectives through these organizations. Some do so voluntarily, some do so because they may lack other choices; yet, these institutions exist and are
extensive and are extensively utilized.

What is clear is that issues related to the web of global architecture don’t appear to be trivial matters for states. In fact, much of the conflict in
post-Cold War transatlantic relations between the U.S. and its European allies revolves around issues regarding the contours of the web and about how
the web is being used. The fight over multilateralism continues to be about how should existing institutions (NATO, UN, etc.) be used by a hegemonic power
and its allies in the face of newly perceived security threats. Conflicts over NATO enlargement and EU supranationalism (e.g., a common foreign and defense
policy) are conflicts about how the web should be altered in response to changing global and regional conditions. Conflicts between the US and China, Japan,
Russia, and scores of Third World states since 1989 have also been about the nature of the web and how it should change (and be used) in the 21^st century
global political environment.

            Third, while there has been much written about why such organizations are created, there is a paucity of literature on why states join the web, and
there exists very little in terms of empirical research accounting for variation across states in joining the web, and still less research on how both the web
and patterns of joining have changed as a result of the end of the Cold War.

            Thus, the topic appears to be a highly salient one from two different theoretical perspectives,[1] it is a major focus of state activity (and controversy), 
and there is an absence of high quality research to answer some critical questions about the changes to the web and the “joining behavior” of states (If you wish 
to see the broader contours of the research programme in progress on this theme, see “Draft” under our electronic reserves).

Readings:  There are two sets of readings. I’ve asked you to purchase a copy of After Victory by John Ikenberry. In addition, I’m asking you to read articles
that are on e-reserve (all articles noted on the syllabus as required readings are placed on reserve). You can access them by going to my web page, clicking on 
this course, and then on the syllabus. Anything on reserve can be found by clicking on the reading. I’ve also had the bookstore purchase a few copies of my 
book with Alison Bailin, called International Politics and State Strength. I would never dream of requiring students to buy one of my books, so I’ve also 
taken each of the chapters (the draft version before publication, so we didn’t get into any copyright issues) and put them on reserve, so you are not required 
to buy the book, and should not unless it is more convenient for you to read it that way.

            Note that the readings for this course are extremely light (for a graduate seminar). In fact, you have no required readings after the sixth week of the 
seminar. This is intentional and is done for three reasons. First, a huge chunk of our focus of research has little literature that is useful to read; second, I 
want you to spend most of your time in thinking about the project, developing a data base, a good quality research design, dirtying your hands with data, 
and on the quality execution of your research; third, what you are asked to read, I want you to think about very carefully and to figure out how you can apply 
to the research we are pursuing.

            So, for each reading assignment, I expect that you will be ready to discuss:

• The theory behind each work, including how the theory works and how it doesn’t; you should be able to discuss thoroughly and to critique the theory 
  on which each research assignment is based;
• The evidence brought to the work, including the nature of the research design and the persuasiveness of the evidence;
• The linkage across the articles assigned for the week, including how the theories integrate or contradict, and how the evidence across the readings does 
  likewise;
• An attempt to synthesize the week’s readings into a larger package: seeing what in the integrated approaches is useful to the topic of the seminar; and, 
  what should be the subject of further inquiry.

At the back of the syllabus is a much broader range of literature which you may be interested in perusing when you have more time (and possibly 
in preparation for PhD exams.)

Calendar of Events:

Week 1:          Introduction to Nature of Course

(August 23)

                        Technically, this is when we start. Unfortunately, I am in Istanbul, running a global conference on international politics, and won’t be here this 
week. You should spend this week, however, reading the Ikenberry book (chapters 1,2,3,6), and thinking through which of the research projects you wish 
to pursue for the course (see appendix C and especially the options on page 19).

Week 2:          Re-Introduction to the Course

(August 30)

                        Readings: Finish Ikenberry; start reading Volgy and Bailin, Chapters 1,2,5,6,7

Week 3:          The Creation of Global Webs: Alternative Perspectives

(September 6)

                        Readings:  Recall Ikenberry, Chapters 1,2,3,6

                                           Recall Volgy/Bailin, Chapters 1,2,5,6,7

                                           Abbott, Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal. 1998. “Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations.” Journal of 
Conflict Resolution 52:3-32.

Week 4:          An Assessment of Global Architecture

(September 13)

                        Readings: Jacobson, Harold K., William R. Reisinger, and Todd Mathers. 1986. “National Entanglements in International 
Governmental Organizations.” American Political Science Review 80:141-59.
                                         Shanks, Cheryl, Harond K. Jacobson, and Jeffrey H. Kaplan. 1996. “Inertia and Change in the Constellation of 
International Governmental Organizations, 1981-1992.” International Organization 50:593-627.

                                         Wallace, Michael, and J.D. Singer. 1970. “Intergovernmental Organizations in the Global System, 1816-1964: 
A Quantitative Description.” International Organization 24:239-87.

Week 5:          The Regional Web

(September 20)

                        Readings: “The Draft”

                                          Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002. “With a Little Help from My Friends? Regional Organizations and the Consolidation of 
Democracy, “ American Journal of Political Science 46:611-626.

                                         Powers, Kathy L. 2004. Regional Trade Agreements as Military Alliances. International Interactions 33 (4):

                                         Mansfield, Edward D. and Helen V. Milner. 1999. “The New Wave of Regionalism.” International Organization 53:589-628.

                                         Mansfield, Edward D. 1998. “The Proliferation of Preferential Trading Arrangements.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42:523-43.

                                         Russett, Oneal, and Davis. 1998. “The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and 
Militarized Disputes, 1950-85.” International Organization 52:441-467.

                                         Rapkin, David P. 2001. “The United States, Japan, and the Power to Block: The APEC and AMF Cases.” Pacific Review 14:373-410.

Week 6                       Mapping the Global Web After the Cold War: Research Design

(September 27)

                        Readings:  See again Jacobson, et. al., Shanks et. al.

