Cp solves the whole aff and gets China onto the fmct key to counter prolif
Counter-interpretation – we get one condition CP---it’s a distinct foreign policy strategy---which means it’s predictable core neg ground
Download 273.08 Kb.
|
FMCT CPCounter-interpretation – we get one condition CP---it’s a distinct foreign policy strategy---which means it’s predictable core neg groundDonno 13 (Daniela is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. from Yale University, expert on international organizations and norms, with a particular focus on the international influences on elections and human rights, “Defending Democratic Norms”, Oxford University Press, pg. 29 – 33)//ghs-gk ***if you read it on pdcp, don’t read it here*** When responding to flawed elections, international actors have a range of tools at their disposal. Enforcement—defined broadly as efforts to improve compliance with democratic norms through pressure, incentives, or suasion—can include policy tools that marshal both material and social incentives. "Thus, rather than making an artificial assumption that actors are motivated by either material calculations or ideational forces, 1 integrate rationalist and constructivist perspectives. 1 assume that the choices of domestic actors can be swayed both by a logic of consequences—whereby actors calculate the costs and benefits of their actions—and by a logic of appropriateness—whereby actors seek to conform to socially accepted standards of behavior (March and Olsen 1998). "These two logics of action can be proxied by distinguishing between policies of conditionality, which wield concrete, material incentives, and policies of diplomatic engagement, which employ symbolic, social incentives.11 Conditionality entails linking concrete punishments or rewards to improvements in the quality of elections. "Negative" conditionality threatens either material (e.g., economic sanctions) or political (e.g., suspension of IGO membership) costs for the government for electoral misconduct, whereas "positive" conditionality holds out the promise of rewards if conduct improves. In practice and promises are often linked. 'The US Millennium Challenge Corporation, for example, makes grants conditional on democratic performance (a positive "carrot"), and the United States has used this instrument to punish countries for electoral misconduct (a negative "stick"), as it did in Armenia in response to widespread human rights abuses surrounding the February 2008 presidential election. Conditionality works by altering actors' cost-benefit calculations. Research on a range of issues attests to the power of this approach. International conditionality has induced governments to introduce far-reaching political and economic reforms (Nooruddin and Simmons 2006; Schimmelfennig, Engert, and Knobel, 2003; Vachudova 2005; Vreeland 2003), to change state policies toward ethnic minorities (Kelley 2004), to hand over war criminals to international tribunals (Subotic 2009), and to deepen trade liberali7ation (Allee and Scalcra 2012). When applied in response to a flawed election, conditionality motivates governments to improve electoral quality. The particular demands associated with conditionality vary from case to case. International actors may seek to directly alter the government's choice to manipulate, though as discussed below, this is unlikely to work against proven, intransigent norm violators. More indirectly, conditionality may induce governments to reform domestic institutions of election management and oversight. In responding to electoral misconduct, international actors may also employ softer tools of enforcement that marshal social incentives and symbolic costs. The most prevalent tool of this kind is shaming: the issuing of declarations, resolutions, or statements that criticize electoral misconduct. Different from conditionality, shaming does not link improvements in conduct to concrete punishments or rewards. But it can still have an effect on behavior, provided that the target government seeks to maintain a reputation for democracy or desires international approval. As Lutz and Sikkink (2000, 659) explain, international pressure works "not only at the pragmatic level by imposing material costs... but also at the social level by creating ostracized 'out-groups' of norm breakers." As members of an international society of states, leaders are "socialized to care about what other states think of them" (ibid., 659). A number of studies find that sham¬ing does have real effects. Hafher-Burton (2008) shows, for example, that criti¬cism by human rights NGOs, the United Nations, and global media is associated with improved respect for political rights.14 In addition to signaling international disapproval, shaming can create negative repercussions in the domestic arena if the government bases its claims to legitimacy on its democratic credentials. In the Dominican Republic, for example, president Joaquin Balaguer was keenly sensitive to international criticism in the wake of fraudulent elections in 1994. Tlie race had been extremely close, and Balaguer considered external validation essential for stopping any momentum to overturn the results. Ultimately, one of the factors influencing his decision to make postelection concessions to the opposition was the need to "stop the pressure from abroad." A second form of engagement is the use of diplomatic or mediation missions sent to the target country to push for democracy or to resolve postelection conflicts between political parties. Mediation missions have long been an important tool for resolving civil and interstate conflict (Hansen, Mitchell, and Nemeth, 2008; Regan and Aydin 2006). Such missions rely on direct, face-to-race contact to impose normative pressure on a noncompliant regime. Beyond their effects on the government, these missions empower the domestic opposition and civil society. By setting up an official forum for dialogue, mediation missions strengthen opposition voices and increase domestic pressure for electoral reform or repeat elections. In the aftermath of Peru's fraudulent election in 2000, the OAS organized a long-term mediation mission (the mesa de dialogo) that brought together representatives from the government, opposition, and civil society. The mesa set the agenda for reform by forging agreement on twenty-nine points for strengthening democracy in Peru, including increasing judicial independence, reforming electoral governance, and providing for greater congressional oversight of the executive (Cooper and Legler 2001 b, 2005). me mesa later became the de facto authority in the country when Alberto Fujimori stepped down in November 2000 in the wake of a bribery scandal Mediation also created space for the resolution of Madagascar's postelection crisis in 2002, when internationally sponsored talks between the government and opposition brokered a pause in violence. "The agreement forged from these negotiations—the Dakar Accords—was never fully implemented, but it was the first document in which both sides agreed to respect the results of a vote recount. "This later became a salient focal point when the country's constitutional court announced that opposition candidate Marc Ravalomanana had won a majority in the recount (Randrianja 2003). As different modes of