This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: FACULTY OF ARTS FINAL EXAMINATION POLITICAL SCIENCE 243 INTERNATIONAL POLITICS OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS
l Examiner: Prof. M. Brawley Date: Wednesday April 25, 2007
Associate Examiner: Prof. M. Manger Time: 9:00-12:00 Instructions: Write answers in exam booklets only. Notes or books are not allowed.
Calculators are not allowed. Regular Dictionaries are allowed, as are Translation
Dictionaries. You may keep the exam questions. This exam comprises 2 pages (not including this title page). FINAL EXAM
POLITICAL SCIENCE 243 Part I. IDENTIFICATIONS (worth 5% of the total course mark) Each item below
represents an important concept, example or person from the course. Brieﬂy explain
what the item is, and discuss its signiﬁcance in this class. Answer any FOUR from this
list. Bumiputera “soft landing”
UMNO ISI FDI The “Snake”
Sir Wilfrid Laurier Part II. ESSAY ON READINGS (worth 15% of the total course mark) Answer ONE
of the following questions in essay form (including an introduction, thesis, and
conclusion). Avoid answbring in “point form.” 1. Moravcsik argues that Liberalism can do more than establish normative goals.
Which level of analysis does he look to for explaining cases in international political economy? What more particularly is he saying Liberalism can do, which
Realism cannot? 2. Cooper describes the key elements to an international monetary regime — what are
they? How do those characteristics relate to the policy decisions of a single
country, as we might understand them using the Mundell-Fleming conditions? 3. Graham Allison’s article on the Cuban Missile Crisis is considered a classic.
What were the three models he used in his attempts to explain the policies of the
US. and Soviet Union in that crisis? Which did you ﬁnd most persuasive? FINAL EXAM (page two!
POLITICAL SCIENCE 243 Part III. LONG ESSAY (worth 20% of the total course mark) Answer ONE of the
following questions. Take your time to construct a thoughtﬁJl and well-organized
answer. Be sure to cite relevant authors where applicable. ‘- 1. Japan and South Korea both had close strategic relations with the United States in
the post-World War II era. How did that strategic relationship affect the trading
strategies of these two countries in the 1960s and 19705? How did changes in
American interests in the 1980s alter pressures on Japan? Why did this trouble
show up in monetary relations rather than trade? Most foreign economic policies redistribute wealth in the domestic economy,
therefore domestic-level analyses currently dominate research in international
political economy. Are those competing domestic interests easier to see when
trade policy is at stake, or when monetary policy is being debated? Give
examples from the cases covered in the course to make your points. . Bureaucratic politics arguments are not used very often in international political economy, because we usually find it easier to apply domestic-level theories
instead. In looking at the policies pursued by Germany on EMU, and Japan on
exchange rate cooperation in the 19805, which were more important —
bureaucratic politics, or domestic interests? How similar were these two cases? ...
View Full Document
- Spring '09