                                          Take a very close look in preparation at the Pevehouse data set; also the Yearbook of International Associations (YIA) online yearbook                                                (through our library website), and the Shanks et. al. data set.

                          See also Appendix B  in this syllabus

Week 7                       Mapping the Global Web: Execution

(October 4)

Week 8                       Mapping the Global Web: Execution (continued/concluded)

(October 11)

Week 9                       Mapping Regional Webs: Research Design

(October 18)

Week 10                     Mapping Regional Webs: Execution

(October 25)

Week 11                     Mapping Regional Webs: Execution (continued)

(November 1)

Week 12                     Mapping Regional Webs: Execution (continued)

(November 8)

Week 13                     Mapping Regional Webs: Execution (continued)

(November 15)

Week 14                     Research Presentations

(November 22)

Week 15                     Research Presentations

(November 29)

Week 16                     Conclusion and next steps

(December 5)

Final paper due: December 15^th.

My expectations: 

General--We have a diverse group of people in the seminar; some with a great deal of prior seminar experience, some with little. In either case, 
it’s important to set out expectations regarding this seminar. I expect that every one of us will come each week, on time, and prepared: having read the 
materials in advance, having read them critically, and thus being prepared to discuss any and all aspects of the topic at hand, including each of the 
assigned readings. I’ve asked you to do relatively little in terms of required readings, because I expect significant work later on for a research paper. 
However, what reading there is, I expect to have been read thoroughly in advance, and that you are fully prepared to discuss any and all aspects of 
what you had read. I expect as well that this will be truly a seminar: that it is not a one-way flow from instructor to “student”, but a process by which 
all members of the seminar are mutually responsible for the learning process.

Research Project—In lieu of a final exam, I expect each of you to turn in a paper at the end of the seminar, reflecting on our research interests. 
The paper will be able to demonstrate a synthesis of what we had discussed and read in the class, along with your specific research design and development 
of your research integrated into that synthesis (more to come on this). Note that in writing a good research paper, you will be both on your own, and at 
times dependent upon your colleagues. I’m steering the assignment in this way to give you some experience with collaborative research since it is the 
present trend and the likely trend in the future of scholarship. Nevertheless, the final paper should be your, original product, even if it is an outgrowth 
of collaboration with your colleagues (warning: make sure that in your final paper you distinguish between what was your own product and what was 
the property of others).

Oral presentation—I will ask each of you toward the end of the course to present a brief (fifteen minutes/I will cut you off after that time), concise, 
oral presentation of your research. Treat this exercise as if you were giving a paper at a major conference. The experience will help you actually 
give a paper at a major conference (if you have not done so before), and help develop some additional skills for the oral version of your prelims. 
I expect that the rest of us will ask critical questions of you at the conclusion of your presentation, and the answers/ questions plus the presentation 
of others should help hone the final paper.

Grades—There is always the nasty issue of grades. In this seminar you will be graded in the following manner:

a) Seminar participation/discussion                               50%

b) Research “paper”, including your oral presentation   50%

I’m not requiring a final exam. However, if you feel the need to have one (or want the practice for later—they are designed like prelim questions—you 
can choose to have one as long as you notify me a couple of weeks before the end of the semester.

APPENDIX A:  Additional readings of possible interest:

Abbott, Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal. 1998. “Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52:3-32.

Baldwin, David. 1993 (ed.) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.

Baldwin, David A. 1993a. “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics,” in David A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press

Bennett, A. LeRoy. 2002. International Organizations: Principles and Issues. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Berejekian, Jeffrey. 1997. “The Gains Debate: Framing State Choice.” American Political Science Review 91:789-805.

Barnett, Michael N. and Martha Finnemore. 1999. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations,” International Organization 53:699-732.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2001. Principles of International Politics.

Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structures of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caporaso, James. 1992. International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for Foundations.” International Organization 46:599-632.

Chan, Steve 2004. “Influence of International Organizations on Great-Power War

 Involvement: A Preliminary Analysis.” International Politics. 41: 127-143.

Choi, Young Jong, and James A. Caporaso. 2002. “Comparative Regional Integration,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage.

Cohn, Theodore H. Cohn. 2003. Second edition. Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice. Second Edition. New York: Longman

Collins, Alan. 2003. Security and Southeast Asia: Domestic, Regional and Global Issues. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Cortell, Andrew P. and James W. Davis Jr. 1996. “How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms,” International Studies Quarterly 40:451-79.

Cupitt, Richard, Rodney Whitlock, and Lynn Williams Whitlock. 1996. “The [Im]mortality of Intergovernmental Organizations.” International Interactions 21:389-404.

Duffield, John S. 1992. “International Regimes and Alliance Behavior: Explaining NATO Convetional Force Levels.” International Organization 46:369-388.

Fawcett, Louise, and Andrew Hurrell. 1995. Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Feld, Werner J., and Gavin Boyd (eds.). 1980. Comparative Regional Systems: West and East Europe, North America, the Middle East and Developing Countries. New York: Pergamon Press.

Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

Foot, Rosemary, S. Neil MacFarlane, and Michael Mastanduno. 2003. US Hegemony and International Organizations.  London: Oxford University Press.

Gallarotti, Giulio M. 1991. “The limits of international organization: systematic failure

in the management of international relations.” International Organization 45 (2):  183-220.

Goh, Evelyn. 2004. “The ASEAN Regional Forum in United States East Asian Strategy.” Pacific Review 17: 47-69.

Gowa, Joanne. 1989. “Bipolarity, Multipolarity and Free Trade,” American Political Science Review 83:145-56.

Grant, J. Andrew, and Fredrik Soderbaum. 2003. The New Reginalism in Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate

Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42: 485-507.

