114083 Global Society & Integration

Lehrende: Prof. Dr. Heribert Dieter

Veranstaltungsart: Seminar

Orga-Einheit: Sociology, Politics & Economics

Anzeige im Stundenplan: GlobSociety

Semesterwochenstunden: 3

Credits: 6,0
Hinweis: In Ihrer Prüfungsordnung können abweichende Credits festgelegt sein.

Standort: Campus der Zeppelin Universität

Unterrichtssprache: Englisch

Min. | Max. Teilnehmerzahl: 5 | 35

Prioritätsschema: Standard-Priorisierung

Inhalte:
The increasing importance of global issues – the need to regulate environmental standards, international trade, cross-border investment, international financial markets – has led to a new debate. Some of the questions will be discussed in the seminar:
·       How important is the development of a global society?
·       Do nation states lose the ability to shape their own future?
·       Or is the concept of “cosmopolitan governance” (David Held) an entirely unrealistic assumption?
·       Will the sovereignty of states be curbed further?
·       Or does the sovereign state continue to be the most legitimate unit that is able to provide both efficient and legitimate governance?
·       How can accountability be organised at the supra-national level?
The course is being divided into six blocs.

1) The course will commence with a discussion of the theoretical basis: How is sovereignty defined in the 21st century? What are the guiding principles of globalisation processes? Why do states sacrifice sovereignty in the economic domain?
2) International in goods and (increasingly) in services has been a major force in international economic relations. The World Trade Organisation WTO governs these processes. Simultaneously, the WTO is criticised for being a burden for the poor and the rich: Some argue the WTO is facilitating the exploitation of developing countries, others argue the WTO permits the undermining of social standards in the North. Furthermore, the WTO appears to be increasingly undermined by competing regimes, in particular by preferential trade agreements.
3) Over the last 150 years, the shape of the international financial order has changed significantly. Whilst capital flows were not restricted before 1914, they were regulated from then until 1973. What has been the rationale for regulation as well as for non-regulation? What is the mandate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)? How do the perceptions of financial globalisation differ between developing countries and the OECD-economies? How does the current crisis affect the future of global financial governance?
4) Surprisingly, the world's most successful exporting nation does not have a well-developed understanding of the current international economic order. The openness of the trading regime is often taken for granted, but what contribution does Germany make to keep it open? Which parts of the country are more intensively integrated into the global economy than others? How does that affect them in the crisis? What does Germany and do other European countries learn in the crisis?
5) In the 21st century, the existing international order - largely shaped after World War II - does no longer adequately reflect the changing power structures in the world. What are the concepts that address the rise of powers such as China and India? Are the transatlantic powers prepared for the changing power distribution? What are the prospects for the emergence of a multipolar international order?
6) How stable is the current international order? Is the development of a multipolar world a stabilizing or de-stabilizing development? What are the expectations of realist, constructivist and neoliberal institutionalist scholars? What role does Europe play in the current international order?

 

Lernziele:
Learning objectives:
The driving factor for the development of a cosmopolitan global society is the increasing integration of relations between hitherto separated societies. Whilst globalisation, for the purpose of the course narrowly defined as increased economic transactions, is shaping the economic sphere of many countries, we see a relatively limited debate on both the processes that lead to globalisation, the consequences for national sovereignty and the institutions that govern globalisation. Students will learn to analyse the policies that contribute to the development of global society, but also look at the forces that weaken “governance beyond the nation state”.



 

Weitere Informationen zu den Prüfungsleistungen:
Expectations and requirements:
·       The course will be taught in English. Thus, fluency in English is essential.
·       Each participant will have to make a presentation in the seminar (20 minutes), participate actively in the debate and submit an essay of no less than 3.500 words (submission of the essay in German is possible).
·       Active participation is of course vital for a good seminar and expected from all participants.
·       Composition of assessment: Presentation 50%, essay 50%.

Literatur:

• Centre for European Reform (2016): The economic consequences of leaving the EU. The final report of the CER commission on Brexit 2016. April 2016, available at http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/report/2016/economic-consequences-leaving-eu-final-report-cer-commission-brexit
  
• Chilcot Committee (2016): Report of the Irag Inquiry. Executive Summary. London: July 2016, available at http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/246416/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_executive-summary.pdf
  
• Collier, Paul (2013): Exodus. How migration is changing our world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  
• Dieter, Heribert (2016): Deutschland in der Weltwirtschaft. Ein Modell mit Zukunft? 2., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage, Schriftenreihe Band 1742, 2016. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
  
• Dieter, Heribert (2013): Germany’s Two-Edged Business Model. Current Account Surpluses Fund Investment and Consumption – Abroad. SWP-Comment 37/2013, November 2013, im Internet unter http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2013C37_dtr.pdf
  
• Dieter, Heribert (2012): Maastricht 2.0. Alternatives for monetary union beyond the centralization fetish. SWP Comment 31/2012 (September 2012), available at http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2012C31_dtr.pdf
  
• Fukuyama, Francis (2012): The Future of History. Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? Foreign Affairs, 91 (1), pp. 53-61.
  
