Language for IR?

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

Do you need to learn a language to do IR? I know in comparative it is probably essential to do so, but in IR studying IPE/Conflict between nations, do you need to learn the language for the region you want to study?

My language experience is next to nothing..and I am worried

[hawkeye78]

We don't have a language requirement here at Iowa. Being smart on math is helpful though.

Edited April 1, 2013 by hawkeye78

[catchermiscount]

Heck, just knowing most of the capitals would put you ahead most of the conflict folks.

[peternewman89]

I'm starting in theory in the fall so different field, but for us there is no language requirement for anyone in the department (methods requirements instead).  I had a long talk with my advisor during my visit and I'll be learning at least one, probably two languages in the next few years so that I can be a more complete theorist.  For us though, language is definitely de-emphasized, for all fields.  Though probably half of the comparitivists are native spanish-speakers, so they've got something down already.

[IRToni]

I think it depends on what kind of research you want to do and what your ontological/epistemological priors are. If you are doing large-N-quantitative studies, not focusing on specific countries/regions, it might not be necessary. Similarly if your research is closely aligned with neorealism as a theory, since it doesn't focus on specifics. However, if you're thinking of doing small-N case studies involving specific regions/countries, open the "black box" of the state, or are planning to have a strong regional focus, I think learning a language is absolutely essential, also in IR.

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

Any ideas on what books to read for IR or journal articles.

 

My intro IR Class, we read the Lord of the Rings and talked about Realism and Idealism :/ that was it.

[phdhope2013]

Any ideas on what books to read for IR or journal articles.

 

My intro IR Class, we read the Lord of the Rings and talked about Realism and Idealism :/ that was it.

 

I am pretty sure if you email the Professors at the school you are attending they will give you the reading list/syllabus to courses you may want to take and use that for any reading you want to do. 

[catchermiscount]

Any ideas on what books to read for IR or journal articles.

 

My intro IR Class, we read the Lord of the Rings and talked about Realism and Idealism :/ that was it.

What kind of work do you intend to do?

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

What kind of work do you intend to do?

 

Conflict. I have a basic idea of my other area (IPE).

[GopherGrad]

Great power type conflict or asymmetrical stuff? I can dump a huge reading list on your for either, but you shouldn't sweat reading a ton this summer or anything.

[Dark-Helmed]

Conflict. I have a basic idea of my other area (IPE).

 

World War Z has a non-trivial amount of IR/conflict themes if you're looking for fun reading that you can count towards your prep.

[eponine997]

Any ideas on what books to read for IR or journal articles.

 

My intro IR Class, we read the Lord of the Rings and talked about Realism and Idealism :/ that was it.

I've got a long list for this, as relating to conflict (though more civil war/comparative than IR).  PM if you'd like.  

[GopherGrad]

The next two posts are from the comps reading list I put together for my MA degree. First international war, second, intra-national.

 

International Wars

Realism

Blainey, Geoffrey: The Causes of War.
Brooks, Stephen: “Dueling Realisms” International Organizations
Fearon, James: “Rationalist Explanations for War” International Organization.
Mearshimer, John: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Wohlforth, William: “Realism and the End of the Cold War” International Security.
Waltz, Kenneth: Theory of International Politics.

    Security Dilemmas

Fearon, James: “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes”     American Political Science Review.
Glaser, Charles: Rational Theory of International Politics
Jervis, Robert: “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma” World Politics.
Van Evra, Steven: “Offense, Defense and the Causes of War” International Security.

    Structure and Polarity

Duetsch and Singer: “Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability” World Politics
Hass, Michael: “International Subsystems: Stability and Polarity” American Political Science Review
Nexon, Daniel: “The Balance of Power in the Balance” World Politics
Wohlforth, William: “The Stability of a Unipolar World” International Security.
Wohlforth, William: “Testing Balance of Power Theory in World History” European Journal of International Relations.
Waltz, Kenneth: “The Stability of a Bipolar World” Daedalus.
Waltz, Kenneth: “Structural Realism after the Cold War” International Security.

