1) Use the concept of the “race to the bottom” to discuss the way globalization is thought to influence domestic social policy.
Globalization increases the mobility of capital, especially relative to labor. It is thought that all countries will have to lower their labor and environmental standards in order to create a more business-friendly environment. Those countries that fail to do so will be rendered uncompetitive and will fail to attract investment. Based on this logic, it is hypothesized that all countries will eventually wind up with minimal (or no) social programs.
2) Why do Green and New Radical Right parties pose a particular threat for Social Democratic parties?
Think of the two constituencies who usually support Social Dems. NRR parties could appeal to blue collar workers, while Greens could appeal to intellectuals.
3) In this first half of the course, why have we limited ourselves to only 18 of the roughly 190 countries in the world? In other words, why Belgium and not Chile?
We want to analyze like units so that our comparisons are valid- apples and apples, not apples and oranges. Our 18 rich countries are similar in terms of capitalism, democracy, economic & political stability, high standards of living, Western heritage (except Japan), and geopolitical status.
4) Does the evidence on social costs support or contradict the liberal view of laissez-faire economic policy?
Contradicts- according to the Liberal worldview, free markets should lead to higher standards of living. In other words, those countries which more closely adhere to laissez-faire economic policy should have lower social costs. However, among rich countries, the dat shows the opposite to be true.
5) Based particularly on a consideration of its various institutions, is the European Union an intergovernmental or supranational institution?
You can answer this one any way you want as long as you adequately justify your answer.
6) Explain the difference between cross-cutting and reinforcing social cleavages. Which is more conducive to healthy democratic governance?
Reinforcing cleavages produce two groups always at odds with each other. Cross-cutting cleavages produce shifting patterns of alliance and contestaion and are therefore better for democracy. You should have a couple of charts in your note that help illustrate this.
7) What is decommodification, and how did the incorporation of this concept allow capitalist development to proceed in the tumultuous aftermath of World War I and the Great Depression?
Decommodification measures the extent to which people can maintain a basic livelihood independent of the market. Thru the "embedded liberal compromise", which was instituted in most if not all of our rich countries around the 1930s, capitalist development was allowed to proceed as social programs were insituted to care for those who were or would become economically "left out", in exchange for which workers stopped supporting communist/socialist movements and candidates. This is an oversimplification of what actually occurred, but it a rough approximation of the origin of social programs in our 18 ACDs.
8) Discuss the effects of having a proportional, as opposed to winner-take-all, election system.
Proportional produces more (than two) parties and higher voter turnout (because votes aren't wasted). It may also enhance party loyalty IF the candidate list is produced by the party.
9) How might the European Union be seen as an outcome of American hegemony?
The US wanted to (and has) created a hegemonic world order based on the idea of increased prosperity for all thru free trade and international institutions. The EU is an international institution which has achieved increased prosperity for all thru free trade.
10) Public opinion studies support the proposition that part of the reason we see differences between the Social Democratic, Christian Democratic, and Liberal worlds is because citizens in those countries fundamentally want different things. What role has social class played in differentially shaping these aggregate political preferences?
Attitudes (public opinion) shape social policy, and a person's social class shapes their attitudes, but for a variety of historical reasons, the strength of the relationship between class and preferences varies from country to country. As we discussed in class, this doesn't imply that Swedes, for instance, are any smarter than Americans, but they do, on average, have a better understanding of their objective economic reality (class position), once again for a variety of historical reasons.