• Grant, Charles 82016): How Brexit is changing the EU. Centre for European Reform, 15 July 2016, available at http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/bulletin-article/2016/how-brexit-changing-eu
  
• Guerrieri, Paolo (2010): Multipolar Governance and Global Imbalance. International Affairs, 86 (3), pp. 681–692.
  
• Haldane, Andrew G. (2009): Rethinking the Financial Network. Speech delivered at the Financial Student Association, Amsterdam, April 2009, available at http://www.finextra.com/Finextra-downloads/featuredocs/speech386.pdf.
  
• Held, David (2003): Cosmopolitanism: globalisation tamed? Review of International Studies,Vol 29, No. 4, pp. 465-480.
  
• Helleiner, Eric (2014): The evolution of the international monetary and financial system, in: Ravenhill, John (ed.): Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, pp. 173-197.
  
• Huntington, Samuel P. (1993): The Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 32 (Summer 1993), pp. 22-49.
  
• Huntington, Samuel P. (1999): The Lonely Superpower, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 2 (March/April 1999), pp. 35-49.
  
• Ikenberry, John G. (2008): The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can the Liberal System Survive? Foreign Affairs, 87, pp. 23–37.
  
• Irwin, Douglas A. (2016): The truth about trade. What critics get wrong about the global economy, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 95, No. 4 (July/August), pp. 84-95
  
• Jackson, Robert (1999): Sovereignty in World Politics: a Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999), pp. 431-456.
  
• Jones, Owen (2016): The war in Iraq was not a blunder or a mistake. It was a crime, The Guardian, 7 July 2016, available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/blair-chilcot-war-in-iraq-not-blunder-crime
  
• Krasner, Stephen (2001): Rethinking the Sovereign State Model. Review of International Studies, No. 27, pp. 17-42.
  
• Krasner, Stephen (1999): Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
  
• Lepsius, M. Rainer (2012): Wir brauchen kein neues Versailles. Die europäischen Krisen verlangen nicht nach einem europäischen Zentralstaat. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7.12.2012, p. 38, available at http://www.faz.net/frankfurter-allgemeine-zeitung/wir-brauchen-kein-neues-versailles-11984609.html
  
• Levinson, Marc (2010): Faulty Basel. Foreign Affairs, 89 (3), pp. 76–88.
  
• Mamadough, Virginie; van der Wusten, Herman (2011): Financial, Monetary and Governance Crisis: An Outlook on the Euro(zone). Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie, Vol. 102, No. 1, S. 111-118.
  
• Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt Stephen M. (2016): The case for offshore balancing. A superior U.S. grand strategy. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 70-83
  
• Moravcsik, Andrew (2010): Europe: Rising Superpower in a Bipolar World. In A. S. Alexandroff and A. F. Cooper (Eds.), Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance. Baltimore: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 151–174.
  
• Oliver, Tim (2016): European and international views of Brexit, Journal of European Public Policy, April 2016, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13501763.2016.1174534
  
• Philpott, Daniel (1995): Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 48, No. 2 (1995), pp. 353-368
  
• Philpott, Daniel (1999): Westphalia, Authority, and International Society, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999), pp. 566-589
  
• Piris, Jean-Claude (2016): If the UK votes to leave. The seven alternatives to EU membership. Centre for European reform, January 2016
  
• Putnam, Robert D. (2007): E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 137-174
  
• Rodrik, Dani (2011): The Globalization Paradox. Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York and London: W.W. Norton
  
• Reinhardt, Carmen; Rogoff, Kenneth (2009): This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  
• Schaller, Christian (2008): Gibt es eine “Responsibility to Protect?”, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 46/2008, pp. 9-14.
  
• Shambough, David (2015): China at the Crossroads: Ten Major Reform Challenges, The Brookings Institution, October 2014, available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/10/01-china-crossroads-reform-challenges-shambaugh
  
• Sharma, Ruchir (2012): Broken BRICs. Why the Rest stopped Rising. Foreign Affairs, 91 (6), pp. 2-7.
  
• Sørensen, Georg (1999): Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999), pp. 590-604
  
• Truman, Edwin M. (2015): What next for the IMF? Peterson Institute, Policy Brief PB 15-1.
  
• Wendt, Alexander (2003): Why a World State is Inevitable, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 491-542.
  
• Winham, Gilbert R. (2014): The evolution of the global trade regime, in: Ravenhill, John (ed.): Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, pp. 109-138.
  
•