Grieco, Joseph M. 1997. “Systemic Sources of Variation in Regional Institutionalization in West Europe, East Asia, and the Americas,” in Edward D. Mansfield and Helen V. Milner (eds.), The Political Economy of Regionalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Grieco, Joseph, Robert Powell, and Duncan Snidal. 1993. “The Relative-Gains Problem

for International Cooperation.” The American Political Science Review 87, 3: 729-743.

Grugel, Jean and Wil Hout (eds.). 1999. Regionalism Across the North-South Divide: State Strategies and Globalization. London: Routledge.

Haas, Ernst B. 1970. The Web of Interdependence: The United States and International Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Haftendorn, Helga, Robert O. Keohane and Celeste A. Wallender. 1999. Imperfect

Unions: Security Institutions Over Time and Space. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haggard, Stephan and Beth A. Simmons. 1987. “Theories of International Regimes.” International Organization 41(3):491-517.

Hammer, C., and P. J. Katzenstein. 2002. “Why Is There No NATO In Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism.” International Organization 56:575-607.

Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hewitt, Joseph, and Jonathan Wilkenfeld. 1996. “Democracies in International Crises.” International Interactions 22:123-41.

Holsti, K.J. 2004. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Changes in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hurrell, Andrew. 1992. “Latin America in the New World Order: a Regional Bloc of the

Americas?” International Affairs. 68 1: 121-139

Ikenberry, John. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

International Monetary Fund.  Various years. Direction of Trade.

Jacobson, Harold K. 1984. Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations and the Global Political System. 2^nd Edition. New York: Knopf.

Jacobson, Harold K., William R. Reisinger, and Todd Mathers. 1986. “National Entanglements in International Governmental Organizations.” American Political Science Review 80:141-59.

Katzenstein, Peter J., Robert O. Keohane, and  Stephen Krasner. 1998. “ International

organization and the study of world politics.” International Organization. 52:  

Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, Robert O. 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder: Westview.

Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin. 1995. “The Promise of Institutional Theory,” International Security 20:39-51.

Keohane, Robert O. and Craig N. Murphy. 1992. “International Institutions,” in Mary Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Government and Politics (Vol. I), 871-886. London/New York: Routledge.

Kim, Sunhyuk, and Yong Wook Lee. 2004. “New Asian Regionalism and the United States: Constructing Regional Identity and Interest in the Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion.” Pacific Focus 19:185-231.

Krasner,  Steven. 1982. “Regimes and the limits of realism: regimes as autonomous variables,” International Organization 36: 355-368.

Krasner, Steven. 1991, “Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier.” World Politics 43:336-66.

Kratochwil, Friedrich and John G. Ruggie. 1986. “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State.” International Organization 40:753-775.

Lake, David. 1996. “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations.” International Organization 50:1-34.

Lavelle, Kathryn. 2004. “African States and African Interests: The Representation of Marginalized Groups in International Organizations.” Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 4:111-124.

Lawrence, Robert Z. 1996. Regionalism, Multilateralism and Deeper Integration.

Washington D.C. Brookings Institution.

Lemke, Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levy, Marc. A., Oran R. Young and Michael Zürn. 1995. “The Study of International Regimes.” European Journal of International Relations 1(3):267-330.

Linden, Ronald. H. (ed.). 2002. Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and East European States. Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Martin, Lisa and Beth Simmons. 1998. “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.” International Organization, 52:729-58.

Mansfield, Edward D. 1998. “The Proliferation of Preferential Trading Arrangements.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42:523-43.

Mansfield, Edward D. and Helen V. Milner. 1999. “The New Wave of Regionalism.” International Organization 53:589-628.

Mansfield, Edward and Eric Reinhardt. 2003.“Multilateral Determinants of Regionalism: the

Effects of GATT/WTO on the Formation of Preferential Trading Arrangements.”

International Organization 57:4.

Mattli, Walter. 1999. The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mearsheimer, John J. 1994. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security. 19, 3: 5-49.

Mearsheimer, John J. 1995. “A Realist Reply.” International Security 20:85-93.

Mitrany, David. 1966. A Working Peace System. Chicago: Quadrangle.

Milner, Helen. 1992. “International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations. Strengths and Weaknesses (Review Article).” World Politics 44:466-496.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51:513-553.

Most, Benjamin A., and Harvey Starr. 1984. “International Relations Theory, Foreign Policy Substitutability, and ‘Nice’ Laws.” World Politics 36:383-406.

Narine, Shaun. 2002. Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Boulder: Lnne Rienner.

Nierop, Tom. 1994. Systems and Regions in Global Politics: An Empirical Study of Diplomacy, International Organization, and Trade, 1950-1991. New York: Wiley.

Nye, Joseph (1971) Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organization. Boston: Little, Brown.

Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002. “With a Little Help from My Friends? Regional Organizations and the Consolidation of Democracy, “ American Journal of Political Science 46:611-626.

Pevehouse, Jon, Timothy Nordstrom, and Kevin Warnke. 2003. "Intergovernmental Organizations, 1815-2000: A New Correlates of War Data Set." http://cow2.la.psu.edu/.

Powell, Robert. 1991. “Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory.” American Political Science Review 85:1303-1320.

Powell, Robert. 1994. “Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate.” International Organization 48:313-344.

Powers, Kathy L. 2004. Regional Trade Agreements as Military Alliances. International

Interactions 33 (4):

Powers, Kathy L. 2001. International Institutions, Trade and Conflict: African Regional Trade Agreements from 1950-1992. Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Rapkin, David P. 2001. “The United States, Japan, and the Power to Block: the APEC and AMF Case.” Pacific Review 14:373-410.

Rittberger, Volker (ed.). 1990. International Regimes in East-West Politics. London/New York: Pinter Publishers.

Rittberger, Volker (ed.). 1995. Regime Theory and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Russett, Bruce, John R. Oneal, and David R. Davis. 1998. “The Third Leg of the Kantian

Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950-85.” International Organization 52: 441-467.