Liberalism and Democratic Peace

    The Politics of Accountability

Doyle, Michael: “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace” American Political Science Review.
Finel, Bernard and Lord, Kristin: “The Surprising Logic of Transparency” International Studies     Quarterly.
Owen, John: “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace” International Organization.
Weeks, Jessica: “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve” International     Organization.

    Relations Between Democracies and the Liberal Consensus

Downes, Alexander: “How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of     Democratic Victory in War” International Security.
Doyle, Michael: “Liberalism and World Politics” The American Political Science Review.
Doyle, Michael: “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace” American Political Science Review.
Desch, Michael: “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters” International Security.
Owen, John: “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace” International Organization.
Rosato, Sebastian: “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory” American Political Science Review.
Rosato, Sebastian: “Explaining the Democratic Peace” American Political Science Review.

Constructivism, Regimes and Norms

    Institutions and Cooperation

Buzan, Barry: “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and     Regime Theory Meet the English School” International Organization.
Johnston, Alastair Iain: “Review of Strategic Culture” International Security.
Jervis, Robert: “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma” World Politics.
Jervis, Robert: “Security Regimes” International Organization.
Krasner, Stephen: “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening     Variables” International Organization.

    Norms

Carpenter, Charli: “Women and Children First: Gender, Norms and Humanitarian Evacuation     in the Balkans” International Organization.
Hopf, Ted: “The Logic of Habit in International Relations” European Journal of International     Relations.
Kahl, Colin: “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties and U.S. Conduct in     Iraq.” International Security.
Price, Richard and Tannenwald, Nina: “Norms and Deterrence, the Nuclear and Chemical     Weapons Taboo” in Katzenstein, Peter: The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in     World Politics.
Valentino, Huth and Croco: “Covenants without the Sword: International Law and the     Protection of Civilians in Times of War” World Politics.

    Constructivism

Bull, Hedley: The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics.
Finnemore, Martha: “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention” in Katzenstein, Peter:     The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics.
Ferrell, Theo: “World Culture and Military Power” Security Studies.

Development and War            

Beckley, Micheal: “Economic Development and Military Effectiveness” Journal of Security Studies.
Desch, Michael: “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters” International     Security.
Narang, Vipin and Nelson, Rebecca: “Who Are These Belligerent Democratizers?” International     Organization.
Mansfield, Edward and Snyder, Jack: “Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength and War”     International Organization.
Snyder, Jack and Mansfield, Edward: Electing to Fight: Why Democracies Go to War.
Snyder, Jack: Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition

[GopherGrad]

Intra-national Wars

Insurgent Organization

Berman, Paul: Revolutionary Organization.
Downes, Alexander: “Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: The Causes of Civilian     Victimization in War” International Security.
Felbab-Brown, Vanda: Shooting Up: Counter-Insurgency and the War on Drugs
Horowitz, Michael: “Nonstate Actors and the Diffusion of Innovations: The Case for Suicide     Terrorism” American Political Science Review.
Kalyvas, Stathis: The Logic of Violence in Civil War.
Merton, R: “Social Structure and Anomie” American Sociological Review
Salisbury, Robert: “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups” Midwest Journal of Political Science.
Weinstein, Jeremey: Inside Rebellion: the Politics of Insurgent Violence.
Wood, Elizabeth: Collective Action and War in El Salvador.

Greed, Grievance and the Motivation to Mobilize Violence

Abrahms, Max: “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism     Strategy” International Security.
Cederman, Lars-Erik, et. al.: “Ethnonationalist Triads: Assessing the Influence of Kin Groups in     Civil War” World Politics.
Collier, Paul and Hoefller, Anke: “On economic causes of civil war” Oxford Economic Papers.
Elbadawi, I. and Sambanis, N. “How much war will we see? Explaining the prevalence of     civil war.” Journal of Conflict Resolution
Fearon, James and Laitin, David: “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” American Political Science     Review.
Gurr, Ted: Why Men Rebel.
Horowitz, Donald: Ethnic Groups in Conflict.
Lake, David and Rothchild, Donald: “Containing Fear: the Origin and Management of Ethnic Conflict” International Organization.
Merton, R.: Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review
Pape, Robert: “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” American Political Science Review.
Sambanis, Nicholas: “Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the     Theoretical Literature” World Politics.
Snyder, Jack: From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict.
Trager, Robert and Zagorcheva, Dessislava: “Deterring Terrorism: It Can Be Done” International     Security.

