DRAFT PSCI 6309 Course Syllabus

International Political Economy & International Organizations

Spring 2010
Tuesdays 1-3:45pm in SOM 2.903

Professor Contact Information

Clint Peinhardt
972-883-4955
clint.peinhardt@utdallas.edu
Green Hall 3.524
Office Hours TBA

Course Pre-requisites, Co-requisites, and/or Other Restrictions

All students in this course should have already taken PSCI 5301 – Proseminar in
Democratization, Globalization and International Relations. Additionally, those who have had
a research design course will be much better positioned for the research paper requirement.

Course Description
This graduate seminar is designed to equip participants to read, understand, and contribute
to the analysis of economic globalization. It bridges two of the three subfields of
international relations – international political economy and international organizations (NOT
international security), but the focus on international organizations is confined to those that
have important roles in global economic governance.

Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes

Since this is a research seminar, the primary purpose is to train students to contribute to
research programs related to economic globalization, including both its causes and its
effects. This involves reading research articles that convey a sense of the state of work on a
given research question, developing critical perspectives on those literatures, and finding
opportunities for new contributions of original research. Additionally, students are expected
to communicate their ideas and, ideally, findings, to their fellow students in conference-style
presentations and to develop better academic writing skills through class assignments.

Required Textbooks and Materials

Most of our reading material is available electronically through the library’s electronic
journals website. Those unavailable are marked with an asterisk and are in
university reserves instead.
Vreeland, James R. 2003. The IMF and Economic Development. Cambridge University
Press.

Course Syllabus Page 1

Assignments & Academic Calendar
Note: A few journals are abbreviated due to their proliferation in the following list.
IO=International Organization; AJPS=American Journal of Political Science; APSR=American
Political Science Review. Any article preceded by # should be available via library reserves.

Week One: Introductions and Background – January 12

Lake, David. 2009. Open Economy Politics: A Critical Review. Review of International
Organizations 4(3): 219-44.
# Simmons, Beth A., and Lisa Martin. 2002. International Organizations and Institutions. In
Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and
Beth A. Simmons, 192-211. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Week Two: Economic Globalization, The (Frequent) Dependent Variable – January 19

In consultation with the instructor, choose a book on economic globalization to read, write a
4-6 page review of, and present to the class.

Week Three: Anarchy, Conflict, and Cooperation– January 26

# Axelrod, R. and R. Keohane 1986. Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and
Institutions. Cooperation under Anarchy. K. Oye. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University
Press: 226-254.
Snidal, D. 1991. “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation.” APSR 85:
701-726.
Mearsheimer, John. 1994. The False Promise of International Institutions. International
Security 1994/95: 5-49.
Various rejoinders to above: International Security 20(1): 39-93.
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 1998. Why States Act through Formal International
Organizations. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(1): 3-32.
Barnett, Michael N., and Martha Finnemore. 1999. The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of
International Organizations. IO 53(4): 699-732.

Week Four: Domestic Political Cleavages and Individual Attitudes toward Trade– Feb. 2
Rogowski, Ronald. 1987. Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade. APSR 81(4):
1121-37.
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. 1991. Specific Factors, Capital Markets, Portfolio Diversification,
and Free Trade: Domestic Determinants of the Repeal of the Corn Laws. World
Politics 43(4): 545-69.
Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. Commerce, Coalitions, and Factor Mobility: Evidence from
Congressional Votes on Trade Legislation. APSR 96(3): 593-608.
Scheve, Kenneth, and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2001. What Determines Individual Trade-Policy
Preferences? Journal of International Economics 54(3): 267-92.
Mayda, Anna Maria, and Dani Rodrik. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More
Protectionist Than Others? European Economic Review 49(6): 1393-430.
Mansfield, Edward D., and Diana C. Mutz. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest,
Sociotropic Politics, and out-Group Anxiety. IO 63(03): 425-57.