Shanks, Cheryl, Harond K. Jacobson, and Jeffrey H. Kaplan. 1996. “Inertia and Change in the Constellation of International Governmental Organizations, 1981-1992.” International Organization 50:593-627.

Simmons, Beth A., and Lisa L. Martin. 2002. “International Organizations and Institutions.” Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage.

Snidal, Duncan. Year. “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 85:701-26.

Snidal, Duncan. 1990. “IGOs, Regimes, and Cooperation: Challenges for International Relations Theory,” in Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst (eds.), The United States and Multilateral Institutions: Patterns of Changing Instrumentality and Influence. Boston/London/Sydney/Wellington: Unwin Hyman.

Soderbaum, Fredrik. 2003. Theories of New Regionalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Strange, Susan. 1983. “Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” in Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), Internationa Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Triesman, Daniel. 1999. “Political Decentralizaiton and Economic Reform: A Game-Theoretic Analysis,” American Journal of Political Science 43:488-517.

Union of International Associations. Various Years. Yearbok of International Organizations, 2004.  New York: K.G. Saur.

Wallace, Michael, and J.D. Singer. 1970. “Intergovernmental Organizations in the Global System, 1816-1964: A Quantitative Description.” International Organization 24:239-87.

Young, Oran R. 1989. “The Politics of International Regime Formation: Managing Natural Resources and the Environment.” International Organization 43:349-375.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And now, another cut at the literature:

Literature on regional cooperation

Theory on regionalism (conceptualisation)

Cantori, Louis J. and Steven L. Spiegel (eds). 1970. The International Politics of Regions: A Comparative Approach. Engelwoods Cliff, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Doremus, P. 1988. “Regionalism: A Review of the Literature.” Cornell University, Government Department.

Etzioni, Minerva M. 1970. The Majority of One: Towards a Theory of Regional Compatibility. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Newman, Iver B. 1992. Regional Great Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan.

Nye, Joseph. S. Jr. 1971. Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organisations. Boston: Little Brown.

Ogura, K. 1993. "A Call for A New Concept of Asia." Japan Echo 20(3): 37-44.

Solingen, Etel. 1998. Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 5-24

Solingen, Etel. 1999. “ASEAN: Quo Vadis? Domestic Coalitions and Regional Co-operation.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21(1): 30-53.

Tarling, Nicholas. 2001. Part 1.7: “Regionalism.” In Southeast Asia: A Modern History. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press, pp. 151-164.

Wanandi, Jusuf. 2000.”ASEAN's Past and the Challenges Ahead: Aspects of Politics and Security,” in Simon S. C. Tay, Jesus Estanislao and Hadi Soesastro (eds.), A New ASEAN in a New Millenium, pp. 25-34. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Woronoff, Jon. 1970. Organising African Unity. New Jersey: Scarecrow Press.

History and Politics of Regionalism and Regional Organisations

Alan, S. Milward. 1992. The European Rescue of the Nation-State. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ashworth, William. 1975. A Short History of the International Economy Since 1850. London: Longman.

Azar, Edward E. and John W. Burton (eds.). 1986.  London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Chomsky, Noam. 1984. World Orders, Old and New. London: Pluto Press.

Clapham, Christopher S. 1993. Third World Politics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Colbert, Evelyn. 1992. “Southeast Asian Regional Politics: Toward a Regional Order,” in W. Howard Riggins (ed.), Dynamics of Regional Politics, pp. 213-270. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crone, Donald K. 1993. “Does Hegemony Matter? The Reorganization of the Pacific Political Economy.” World Politics 45(4): 501-525.

Fawcett, Louise. L. E. and. Andrew Hurrell. 1995. Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. New York: Oxford University Press.

Held, David (ed.). 1993. Prospects for Democracy - North, South, East, West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hewison, Kevin, Richard Robison and Garry Rodan (eds.). 1993. Southeast Asia in the 1990s, Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave - Democratisation in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kennedy, Paul. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. New York: Random House.

Lim, Robyn. 1998. “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Building on Sand.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 20(20): 115-136.

Macridis, Roy Constantine. (ed). 1992. Foreign Policy in World Politics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Mahajan, Vidya Dhar. 1993 International politics since 1900. New Delhi: S. Chand and Co.

Mansfield, Edward D. and Helen V. Milner. 1999. “The New Wave of Regionalism.” International Organization 53(3): 589-627.

Mattli, Walter. 1999. The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge U. P.

Palmer, R. R. Joel Colton and Lloyd Kramer. 2002. A History of the Modern World Since 1815. 9^th Edition. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Pinder, John. 1995. European Community : the Building of a Union. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Rajendran, M. 1985. ASEAN's Foreign Relations: The Shift to Collective Action. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk.

Rudolph, S. H. 1987. “Presidential Address: State Formation in Asia - Prolegomenon to a Comparative Study.” The Journal of Asian Studies 46(4): 731-746.

Segal, George. 1995/1996. “Asianism and Asian Security.” The National Interest 42

Simon, Sheldon W. 1993. East-Asian Security in the Post-Cold War Era. Armonk, N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe.

Tay, Simon and Obood Talib. 1997. “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Preparing for Preventive Diplomancy.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 19(3): 252-268.

Wurfel, David and Bruce Burton. (eds.). 1990. The Political Economy of Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia. London: Macmillan.

The Legal Dimension of Regionalism

Akehurst, M. A. 1991. A Modern Introduction to International Law. London: Routledge.

Cappelletti, Mauro, Monica Seccombe and Joseph Weiler. 1985. Integration through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter.

Cassese, Antonio, and Joseph H. H. Weiler. 1988. Change and Stability in International Law-Making. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter.

Gungwu, W. 1994. “Empires and Anti-empires: Asia in World Politics,” in Gier Lundestad (ed.), The Fall of Great Powers: Peace, Stability, and Legitimacy, pp. 235-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kurth, P. 1989. “The Pacific Basin Versus the Atlantic Alliance: Two Paradigms of International Relations.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 50(5): 34-45.

