Political Science 511
Dr. Jeffrey Lewis
Syllabus
Cleveland State University (4 Credit Hours)
Spring 2016
MW 6:00 – 7:50 PM
RT 1701
Nonstate Actors in the Global Arena
“A fundamental transformation has begun in the way we perceive world politics”
…Philip Cerny
The study of International Relations (IR) has long been subject to a “state-centric” bias,
but since the 1970s there are those who argue the power, autonomy, and legitimacy of
nation-states are increasingly bound by, and exercised through, the spread of nonstate
actors. Who are these nonstate actors, do they complement or challenge state authority,
and how is world politics changing as a result? This course examines the growing impact
of the “nonstate” on world politics and contemplates the longer term and potentially
transformative implications of this dimension on the interstate system, the legal
institution of sovereignty, and state-societal relations in today’s era of globalization.
Some of the many forms of nonstate that we will encounter include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Multinational corporations (MNCs)
International organizations (IOs)
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
Supranational regional orders such as the European Union (EU)
Social movements and advocacy networks
Epistemic communities of shared knowledge
Private security firms
Trade unions
International credit rating agencies
Diasporas
Transnational religious movements
Illicit and illiberal networks such as mafias, traffickers, and terrorists
The central focus of this class is on the diverse range and variable impact of nonstate
actors on world affairs and how patterns of authority may or may not undergo change
from the classical “Westphalian” notion of an interstate system based on the juridical
notion of sovereignty and exclusive bundles of territorial authority. In the process, we
will explore bigger canvas questions such as whether and how nonstate actors signify
structural and ideational changes in how IR works and what the longer term implications
are for an “anarchical” system in a world of “disaggregated, networked” states.
Readings
Required readings:
2
Daphne Josselin and William Wallace (eds) (2001) Non-State Actors in World Politics (Palgrave) ISBN:
9780333968147
Anne-Marie Slaughter (2004) A New World Order (Princeton University Press) ISBN: 9780691123974
Philip Cerny (2010), Rethinking World Politics: A Theory of Transnational Neopluralism (Oxford
University Press) ISBN: 9780199733705
Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore (2004) Rules For the World: International Organizations in World
Politics (Cornell University Press) ISBN: 9780801488238
Akira Iriye (2004) Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the
Contemporary World (University of California Press) ISBN: 9780520231283
Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders (Cornell University Press) ISBN:
9780801484568
There are also a number of additional required readings marked below with an asterisk
(*). These readings are available in electronic format at the library’s electronic course
reserve (ECR) web page.
Recommended:
An important supplement to the weekly readings is to follow current international politics
and to discuss relevant events in class. To facilitate this exchange of ideas and discussion,
I highly recommend a daily newspaper with good international coverage such as the
Financial Times, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal.
Office Hours and Contact Information
I encourage you to seek me out to discuss issues that are raised in class and in the
readings. I can be found during the following times:
MW 4:45-6:00 p.m.
Or by appointment
Office: RT 1755
Phone: (216) 687-4678
Email: j.lewis07@csuohio.edu
Course Requirements
The format of this class places a premium on discussion, including two class-based “case
study” discussion sessions aimed at policy prescriptions in nonstate politics. It is
therefore imperative to keep up with the reading and come to class prepared to discuss
these materials in an informed and critical manner. Attendance and participation accounts
for 15% of your final grade. In class we will discuss the qualitative expectations for
attending and participating. Occupying a seat without active participation does not insure
3
you of a good score on this portion of your final grade. Technically speaking, 100%
percent attendance by someone who merely keeps a seat warm all semester should expect
to earn a grade of less than 50% for this portion of their final grade.
There are two exams: a midterm and a comprehensive final exam. Both exams will
consist of a take home format, distributed approximately one week in advance. The
midterm will include two essay questions. The comprehensive final exam will be a
mixture of short answer and essay questions.
There are also three short writing assignments, equally weighted and approximately 5-7
pages each in length. Writing assignment 1 is an analysis of the “disaggregated,
networked” state and how the nonstate, transnational dimension alters the way
sovereignty functions. Writing assignment 2 is a case study analysis of a nonstate actor
that you select, to be supplemented by class presentations/discussion of main findings.