Viability and Success of Violent Challenges

Arreguin-Toft: “How the Weak Win Wars” International Security.
Edelstien, David: “Occupational Hazards: Why Military Operations Succeed or Fail” International     Security.
Jones, Seth: “The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad” International Security.
Lyall, Jason and Wilson, Isaiah: “Rage Against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in     Counterinsurgency Wars” International Organization.
Mack, Andrew: “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: the Politics of Asymmetric Conflict” World     Politics.
Merom, Gil: “The Social Origins of French Capitulation in Algeria” Armed Forces and Society.

Political Economy of Violence

Duffield, Micheal: “Globalization, transborder trade and war economies.” Greed and Grievance, Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, Berdal, M. and Malone, D. (eds.)
Gambetta, Diego: The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection.
Reno, William: “Shadow states and the political economy of civil wars” Greed and Grievance, Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, Berdal, M. and Malone, D.

Crime and Criminal Challenges to State Authority

Andreas and Nadelmann: Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations
Felbab-Brown, Vanda: Shooting Up: Counter-Insurgency and the War on Drugs
Friman, Richard H. and Andreas, Peter: “Introduction: International Relations and the Illicit     Economy” The Illicit Global Economy and State Power.
Friman, Richard H.: “Crime and Globalization” Crime and the Global Political Economy.
Gambetta, Diego: The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection.
Fiorentini and Peltzman: The Economics of Organized Crime.
Lee, Renssallaer: The White Labyrinth: Cocaine and Political Power
Mandel, Robert: Dark Logic: Transnational Criminal Tactics and Global Security
Naylor, R.T.: Wages of Crime
Varese, Frederico: Mafias on the Move: How Organized Crime Conquers New Territories

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

That is an epic list. I appreciate it.

[wtncffts]

GopherGrad, you had comps for your MA? That's hardcore...

[catchermiscount]

That's a very nice, though very long, list.  Going in to grad school, I would probably spend more time on theory than on empirics (if you're going to insist on having a fruitful summer instead of watching YouTube videos the whole time like I did), and I would probably spend more time on fewer pieces that are related to one another.

 

One of the best things you can do is really read and understand Fearon's "Rationalist Explanations for War" in the 1995 IO.  The models aren't complicated, so you should be able to digest them.  While this article is perhaps the most important one written in the past thirty years or so, it is mis-cited and mis-quoted so often that it will make your head spin.  That's a pity, because Fearon takes great lengths to be really clear with the explication.  To hear many people tell it, war is simply something that happens when there are informational asymmetries, indivisible goods, or commitment problems (which are the three brief names of the rationalist explanations).  There is a lot more meat on each of those bones, and folks should remember that they're relying on a particular kind of model when they're considering those explanations.

 

In the name of seeing that formal models are tools we use rather than law-generating, infallible collections of symbols that ensure correctness, you might move on to Powell's "War as a Commitment Problem," which (I believe) is in the 2006 IO.  Powell laments the fact that so much of the scholarship inspired by Fearon 1995 has focused on information issues and observes that good indivisibilities are just a particular kind of commitment problem (which is a point you may have come up with yourself if you really thought hard while reading Fearon 1995).

 

If you're itching for a book to read, Powell's "In the Shadow of Power" is a good one.

 

Fearon and Powell are both reasonably readable.  If you're feeling very ambitious and would like to see a much more technical, but substantively motivated, response to this sort of thing, you might check out Fey and Ramsay's "Mutual Optimism and War" in the 2007 AJPS.  Fearon's conception of incomplete information is informed by historian Geoffrey Blainey's (1988) Causes for War (another good book to read); Blainey spends a lot of time on mutual optimism as the informational mechanism that causes war.  So Fey and Ramsay formalize "mutual optimism" and demonstrate that, in the two-person bargaining situations that Fearon is talking about, mutual optimism is not a consistent cause for war---in the classes of scenarios where mutual optimism is a necessary condition for war, there is no war due to mutual optimism in equilibrium.  This is a point that Slantchev and Tarar (AJPS 2011) take issue with, though I don't think their response to Fey and Ramsay was completely well-founded.