Schactur, O. 1991. International Law in Theory and Practice. London: Martinus, Nijhoff.

Weiler, Joseph. 1999. The Constitution of Europe: "Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?" and other Essays on European Integration. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wolters, O. W. 1982. History, Culture and Regions in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Singapore Institute for Southeast Asian Studies.

Ziemmermann, William. 1972. “Hierarchical Regional Systems and the Politics of Systems Boundaries.” International Organization 26(1): pp. 18-36.

Globalization and Regional Issues

Anderson, Kim and Richard Blackhurst (eds.). 1993. Regional Integration and the Global Trading System. New York: St. Martin's.

Baldwin, Richard E. 1999. Market Integration, Regionalism and the Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buckley Peter J. and Pervez N. Ghauri. 1999. The Global Challenge for Multinational Enterprises: Managing Increasing Interdependence. Amsterdam; New York: Pergamon.

Hagaard, S. 1995. Developing Nations and the Politics of Regional Integration. Washington D. C.: The Brookings Institutions.

Kupchan, Charles A. 1996. Regionalism and the Rise of Consensual Empire. Center for German and European Studies, Working paper. University of California at Berkeley, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/kuc01/index.html (27 June 2005).

Newman, Iver B. 1992. Regional Great Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan.

Oman, Charles. 1994. Globalisation and Regionalisation: The Challenge for Developing Countries. Paris: OECD Development Centre.

Porter, Michael E. 1998. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.

Severino, Rodolfo. 2001. “ASEAN: A Region of Rising Opportunities,” in (n. a.), ASEAN Faces the Future. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. pp. 121-124, available at http://www.aseansec.org/viewpdf.asp?file=/pdf/sgbook01.pdf (29 June 2005).

Smith, Peter H. (ed.). 1993. The Challenge of Integration: Europe and the Americas. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

International Political Economy Framework

Adler, E. 1992. “Europe's New Security Order: A Pluralistic Security Community,” In Beverly Crawford (ed.), The Future of European Security, pp. 287-326. Berkeley: University of California.

Akrasanee, Narongchai. 2000. “ASEAN in the Past 33 Years: Lessons for Economic Cooperation,” in Simon S. C. Tay, Jesus Estanislao and Hadi Soesastro (eds.), A New ASEAN in a New Millenium, pp. 35-41. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Agarwal, V. K. 1993. “Building International Institutions in Asia-Pacific.” Asian Survey 32(11): 1029-42.

Brecher, M. 1963. “International Relations and Asian Studies: The Subordinate State Systems of Southern Asia.” World Politics 15(2).

Brick, A. B. 1992. “The Emergence of Greater China: The Diaspora Ascendant.” The Heritage Lectures 411. The Heritage Foundation: Washington D.C.

Bunbongkarn, Suchit and Kusuma Snitwongse. 2000. “New Security Issues and Their Impact on ASEAN,” in Simon S. C. Tay, Jesus Estanislao and Hadi Soesastro (eds.), A New ASEAN in a New Millenium, pp. 138-152. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Colbert, Evelyn. 1977. Southeast Asia in International Politics, 1941-1956. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Dougherty, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. 2001. Chapter 9: “International Political Economy.” In Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey, 5th Edition. New York: Longman. pp. 416-552.

Freund, Caroline L. 1998. Regionalism And Permanent Diversion. International Finance Discussion Papers Number 602. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/frc03/frc03.pdf (28 June 2005).

Gill, S. and Law, D. 1988. The Global Political Economy, Perspectives, Problems and Policies. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Little, I. 1987. Economic Development, Theory, Policy and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Nye, Joseph S. 1968. International Regionalism. Boston: Little Brown.

Roadan, Garry, Kevin Hewison, and Richard Robison (eds.). 1997. The Political Economy of South-East Asia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Rosenau, James N. 2002. “Ageing Agendas and Ambiguous Anomalies: Tensions and Contradictions of an Emergent Epoch,” in Stephanie Lawson (ed.), The New Agenda for International Relations: From Polarization to Globalization in World Politics, pp. 19-34. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Spero, J. E. 1980. The Political Economy of International Economic Relations. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Walker, S. G. (ed.). 1987. Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis. Durham: Duke University Press.

Economics of Regionalism and Regional Organisations

Cook, Malcolm. 2001. “The Use of One Within the Other: A Theory-Based Study of the Effectiveness of ASEAN as a Collective Group Within APEC (1989-1995),” in Wilfrido Villacorta (ed.), Coalition-Building in APEC, pp. 49-126. Manila: Philippine APEC Study Centers Network and the Yuchengco Center for East Asia.

De Grauwe, Paul. 1997. The Economics of Monetary Integration. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Destler I. M. 1995. American Trade Politics, Third Edition. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

Gill, S. and Law, D. 1988. The Global Political Economy, Perspectives, Problems and Policies, London: London Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Haas, M. 1989. The Asian Way to Peace: A Story of Regional Cooperation. New York: Praeger.

Higgot, R., R. Leaver and J. Ravenhill (eds). 1993. Pacific Economic Relations in the 1990s: Cooperation or Conflict? Boulder: Lyne Ryder.

Lim, Linda. 1996. "ASEAN: New Modes of Economic Cooperation." In David Wurfel and Bruce Burton. Southeast Asia in the New World Order: The Political Economy of a Dynamic Region. London: McMillan. pp. 19-35.

Little, I. 1987. Economic Development, Theory, Policy and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Low, L. 1991. "The East Asia Economic Grouping." The Pacific Review. Vol. 4, No. 4. pp. 375-382.

Smith, Peter H., (ed.). 1993. The Challenge of Integration: Europe and the Americas. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Soesastro, H., and S. Han. 1983. Pacific Economic Cooperation: The Next Phase. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Spero, J.E. 1980. The Political Economy of International Economic Relations. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Stephan, Haggard. 1995. International Political Economy and Developing Countries. England: Aldershot.