Writing assignment 3 is an application of Barnett and Finnemore’s model of bureaucracy
to show how a nonstate actor can obtain “moral authority” or “expert authority” in a
given issue area. This analysis: (1) will identify an issue area and nonstate actor, and (2)
explain how, why, and when moral or expert authority was obtained, and (3) assess
whether the result is “real” relative autonomy or more contingent influence. Additional
information about the writing assignments, including how to document sources and ideas,
will be provided in class.
Take-Home Midterm Exam
Final Exam
Writing Assignments (3 @ 15% each)
Class Participation and Attendance
20%
20%
45%
15%
Final grades will be based on the following scale:
A
AB+
B
BC
F
92-100
90-91
88-89
82-87
80-81
70-79
69-0
Important due dates:
Midterm (distributed Feb. 29)
Mar. 7
Writing Assignment 1
Writing Assignment 2
Writing Assignment 3
Feb. 17
Mar. 28
Apr. 25
Final Exam (distributed May 4)
May 11
4
Please check these dates carefully. If you cannot make these exam dates or paper
deadlines, I recommend you do not take this course. No “early” exams will be given
under any circumstances. Make-up exams will only be given in exceptional
circumstances; in all cases, students must have a valid excuse and written documentation
(doctor’s note, etc.) AND I should be notified PRIOR to the exam. Make-up exams will
be given at my convenience and any missed exam must be taken within ONE WEEK of
the original exam or a zero for that exam will be recorded. An essay format will be used
for all make-up exams.
Early/late paper policy: Early papers are always welcome. Late papers will be accepted,
but late penalties apply; for each calendar date late, deduct 15 points out of 100; if
you consider this late assessment severe, I agree, so please be sure to turn your papers in
on time or early. To be considered “on time,” papers are due in typed, hard copy form in
class the day of the deadline. No e-mail papers will be accepted.
Please note, I do not provide information about grades by e-mail or phone.
The last day to withdraw is April 1.
Finally, my policy on academic dishonesty is simple: zero tolerance. Cheating on exams
or plagiarizing material (regardless of source -- this means internet sources too!) will
result in a zero for that assignment. The University’s policy on academic dishonesty can
be found in the student code of conduct; a particularly relevant passage you should be
familiar with reads as follows:
Academic honesty is essential to maintain the integrity of the University as an institution and to foster an
environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge. The Cleveland State University Academic Community
values honesty and integrity and holds its members to high standards of ethical conduct. Academic
dishonesty is, therefore, unacceptable, and students must be prepared to accept the appropriate sanctions for
any dishonest academic behavior…Academic misconduct refers to any fraudulent actions or behaviors that
affect the evaluation of a student's academic performance or record of academic progress. It includes:
Cheating -- Fraudulent acquisition and/or submission of another's intellectual property. This includes but is
not limited to the unauthorized giving or receiving of a copy of examination questions, the use of
unauthorized or fabricated sources in carrying out assignments, and copying the examination answers of
others.
Plagiarism -- Stealing and/or using the ideas or writings of another in a paper or report and claiming them as
your own. This includes but is not limited to the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the work of another
person without full and clear acknowledgment.
Please read the definition of plagiarism carefully. “I didn’t know how to cite things” is
not a valid defense for failing to give full and clear acknowledgment of the ideas or
writings of someone else.
Course Outline
5
1. Introduction: The Theory of Nonstate in a “State-Centric” World. What is
the nonstate? Coding and definitional issues (such as “GINGOs”). How has the
nonstate dimension changed, what impact does this make on world politics, and
how do we make sense of the variability of nonstate influence? The nonstate as
myth-buster: that the world really ever was state-centric, that all NGOs are
“good,” and nonstate pluralism enhances global civil society. Formal and informal
dimensions of nonstate power and the networking effects of institutional
environments.