 

So if you can really dig in to three or four theoretical pieces and really own them, you're off to a GREAT start.  These are just two little vein from Fearon to Powell on commitment and Fearon to Fey and Ramsay to Slantchev and Tarar on mutual optimism.  All are inspired by historian Blainey.  There are other, similar veins if you're interested in them (bargaining while fighting comes to mind); feel free to PM if you'd like.  But the big point here is:  you might as well think theory while you have the chance now.

Edited April 2, 2013 by coachrjc

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

This is really good discussion! So can anyone tell me the different types of "conflict" there are?

What is everyone finding (or has found) in their past research?

That's a very nice, though very long, list.  Going in to grad school, I would probably spend more time on theory than on empirics (if you're going to insist on having a fruitful summer instead of watching YouTube videos the whole time like I did), and I would probably spend more time on fewer pieces that are related to one another.

 

One of the best things you can do is really read and understand Fearon's "Rationalist Explanations for War" in the 1995 IO.  The models aren't complicated, so you should be able to digest them.  While this article is perhaps the most important one written in the past thirty years or so, it is mis-cited and mis-quoted so often that it will make your head spin.  That's a pity, because Fearon takes great lengths to be really clear with the explication.  To hear many people tell it, war is simply something that happens when there are informational asymmetries, indivisible goods, or commitment problems (which are the three brief names of the rationalist explanations).  There is a lot more meat on each of those bones, and folks should remember that they're relying on a particular kind of model when they're considering those explanations.

 

In the name of seeing that formal models are tools we use rather than law-generating, infallible collections of symbols that ensure correctness, you might move on to Powell's "War as a Commitment Problem," which (I believe) is in the 2006 IO.  Powell laments the fact that so much of the scholarship inspired by Fearon 1995 has focused on information issues and observes that good indivisibilities are just a particular kind of commitment problem (which is a point you may have come up with yourself if you really thought hard while reading Fearon 1995).

 

If you're itching for a book to read, Powell's "In the Shadow of Power" is a good one.

 

Fearon and Powell are both reasonably readable.  If you're feeling very ambitious and would like to see a much more technical, but substantively motivated, response to this sort of thing, you might check out Fey and Ramsay's "Mutual Optimism and War" in the 2007 AJPS.  Fearon's conception of incomplete information is informed by historian Geoffrey Blainey's (1988) Causes for War (another good book to read); Blainey spends a lot of time on mutual optimism as the informational mechanism that causes war.  So Fey and Ramsay formalize "mutual optimism" and demonstrate that, in the two-person bargaining situations that Fearon is talking about, mutual optimism is not a consistent cause for war---in the classes of scenarios where mutual optimism is a necessary condition for war, there is no war due to mutual optimism in equilibrium.  This is a point that Slantchev and Tarar (AJPS 2011) take issue with, though I don't think their response to Fey and Ramsay was completely well-founded.

 

So if you can really dig in to three or four theoretical pieces and really own them, you're off to a GREAT start.  These are just two little vein from Fearon to Powell on commitment and Fearon to Fey and Ramsay to Slantchev and Tarar on mutual optimism.  All are inspired by historian Blainey.  There are other, similar veins if you're interested in them (bargaining while fighting comes to mind); feel free to PM if you'd like.  But the big point here is:  you might as well think theory while you have the chance now.

[GopherGrad]

Yep. MA comps. I sit tomorrow to write on the questions, and a week later I have to defend my essay answers against a panel of faculty. W00t.

 

The list is super huge. Look for stuff that interests you. Read abstracts. If anyone needs one of the articles on the list but can't get it free, PM me.

 

 

Going in to grad school, I would probably spend more time on theory than on empirics

 

I agree, although it's funny to hear this as I become frustrated with how my theory focus has left me with little new to say about a lot of things. I'm looking forward to start digging through the history of conflict to find some puzzles so I can do some damn writing.