Tan, Gerald. 2000. ASEAN Economic Development and Cooperation. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Wijkman and Lindstroem. 1989. “Pacific Basin Integration as a Step Towards Freer Trade,” in John Peter Nieuwenhuysen (ed.), Towards Freer Trade Between Nations, pp.144-62. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Literature on specific regions

Etzioni, Minerva M. 1970. The Majority of One: Towards a Theory of Regional Compatibility. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Fawcett, Louise. L. E. and Andrew Hurrell. 1995. Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nye, Joseph. S. Jr. 1968. International Regionalism. Boston: Little Brown.

Nye, Joseph. S. Jr. 1971. Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organizations. Boston: Little Brown.

Literature - regionalism in Asia

Felker, Greg. 2001. “ASEAN Regionalism and Southeast Asia's Systemic Challenges,” in James C. Hsiung (ed.) Twenty-First Century World Order and the Asia Pacific: Value Change, Exigencies, and Power Alignment, pp. 213-253. New York: Palgrave.

Hamzah, B. A. 1989. ASEAN Relations with Dialogue Partners. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 2001. ASEAN Documents Series 2001. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 1997. “ASEAN Vision 2020.” Adopted in Kula Lumpur on December 15, 1997.

ASEAN Secretariat. 1997. ASEAN Statistical Indicators. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

ASEAN Secretariat. 1997. ASEAN Economic Co-operation: Transition and Transformation. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Asia 2001 Yearbook, Hong Kong: Review Publishing Co. (annual).

Southeast Asian Affairs 2001. 2000. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (annual).

Regional Outlook: Southeast Asia 2000-2001. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (annual).

Barfield, Claude. 2004. The United States, China and the Rise of Asian Regionalism. Paper Delivered at the Western Economics Association Annual Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, June 29, 2004, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/bac03/bac03.pdf (27 June 2005).

Bresnan, John. 1994. From Dominoes to Dynamos: The Transformation of Southeast Asia. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

Ellings, Richard and Sheldon Simon (eds.). 1996. Southeast Asian Security in the New Millennium. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

EWI European Security Program Staff (n. d.) Survey in Subregional Relations in and Around the CIS Space. Report of a workshop held in Kyiv, Ukraine, 12-13 December 1998, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ewi29/ewi29.pdf (27 June 2005).

Funabashi, Yoichi. 1993. “The Asianization of Asia.” Foreign Affairs 72(5): 72-85.

Jackson, Karl. 1999. Asian Contagion: The Causes and Consequences of a Financial Crisis. Boulder. CO: Westview Press.

Khoo How San. 2000. “ASEAN as a Neighbourhood Watch Group.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 22(2): 279-301.

Koppel, Bruce. 1998. “Fixing the Other Asia.” Foreign Affairs 77(12): 98-110.

Leifer, Michael. 1995. Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Southeast Asia. New York: Routledge.

Leifer, Michael. 1996. “The ASEAN Regional Forum,” Adelphi Paper No. 302. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Lingle, Christopher. 1998. The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century. Hong Kong: Asia 2000 Limited.

Mahbubani, Kishore. 1995. "The Pacific Way." Foreign Affairs 74(1): 100-111.

Mulders, Neil. 1992. Inside Southeast Asia. Bangkok: D. K. Printing House, Ltd.

Pitsuwan, Surin. 2001. Future Directions for ASEAN. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Radalet, Steven and Jeffrey Sachs. 1997. “Asia's Reemergence.” Foreign Affairs 76(6): 44-59.

Rajan, Ramkishen (ed.). 2001. “Economic Globalization and Asia: Trade, Finance, and Taxation.” ASEAN Economic Bulletin 18(1): 1-11.

Reynolds, Clark Winton. 1997. Open Regionalism: Lessons from Latin America for East Asia. Working Paper. The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, avilable at http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/vas01/index.html (28 June 2005).

Richardson, James L. 1994/1995. “Asia-Pacific: The Case for Geopolitical Optimism.” The National Interest. (43): 28-39.

Rohlen, Thomas P. 1995. A “Mediterranean” Model for Asian Regionalism: Cosmopolitan Cities and Nation-States in Asia. Working paper, Asia/Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/rot01/rot01.pdf (28 June 2005).

Ross, Robert. 1999. “The Geography of the Peace: East Asia in the Twenty-first Century.” International Security 23(4): 81-119.

Singh, Daljit and Anthony L. Smith (eds.). 2001. Southeast Asian Affairs 2001. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Soesastro, Hadi. 2000. “ASEAN 2030: The Long View.” In A New ASEAN in a New Millennium, pp. 187-227. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies, and Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Steinberg, David Joel (ed.). 1987. In Search of Southeast Asia: A Modern History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Than, Mya. 2001. “ASEAN Beyond the Crisis: A Bird's-eye View,” in Mya Than (ed.), ASEAN Beyond the Regional Crisis: Challenges and Initiatives, pp. 1-10. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Wing Thye Woo. 2001. “East Asia: Crisis and Recovery,” in Mya Than (ed.), ASEAN Beyond the Regional Crisis: Challenges and Initiatives, pp. 11-28. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Hamzah, B. A. 1989. ASEAN Relations with Dialogue Partners. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications.

Hewison, Kevin,  Richard Robison and Garry Rodan (eds.). 1993. Southeast Asia in the 1990s, Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Ogura, K. 1993. “A Call for A New Concept of Asia.” Japan Echo 20(3): 37-44.

Rajendran, M. 1985. ASEAN's Foreign Relations: The Shift to Collective Action. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk.

Simon, Sheldon W. 1993. East-Asian Security in the Post-Cold War Era. Armonk, N. Y: M. E. Sharpe.

Vayrynen, Raimo. 1997.  Post-Hegemonic and Post-Socialist Regionalism: A Comparison of East Asia and Central Europe. Working Paper. Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, avilable at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/var01/index.html (28 June 2005).