Josselin/Wallace, ch’s 1-2 (Josselin and Wallace; Halliday)
Slaughter, introduction
Cerny, ch. 1
Barnett/Finnemore, ch. 1
Keck/Sikkink, preface
Iriye, introduction-ch. 1
2. The Rise of the “Disaggregated, Networked” State and the Blurring
Boundaries of the “Domestic” and “International.” Here we examine the
thesis that in today’s world “order,” effective public policy is increasingly
enmeshed in transgovernmental relations. What gives rise to the “disaggregated”
state and how do horizontal and vertical networks impact state sovereignty? How
would Realist IR theory account for this? Should we fear a “global technocracy”
of “secret governance by unelected regulators and judges” (Slaughter’s term)?
Slaughter, ch’s 1-conclusion
3. The Ideational Dimension of IR and Role of Social Epistemes. How the
nonstate contributes to the epistemic foundations of IR, or where ideas come
from. Social epistemes as “mental maps.” A classic blindspot in materialist,
structuralist accounts, or why ‘Realism 101’ is only a partial picture of systemic
IR theory. The differences between regulative and constitutive rules. The key case
of “neoliberalism” as the driving ideas behind globalization.
6
Josselin/Wallace, ch’s 3-5, 7, 14 (Ryall; Smith; Colonomos; Stone; Dalacoura)
Cerny, ch’s 2-9
MINI-CASE ANALYSIS 1. Think Tanks and Neoliberal Ideas. Where do ideas
come from and what explains the timing of when/why they become routinized in
practices, institutionalized, and/or taken-for-granted. Core discussion question for
class: how could someone effectively challenge the intellectual hegemony of
neoliberal ideas in today’s political economy and what role might transatlantic think
tanks play? Reading:
*Daniel Stedman Jones (2012) “A Transatlantic Network: Think Tanks and the Ideological
Entrepreneurs,” in his Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics
(Princeton), pp. 134-79.
4. International Institutions as Font for Rule-Making and Order. The role of
formal and informal institutions in supplying rules, order, and legitimacy. Today’s
fashion of studying “governance without governments.” How are IO’s “cultural”
creatures and how can we study the effects on state actors? What are some
pathologies of international institutions in supplying order? Lessons from case
studies on IMF development expertise, UN refugee policy, and the failure of
peacekeeping norms to prevent genocide. Are IOs responsible for changing
“global consciousness”?
Barnett/Finnemore, ch’s 2, 3, 5, 6
Iriye, ch’s. 2-conclusion
MINI-CASE ANALYSIS 2. Refugees and Stateless Citizens in Today’s Era of
Globalization. How does the Westphalian state system manage refugee flows and
what policy pathologies result? Core discussion question for class: how would you
brief G20 leaders on more effective international state practices for coping with
refugee flows? Readings:
Barnett/Finnemore, ch. 4
*Luke Mogelson (2013) “The Dream Boat,” The New York Times Magazine, November 17, pp. 34-41,
48-53.
*Joe Sacco (2010) “The Unwanted,” Virginia Quarterly Review, Winter 2010 and Spring 2010;
reprinted in his book, Journalism (Metropolitan Books, 2012), pp. 109-56.
*Jonathan Katz (2016) “In Exile,” The New York Times Magazine, January 17, pp. 46-54.
7
5. Redesigning Sovereignty: Europe’s “Pooling” Experiment. Is the EU today an
archetype of “pooled sovereignty” and an avant garde experiment in
supranationalism or an unstable half-way house and interstate anomaly? The EU’s
institutions show concretely what real autonomy and power “beyond the nation
state” can look like. Individually, the EU institutions show the “bricolage” and
path dependent nature of evolving nonstate authority and identity. Taken together,
they suggest either a harbinger of where advanced cooperation in today’s age of
globalization is headed or a warning, Cassandra-style, of the limits of voluntary
deeper integration among nation-states.
*Wolfram Kaiser (2007) “Introduction,” in his book Christian Democracy and the
Origins of the European Union (Cambridge), pp. 1-11.
*Vivien Schmidt (1999) “European “Federalism” and its Encroachments on National
Institutions,” Publius, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 19-44.
*Robert Keohane (2002) “Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the
United States,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 743-65.