Course Syllabus Page 2

Week Five: Domestic Institutions and the Formation of Trade Policy– Feb. 9
Mansfield, Edward, Helen V. Milner, and Peter Rosendorff. 2000. Free to Trade:
Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade. APSR 94(2): 305-21.
Kono, Daniel Y. 2006. Optimal Obfuscation: Democracy and Trade Policy Transparency. APSR
100(3): 369-84.
Milner, H. and K. Kubota. 2005. Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy
in Developing Countries. IO 59(1): 107-144.
Hiscox, Michael J. 1999. The Magic Bullet? The RTAA, Institutional Reform and Trade
Liberalization. IO 53(4): 669-98.
Nielson, Daniel L. 2003. Supplying Trade Reform: Political Institutions and Liberalization in
Middle-Income Presidential Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47
(3):470-91.
Ehrlich, Sean D. 2007. Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in
Democracies. IO 61(3): 571-605.

Week Six: The World Trade Organization – Feb. 16

Good backgrounder is Deardorff, Alan V., and Robert M. Stern. 2002. What You Should Know
About Globalization and the World Trade Organization. Review of International
Economics 10(3): 404-23. Also available via Deardorff’s web site.
Rosendorff, P. and Helen Milner. 2001. “The Optimal Design of International Trade
Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape.” IO 54(4): 829-857.
Kucik, Jeffrey, and Eric Reinhardt. 2008. Does Flexibility Promote Cooperation? An
Application to the Global Trade Regime. IO 62(3): 477-505.
Rose, Andrew K. 2004. Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade? American
Economic Review 94(1): 98-114.
Goldstein, Judith, Douglas Rivers, and Michael Tomz. 2007. Institutions in International
Relations: Understanding the Effects of GATT and the WTO on World Trade. IO 61(1):
37-67.
Steinberg, Richard H., and Richard H. Steinberg. 2002. In the Shadow of Law or Power?
Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO. IO 56(2): 339.

Week Seven: The Impossible Trinity and the Rise of Capital Mobility – Feb. 23
Cohen, Benjamin. 1996. Phoenix Risen: The Resurrection of Global Finance. World Politics
48(2): 268-96.
Lukauskas, A. and S. Minushkin (2000). "Explaining styles of financial market opening in
Chile, Mexico, South Korea, and Turkey." International Studies Quarterly 44: 695-
723.
Quinn, Dennis, and A. Maria Toyoda. 2007. Ideology and Voter Preferences as Determinants
of Financial Globalization. American Journal of Political Science 51(2): 344-63.
Simmons, B., and Z. Elkins. 2004. The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the
International Political Economy. APSR 98(1): 171-90.
Brooks, Sarah M., and Marcus J. Kurtz. 2007. Capital, Trade, and the Political Economies of
Reform. American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 703-20.
Kose, M. Ayhan, Eswar Prasad, Kenneth Rogoff, and Shang-Jin Wei. 2007. Financial
Globalization: Beyond the Blame Game. Finance and Development 44(1).

Course Syllabus Page 3

Week Eight: Exchange Rate Regimes and Currency Crises – March 2
Broz, J. Lawrence , and Jeffry. A. Frieden. 2006. The Political Economy of Exchange Rates. In
The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, edited by Barry R. Weingast and Donald
Wittman, 587-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bernhard, William, J. Lawrence Broz, and William R. Clark. 2002. The Political Economy of
Monetary Institutions. IO 56(4): 693-723.
Frieden, Jeffry. A. 2002. Real Sources of European Currency Policy: Sectoral Interests and
European Monetary Integration. IO 56(4): 831-60.
Leblang, D, and W Bernhard. 2000. The Politics of Speculative Attacks in Industrial
Democracies. IO 54(2 (Spring)): 291-324
Leblang, David A. 2003. To Devalue or Defend: The Political Economy of Exchange Rate
Policy. International Studies Quarterly 47(4): 533-59.
Leblang, David A., and Shanker Satyanath. 2006. Institutions, Expectations, and Currency
Crises. IO 60(1): 245-62.

Week Nine: Sovereign Debt and Financial Crises - March 9

# Tomz, Michael. 2007. Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt across
Three Centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 2 & 3.
Stasavage, David. 2007. Cities, Constitutions, and Soverign Borrowing in Europe, 1274-
1785. IO 61(3): 489-525.
Schultz, Kenneth, and Barry R. Weingast. 2003. The Democratic Advantage: Institutional
Foundations of Financial Power in International Competition. IO 57(1): 3-42.
Rose, Andrew K. 2005. One Reason Countries Pay Their Debts: Renegotiation and
International Trade. Journal of Development Economics 77: 189-206.
Reinhart, Carmen M. and Kenneth S. Rogoff. 2008. Is the 2007 US Sub-Prime Financial
Crisis So Different? An International Historical Comparison. American Economic
Review 98(2): 339-344.
Also at least one of the articles in the 2009 issue of International Interactions 35(4):
• Mosley and Singer – “The Global Financial Crisis”
• Leblang Pandya – “The Financial Crisis of 2007”
• Benjamin Cohen – “A Grave Case of Myopia”