Wijkman and Lindstroem. 1989. “Pacific Basin Integration as a Step Towards Freer Trade,” in John Peter Nieuwenhuysen (ed). Towards Freer Trade Between Nations, pp. 144-62. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Wurfel, D. and B. Barton. (eds.). 1990. The Political Economy of Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia. London: MacMillan.

(n. a.) (n. d.) Subregional Relations in the Southern Tier: Prospects for Development. Summary Report of a Workshop held in Tbilisi, Georgia, 17-18 May 1998, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ewi28/ewi28.pdf (27 June 2005).

Journals: Contemporary Southeast Asia; Indonesian Quarterly; Asian Journal of Political Science; Pacific Review; Pacific Affairs; ASEAN Economic Bulletin; Australian Journal of International Affairs; Asian Survey; Far Eastern Economic Review; Asiaweek.

Literature - regionalism in Europe

EWI European Security Program Staff (n. d.) Survey in Subregional Relations in and Around the CIS Space. Report of a workshop held in Kyiv, Ukraine, 12-13 December 1998, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ewi29/ewi29.pdf (27 June 2005).

Keohane, Robert O. and Stanley Hoffman (eds.). 1991. The European Community: Decision-Making and Industrial Change. Boulder: Westview.

Mattli, Walter. 1999. The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.

Smith, Peter H., (ed). 1993. The Challenge of Integration: Europe and the Americas. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Vayrynen, Raimo. 1997.  Post-Hegemonic and Post-Socialist Regionalism: A Comparison of East Asia and Central Europe. Working Paper. Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, avilable at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/var01/index.html (28 June 2005).

Literature - regionalism in Africa

Adetula, Victor A. O. 1996. AEC and the new world order: the future of economic regionalism in Africa. Jos [Nigeria]: Centre for Development Studies, University of Jos.

African Development Bank. 2000. Economic cooperation and regional integration policy / African Development Bank, African Development Fund.  [Abidjan]: African Development Bank, African Development Fund.

Asante, S. K. B. 1997. Regionalism and Africa’s development: expectations, reality, and challenges. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press; New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Beshir, Mohamed Omer. 1979. Diversity, regionalism and national unity. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.

Bharti, Chhibber. 2004. Regional security and regional cooperation: a comparative study of ASEAN and SAARC.   New Century Publications.

Cawthra, Gavin. 1996. Sub-Regional Security Cooperation: The Southern African Development Community in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper. Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, avilable at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/cag01/cag01.html (28 June 2005).

Forrest, Joshua. 2004. Subnationalism in Africa: ethnicity, alliances, and politics. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Grant, J. Andrew and Fredrik Söderbaum (eds.). 2003. The new regionalism in Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Igue, Ogunsola John. 1995. Le territoire et l’état en Afrique: les dimensions spatiales du développement. Paris : Karthala.

Onwuka, Ralph I. 1991. The anguish of dependent regionalism in Africa. Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University Press.

Taylor, Viviene. 2000. Regionalism and Social Development. Global conference Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Development Challenges for the 21st Century. 29th ICSW International Conferenece on Social Walfare Cape Town, South Africa, 23-27 October 2000, available at http://www.icsw.org/global-conferences/taylor.htm (28 June 2005).

van Nieuwkerk, Anthoni. 2001. Regionalism into Globalism? War into Peace? SADC and ECOWAS compared. African Security Review 10(2) avalibale at http://www.iss.org.za/Pubs/ASR/10No2/Vannieuwkerk.html (28 June 2005).

(n. a.). 2001. Regionalism and regional integration in Africa : a debate of current aspects and issues. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet; Somerset, N. J.: Transaction Publishers.

Literature - regionalism in Americas, the Carribean

Bryan, Anthony T. and Roget V. Bryan. 1999. The New Face of Regionalism in the Caribbean: The Western Hemisphere Dynamic, The North-South Agenda Papers 35, avilable at http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/bra02/35AP.pdf (28 June 2005).

Preusse, Heinz Gert (2004) The new American regionalism. Cheltenham, Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Reynolds, Clark Winton. 1997. Open Regionalism: Lessons from Latin America for East Asia. Working Paper. The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, avilable at http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/vas01/index.html (28 June 2005).

Rodriguez Mendoza, Miguel et al (eds). 1999. Trade rules in the making: Challenges in regional and multilateral negotiations. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Smith, Peter H. (ed). 1993. The Challenge of Integration: Europe and the Americas. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

APPENDIX B:  Global Web Components to Be Replicated

APPENDIX C:  The Research Projects

You are asked to participate in two research projects for this course. While it appears to be two, in fact the data you will be generating from the first will apply as well to the second, so there is substantial continuity between the two projects.

Project 1: Mapping the global web—

            I am aware of only three systematic, empirical attempts to map the web of international organizations: Wallace and Singer (1970), Jacobson et. al. (1986), and Shanks et. al. (1996).  The first was actually a limited effort to integrate IO relevant data into the Correlates of War project. The second, focusing on one point in time (1981), sought to test hypotheses related to functional theory. The third and most recent attempt compares two time slices (1981 with 1992) and seeks to account for changes in the constellation of IGOs and correlates of joining the web on the part of individual states. It also takes a stab at what the post-Cold War global web looks like, but cannot do so since the Cold War only ended three years earlier (1989), or during the year of their final time slice (1992), depending on whether or not the Cold War’s end is marked by the revolutions in Eastern Europe or by the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

            The purpose of this mapping exercise is to compare and contrast changes in the constellation of IGOs for the latest data point available (2003) with the two preceding studies’ data points (1981 and 1992). By 2003 the form and shape of the post-Cold War web of global architecture should be relatively clear. What may have been “trends” noted in 1992 may look completely different by 2003. So, the primary research question to be pursued here is: in what way(s) has the web of global organizational architecture (both IGOs and RGOs) changed from the Cold War period?