*Desmond Dinan (2013) “EU Governance and Institutions: Stresses Above and
Below the Waterline,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 51, Annual Review,
pp. 89-102.
*Stéphanie Novak (2013) “The Silence of the Ministers: Consensus and Blame
Avoidance in the Council of the European Union,” Journal of Common Market
Studies, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1091-1107.
*Pieter De Wilde and Michael Zürn (2012) “Can the Politicization of European
Integration Be Reversed?,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.
137-53.
6. Policy Advocacy Networks and Social Movements. As policy making becomes
more internationalized, how do lobbying and activist patterns adapt? Are
transnational policy networks increasingly influential and visible, and in what
policy areas do they seem to matter most? International trade unionism and
“MNC containment” strategies of moral suasion. How do transnational
movements impact traditional state-society relations and is there a “global civil
society”? How important is the internet (and technology generally) in changing
patterns of social activism?
Keck/Sikkink, ch’s 1-6
8
Josselin/Wallace, ch. 6, 10 (Coleman; Josselin)
7. MNCs and the Growth of “Global Production Networks.” Large cross-border
firms are not only plentiful and powerful in today’s world, but they are
“increasingly exercising a parallel authority alongside governments in matters of
economic management” (Susan Strange). If “national markets and economic
sovereignty are increasingly a fiction” (Cerny), what is the firm-level response?
What are the social and political implications of transnational corporations in a
world of national finances, taxation policies, and labor markets?
*Susan Strange, “Politics and Production,” in her book The Retreat of the State: The
Diffusion of Power in the World Economy (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp.
44-65.
Josselin/Wallace, ch’s 8-9 (Rowlands; Walter)
8. The “Dark Side” of the Nonstate. Not All Are Good, Benign, or Liberal:
What Are the Normative Implications? In David Ryall’s apt phrase, “there is
sometimes a danger of seeing non-state actors, like apple pie and motherhood, as
good almost by definition.” But the nonstate can also channel transnational
organized crime, violence, hatred and enmity. Nor is the nonstate “better”
necessarily in terms of representation or accountability. Here we explore some of
the more nefarious elements of the nonstate world and consider the normative
implications involved.
Josselin-Wallace, ch 12 (Galeotti)
*Moises Naim, “Mafia States: Organized Crime Takes Office,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.
91, No. 3, 2012, pp. 100-05.
*Mark Galeotti, “Transnational Aspects of Russian Organized Crime,” Chatham
House Russia and Eurasia Programme Meeting Summary, 17 July 2012, pp. 1-5.
*Stephen Walt, “ISIS as Revolutionary State,” Foreign Affairs, November/December
2015, pp. 42-51.
9. Diasporas and Transnationalism. Although understudied within IR proper, the
role of diasporas can shed fascinating light on how we think about identity and
boundaries. If diasporas represent the “cultural hybridity of transnational
communities” (Østergaard-Nielson) they also display the tricky cognitive
boundaries that can arise in a nation-state blueprint for IR. Are transnational
9
cultural groups such as the Chinese “bamboo network” or “Davos man” (i.e.
Anglo-American capitalists) a growing source of influence? Do diasporas support
a thesis of cross-cutting, multiple identity configuration becoming a “normal”
state of the world (see Cerny, pg. 34-35 for a discussion).
Josselin-Wallace, ch. 13 (Østergaard-Nielsen)
*Eva Østergaard-Nielsen, “Diasporas and Conflict Resolution: Part of the Problem or
Part of the Solution?,” Danish Institute for International Studies Brief, March 2006.
10. Reconfiguring Authority, Legitimacy, and Order: The Role of the Nonstate
in “Cognitive Evolution” and the Contestability of “Progress”. In today’s
globalization era, sovereignty is less “at bay” than in the process of being
collectively redefined. The case of privatizing security and “outsourcing” war.
How the growth of the nonstate impacts democracy, security, and economics.
Josselin/Wallace, ch. 11, 15 (Coker; Josselin and Wallace)
Cerny, ch’s 10-conclusion
FINAL EXAM, May 11, 6:00-8:00 p.m.