 

So can anyone tell me the different types of "conflict" there are?

 

That's a huge question. I think most people would agree that there is a vast difference in the way we think of wars between states on one hand and conflict between non-state actors, or non-state actors and states on the other.

 

My interest is far more in the latter, and one way to chop up the "types" of conflict is to ask "why are these groups using violence? In what way are they challenging the state's presumed monopoly?"

 

So, for example, violence over drug trafficking occurs (in part) because the state has elected to give up its imperative to regulate the narcotics market. It's sovereignty is weak in an economic market because it cannot enforce fairness in commercial relations between traffickers, so actors with violent capacity sense an opportunity to provide protection in that void.

 

Contrast that with ethnic protection markets among recent immigrant groups ("mafias"). In those circumstances, the state's sovereignty is weak among a social group, so actors with violent capacity provide protection in that void. Those customers need protection and dispute resolution services in all facets of their lives rather than just in one market.

The way that violence is used as a tactic to support a protection business in those two circumstances is very different. (Richard Friman and Peter Andreas write a lot about prohibition regimes and illicit commerce; Diego Gambetta has pretty much written the bible on the political economy of protection racket mafias.) There are other model or ideal ways that violent actors can selectively exploit state particularized state weakness. War economies, like that in the DRC, attempt to atomize communities and impose rents on a variety of transactions. The pillage of lootable resources, like alluvial diamonds in Sierra Leone, works a compeletely different way.

 

I actually just got the great news that I'll be teaching an upper division course this summer at my MA soon-to-be alma about the political economy of violence, so understanding how this typology works gets to be a big part of my summer.

[eponine997]

The list is super huge. Look for stuff that interests you. Read abstracts. If anyone needs one of the articles on the list but can't get it free, PM me.

 

You, sir, are a high quality human being.  And that is a great list... wish I'd had this before starting my MA/MA thesis.  

 

Solid advice from both GopherGrad and Coachrjc.  Someone should "pin" this thread.  

 

As for "conflict types," I would emphasize (from the list) Kalyvas's Logic of Violence in Civil War.  Though the title may suggest a narrow focus, his typology of violence can be applied beyond intrastate wars.  

[catchermiscount]

At the risk of sounding glib, I don't really know what folks mean by "types" of conflict.  Do we mean conflicts that are fought in a certain kind of way, or do we mean conflicts that arise for a certain set of reasons, or conflicts that are fought between certain kinds of combatants, or what?  For my own stuff (which, of course, has little to do with anything), a fight is a fight is a fight.  The rest gets me too confused!

[hawkeye78]

At the risk of sounding glib, I don't really know what folks mean by "types" of conflict.  Do we mean conflicts that are fought in a certain kind of way, or do we mean conflicts that arise for a certain set of reasons, or conflicts that are fought between certain kinds of combatants, or what?  For my own stuff (which, of course, has little to do with anything), a fight is a fight is a fight.  The rest gets me too confused!

Agree.

 

My own research is within the larger subcategory of intrastate conflict but looks at ethnic conflict and all the sub topics there as well as non-state actors like terror groups, rebel groups, etc. Every one of those has tons of branches that you can expand each topic in.

[GopherGrad]

I would emphasize (from the list) Kalyvas's Logic of Violence in Civil War

 

Classic. Gurr's Why Men Rebel, Weinstien's Inside Rebellion, Reno's Shadow States and Gambetta's Sicilian Mafia are all also on my list of mind-blowing classics.

 

At the risk of sounding glib, I don't really know what folks mean by "types" of conflict.  Do we mean conflicts that are fought in a certain kind of way, or do we mean conflicts that arise for a certain set of reasons, or conflicts that are fought between certain kinds of combatants, or what?

 

I think you can mean any of them, it sort of depends what puzzle you're solving, right? You sort of define your categories based on whether they have the characteristics that you think drive your outcomes.

[catchermiscount]

Well that was what I was getting at, yeah.  But there probably isn't a universally meaningful classification scheme (is all I meant to say).

[Princolum]

hello everyone

I'm fluent in Persian, Turkish and Arabic, so I have a question: is it a positive point in Apply process for IR, focusing the Middle East?