            In order to answer this question, we will need to answer two other questions, and in this sense, we are replicating/updating the Shanks effort. First, how has the constellation of organizations in international politics changed or remained the same since 1992? The answer to this question revolves around using IGOs/RGOs as the unit of analysis. Second, have the correlates of states joining these organizations changed or remained basically the same? For this question, the relevant unit of analysis is membership in IGOs/RGOs at the state level. Given our findings, then we will need to reinterpret them in the light of what we would have expected from our theoretical perspectives (this, of course is where the readings come in to play, and we need to be making some predictions about how the data are likely to look before we are ready to do the analysis).

            Much of our task is already done (see Appendix B). Shanks and colleagues have mapped out 1981 and 1992. Our job is to:

1) Using their scheme, map out 2003. Their data collection effort is based on the Yearbook of International Organizations, which we had the library purchase for this course, and is available on line at: http://www.uia.org/.  This source is available to you, and as long as you are using a university computer, it doesn’t appear that you need a user name or a password. Even if you want to use a computer at home or your laptop, you still won’t need anything but to register your computer at: http://support.math.arizona.edu/network/register.php.  To accomplish our tasks:

a)                          We will need to use the same exact coding rules used by Shank and colleagues to assemble data on the birth, death, and existence of IGOs and RGOs for the year 2003.

b)                          Then, we will compare/contrast the result with those obtained by Shank for 1992 and for 1981. These data are summarized in Appendix B, and are contained and available in complete form through ICPSR: they include two data files for each year, and can be accessed and downloaded through our University computers. You can access through: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/access/index.html.

Through steps a) and b), we will be able to create an aggregate profile of change and continuity in the global web, with IGOs and RGOs as the unit of analysis. These steps will also help us get to the next one:

            2) Identifying correlates of joining: Shanks and colleagues have assembled a set of predictor variables, using several versions of states joining IGOs and RGOs as the dependent variable. We will need to do a replication of their analysis, applying to 2003. This will mean collecting the same data for 2003 that they collected for 1981 and 1992. At the same time, we will need to think carefully about what important predictor variables they may have excluded from their equations, and test those as well. The key query here is whether or not what held up prior to and at the end of the Cold War as predictors of joining the web are still holding through this longer time span. In order to accomplish this task, we will need to:

            a) Create the dependent variable(s) used by Shanks for 2003 memberships in IGOs/RGOs; this means generating the relevant membership data for all countries in 2003, using the Yearbook, and for the IGOs/RGOs we identified in step 1) above;

            b) Generate data on the same independent variables used by Shank, but for 2003, for all the states for which we have membership data;

            c) Add additional independent variables that we believe ought to be in the equation;

            d) Run the analysis, and compare with the results from the Shanks study. Again, we will need to keep in mind the theoretical literature we reviewed going into the project.

Project 2: Mapping by Regions—

            In this phase of research, we will change levels of analysis, and focus on regions, rather than individual states or the global web. This is appropriate since, and despite issues about globalization, much of the “action” appears to occur in regions rather than globally. There is more regional web development than global architecture, more trading occurs regionally than globally for most states, and neighbors and the region appears to be the prime focus for most states on a variety of dimensions of international politics. Our earlier attempts have also found that region is a critical empirical determinant of joining behavior: substantial and significant variation is demonstrated across regions, regardless of the time slice examined. African states for example, behave quite differently than Latin American states; Middle East states offer different correlates of joining behavior than Asian states. Thus, a regional focus is important to understanding both the nature of the architecture, and reasons why states may join in that architecture.

            In this phase of the project, you will be asked to adopt a region, as your focus of specialization for the course. The regions available for this are as follows:

• Asia
• Sub-Saharan Africa
• Middle East (including North-Africa)
• Latin America (excluding Central America)
• The Caribbean
• Central America
• “Europe 1”: these are the states we used to call Western Europe prior to the end of the Cold War;
• “Europe 2”: these are the states we used to call “Eastern Europe” prior to the end of the Cold War;
• Former Soviet Republics: these are the states that were part of the Soviet Union prior to its breakup;
• Oceania

Fortunately, there is an existing data base that has collected IGO/RGO membership data (Pevehouse, Nordstrom, and Warnke, 2003) for all of these states over time (dependent variable), and we have another data base (developed last year) that we can adapt for many of the independent variables we need to look at as the correlates of joining by states across and within regions. Since the Pevehouse data set stops in 2000, we will have the data we generated for 2003 to make it more current, and that will allow us to integrate the two phases of the project.

Your job will be to become an expert in your region, and to provide a thorough, theoretically grounded, empirically sound, and comparative explanation of why states in your region vary in terms of their participation in the architectural web that has been created for their region. If possible, you will be asked as well to go to the next step, and to try as well to identify the effects of variation in joining and (presumably) participation in these webs. To accomplish this task, you will have to do your own work on your region, but at the same time be aware of and consult with your co-researchers on their analyses and findings in order to place your results in a truly comparative perspective. To be truly comparative, you will need to look at joining behavior not only across states within the region, but also compare your results with those working in other regions, and finally, to look at your results across time (or, what we are calling here, time slices).

            “Time slices” will become important for a variety of reasons. Some of the most important of those involve time as a short-hand, or an indicator, of changes in global international politics (e.g., periods of high versus low conflict; changes in polarizations, etc.); and of course, the important distinction between Cold War and post-Cold War epochs. Time slices can act as well, in the context of offering us a “lag” in the dependent variable, as an important way of testing liberal-institutional perspectives on joining. The time slices we will examine include: 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2003.

A note on comparability of data: strictly speaking, you will be using a sub-set of the data generated in phase 1 for phase 2. The Pevehouse data is based exclusively on membership in IGOs/RGOs that are NOT emanations, based on some assumptions about states and how they join the web. In phase 1 we will look at both emanations and traditional organizations, but in phase 2 we will restrict our analysis to traditional organization joining.