Week Ten: The International Monetary Fund – March 23

Vreeland, J. R. 2003. The IMF and Economic Development. Cambridge University Press.
Copelovich. 2010. Master or Servant: Common Agency and the Politics of IMF Lending.
International Studies Quarterly. (if not available yet, will be provided)

Week Eleven: Foreign Direct Investment and Multi-National Corporations – March 30

Helpman, Elhanan. 2006. Trade, FDI, and the Organization of Firms. Journal of Economic
Literature 44(3): 589-630.
Li, Quan, and Adam Resnick. 2003. Reversal of Fortunes: Democracy, Property Rights and
Foreign Direct Investment Inflows in Developing Countries. IO 57(1): 1-37.
Jensen, Nathan. 2003. Democratic Governance and Multinational Corporations: Political
Regimes and Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment. IO 57(3): 587-616.
Ramamurti, Ravi. 2001. The Obsolescing `Bargaining Model'? MNC-Host Developing Country
Relations Revisited. Journal of International Business Studies 32(1): 23-39.
Elkins, Zachary, Andrew Guzman, and Beth A. Simmons. 2006. Competing for Capital: The
Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1959-2000. IO 60(4): 811-46.
Peinhardt, Clint, and Jude C. Hays. 2010. Geographical Limitations on the Utility of
Investment Liberalization. Latest version of manuscript will be provided.

Course Syllabus Page 4

Last day to withdraw from course with automatic “W” - April 5

Week Twelve: The World Bank – April 6

TBA

Week Thirteen: Foreign Aid – April 13

TBA

Week Fourteen: Presentations, Part 1 – April 20

Week Fifteen: Presentations, Part 2 – April 27

Grading Policy

Devoted class participation is essential for this course’s success; as such, students’ final
grades will depend in large part (30%) on their preparation, participation in class discussion,
and general contribution to the course’s intellectual climate.

The remainder of the course grade will be comprised of three assignments – two short
papers and one research paper. The first short paper (10%) should be a 4-6 page review of
an approved book on economic globalization. The second short paper (20%) should be a 6-
8 page critical literature review with identification of a research question, initial hypotheses,
and potential data sources. The topics should be drawn from our readings, detailed above,
or from special permission of the instructor.

The longer paper (40%) can be a follow-up to that initial short paper, or can be a separate
research paper that either explores new theoretical ground or tests hypotheses already
existing in the literature. In either case, the paper should be an original contribution to the
research program, and it should be the quality expected at the highest level of political
science conferences.

Course & Instructor Policies

(make-up exams, extra credit, late work, special assignments, class attendance, classroom
citizenship, etc.)

Each class will begin with a brief summary from each student of his or her thoughts and
impressions of the week’s readings. Following these initial remarks, one (pre-selected)
student will provide a 10-minute overview of the readings. At that point, the floor will be
opened to all students again. Where necessary or requested, the instructor will provide
contextual and/or supplementary material in class, but generally the bulk of time in class will
be spent discussing the readings for the week with the goal of understanding strengths and
weaknesses of each reading and each literature. As such, students are expected to
demonstrate knowledge of the readings and to be able to summarize strengths and
weaknesses of each. Attendance is mandatory, but sickness or other unavoidable absences
will be excused by the instructor if notified in advance.

Late papers will be subject to an initial penalty of 1 partial letter grade (A+ to A, B- to C, etc.)
per business day up to 3 days plus 1 full letter grade (A to B, B to C) per week. Thus, an “A”
paper submitted 2 days late is a “B+”, and submitted after 7 days is a “C”.

Course Syllabus Page 5

Student Conduct & Discipline

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and regulations for the
orderly and efficient conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of each student and each
student organization to be knowledgeable about the rules and regulations which govern student
conduct and activities. General information on student conduct and discipline is contained in the UTD
publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to all registered students each academic year.

The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the procedures of recognized
and established due process. Procedures are defined and described in the Rules and Regulations,
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title V, Rules
on Student Services and Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of
these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff
members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations (SU 1.602,
972/883-6391).

A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of citizenship. He
or she is expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules, university
regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject to discipline for violating the standards of
conduct whether such conduct takes place on or off campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties are
also imposed for such conduct.

Academic Integrity

The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic honesty. Because the
value of an academic degree depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by the student for
that degree, it is imperative that a student demonstrate a high standard of individual honor in his or
her scholastic work.

Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements, acts or omissions related to
applications for enrollment or the award of a degree, and/or the submission as one’s own work or
material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic dishonesty involves one of the following
acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or falsifying academic records. Students suspected of
academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings.

Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and from any other
source is unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see general
catalog for details). This course will use the resources of turnitin.com, which searches the web for
possible plagiarism and is over 90% effective.

Email Use

The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of communication between
faculty/staff and students through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises some issues
concerning security and the identity of each individual in an email exchange. The university
encourages all official student email correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email
address and that faculty and staff consider email from students official only if it originates from a UTD
student account. This allows the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in the identity of all
individual corresponding and the security of the transmitted information. UTD furnishes each student
with a free email account that is to be used in all communication with university personnel. The
Department of Information Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T.
Dallas mail forwarded to other accounts.

Course Syllabus Page 6

Course Syllabus Page 7
Withdrawal from Class

The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level courses.
These dates and times are published in that semester's course catalog. Administration procedures
must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to handle withdrawal requirements from any class.
In other words, I cannot drop or withdraw any student. You must do the proper paperwork to ensure
that you will not receive a final grade of "F" in a course if you choose not to attend the class once you
are enrolled.

Student Grievance Procedures

Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities, of the
university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.

In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, evaluations, or other fulfillments of
academic responsibility, it is the obligation of the student first to make a serious effort to resolve the
matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee with whom the grievance originates
(hereafter called “the respondent”). Individual faculty members retain primary responsibility for
assigning grades and evaluations. If the matter cannot be resolved at that level, the grievance must
be submitted in writing to the respondent with a copy of the respondent’s School Dean. If the matter
is not resolved by the written response provided by the respondent, the student may submit a written
appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not resolved by the School Dean’s decision, the student
may make a written appeal to the Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal will
appoint and convene an Academic Appeals Panel. The decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is
final. The results of the academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.

Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students,
where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations.

Incomplete Grade Policy

As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work unavoidably missed at the
semester’s end and only if 70% of the course work has been completed. An incomplete grade must
be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the first day of the subsequent long semester. If the required
work to complete the course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the specified
deadline, the incomplete grade is changed automatically to a grade of F.

Disability Services

The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities educational opportunities equal
to those of their non-disabled peers. Disability Services is located in room 1.610 in the Student Union.
Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to
7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is:

The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22
PO Box 830688
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
(972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)

Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make those reasonable adjustments
necessary to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. For example, it may be necessary to
remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders or animals (in the case of dog guides) for
students who are blind. Occasionally an assignment requirement may be substituted (for example, a
research paper versus an oral presentation for a student who is hearing impaired). Classes enrolled
students with mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible facilities. The college or

Course Syllabus Page 8

university may need to provide special services such as registration, note-taking, or mobility
assistance.

It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an accommodation.
Disability Services provides students with letters to present to faculty members to verify that the
student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals requiring special accommodation
should contact the professor after class or during office hours.

Religious Holy Days

The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other required activities for the
travel to and observance of a religious holy day for a religion whose places of worship are exempt from
property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code, Texas Code Annotated.

The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity sponsor as soon as possible regarding the
absence, preferably in advance of the assignment. The student, so excused, will be allowed to take
the exam or complete the assignment within a reasonable time after the absence: a period equal to
the length of the absence, up to a maximum of one week. A student who notifies the instructor and
completes any missed exam or assignment may not be penalized for the absence. A student who fails
to complete the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a failing grade for that
exam or assignment.

If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the absence [i.e., for the purpose of
observing a religious holy day] or if there is similar disagreement about whether the student has been
given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or examinations, either the student or
the instructor may request a ruling from the chief executive officer of the institution, or his or her
designee. The chief executive officer or designee must take into account the legislative intent of TEC
51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief executive officer or
designee.

These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor.

Course Syllabus Page 9