influence, conditionality and diplomatic engagement have distinct advantages and disadvantages. For one, these tools differ in the speed and ease with which they can be applied. Relative to diplomatic engage- ment, conditionality is difficult and politically costly to impose. Within international organizations, threats and punishments must typically be approved by all, or a majority of, member states. Thus, even a small divergence in preference among members can create barriers to agreement (Donno 2010). Even for a sin¬gle country like the United States, imposing (or threatening) sanctions requires the approval of multiple gatekeepers or branches of government. Moreover, conditionality is materially costly to the implemented It involves the use of concrete punishments and rewards, such as an increase in foreign aid, the promise of IGO membership, or the imposition of economic sanctions. First, education---explicit focus on conditionality and opportunity cost are portable concepts, they’re vital elements of all decisions. QPQs on the neg are key because they test the concept of engagement++Roberts 7 (Russell Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is the Features Editor of the Library of Economics and Liberty and the host of EconTalk. “Getting the Most Out of Life: The Concept of Opportunity Cost” 2/5/7 http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Robertsopportunitycost.html#)///CW One of the challenges of being an economist is explaining what you do for a living. has something to do with investing and financial management. When I once told my seatmate on People understand that one of the things a professor of economics does is teach economics. But what is that, exactly? Most presume it an airline flight that I was an economist, she said, what a shame, my husband loves the stock market. Hmm. I didn't tell her that other than the advantages of investing in indexed mutual funds, I know next to nothing about the stock market. My seatmate might have profited from reading Alfred Marshall who called economics "the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life." This was the enterprise of Marshall and Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman: they tried to understand what people do and the implications of their behavior for the society at large. But my favorite definition of economics is a variant of Marshall's. It comes from a student who heard it from another teacher of hers: economics is the study of how to get the most out of life. I like this because it strikes at the true heart of economics—the choices we make, given that we can't have everything we want. Economics is the study of infinite wants and finite means, the study of constrained choices. This is true for individuals and governments, families and nations. Thomas Sowell said it best: no solutions, only tradeoffs. To get the most out of life, to think like an economist, you have to be know what you're giving up in order to get something else. That's all opportunity cost is: Opportunity cost is what you have to give up to get something. What could be more straightforward? If you want something you have to give up something. The idea turns out to be a little subtler than it appears at first glance. Let's look a little more closely. Milton Friedman used to say that economics is simple. All you have to remember is that demand slopes downward and that nothing's free. The hard part is applying those two simple ideas. When Friedman said that nothing was free, he meant that everything has a cost. Take the proverbial free lunch that Friedman delighted in pointing out didn't exist. Suppose I invite you to lunch and it's on me—I promise to pay and I keep that promise. Free, right? No, says the economist. Economist: There's no monetary cost. Today. But there's an expectation that you'll return the favor and treat me to a future lunch. You (believer in the free lunch): But you don't realize I'm not a nice person. I don't plan on reciprocating and I'm going to keep that promise to myself. Today's lunch is free. Economist: No. Even if you don't plan to reciprocate, the guilt at being a moocher is a cost. You: You don't realize just how not-nice I am. I have no conscience. So I do get a free lunch. Economist: Alas, no. You have to listen to me talk while we're eating. You: I won't be listening. I'm going to daydream about an upcoming vacation. I'm going to pretend to be pay attention. Economist: Still not free. The cost of having lunch with me, even when I pay, even when you don't plan on reciprocating and even when I do all the talking that you ignore, is the pleasure you would have received doing something else instead. Whatever you gave up to have lunch with me. Not just the money. Not just the time. But the value or pleasure you would have received from doing something else. So one of the keys to thinking like an economist is always remembering that everything has a cost. This may be one reason economists have fewer friends than they otherwise would. Sometimes people are very happy holding on to the naïve view that something is free. We like the idea of a bargain. We don't want to hear about the hidden or non-obvious costs. Thinking about foregone opportunities, the choices we didn't make, can lead to regret. Choosing this college means you can't go to that one. Marrying this person means not marrying that one. Choosing this desert (usually) means missing out on that one. Sometimes, people just want to eat their cake and have it, too, without being reminded that they missed out on a spectacular piece of pie. Many people think that this constant harping on opportunity costs and alternatives and tradeoffs is why economics is called the dismal science. Frequent visitors to the Library of Economics and Liberty know better. See The Secret History of the Dismal Science by David M. Levy and Sandra J. Peart All true. But if you want to get the most out of life, you have to take account of the opportunity cost, the foregone alternatives. Better to make good choices and learn how to live with them than make bad choices in blissful ignorance that lead to ruin. Here are some applications of how understanding opportunity costs helps you get the most out of life. The real cost of college What's the cost of college? The obvious part of the cost of college is tuition. It's not room and board because those would be incurred anyway. But the opportunity cost includes the foregone wages from the jobs you could have had if you hadn't gone to college. This is one of the reasons we go to college when we're young without any experience in the workplace—our wages are relatively low so the foregone earnings from going to college are lower. The return on your investments Economists do know something about the stock market. If you tell me you have a great investment track record, I want to know: compared to what. A mutual fund manager who earned 12% last year for his investors seems to have had a banner year. But mutual funds indexed to the S&P 500 earned over 15%. If both funds had a similar level of risk, that mutual fund manager had a negative return of 3%. Similarly, holding your assets in the form of cash means foregoing the opportunity to invest them. The opportunity cost of cash is the return you could earn by investing it. Home ownership and home improvements Real estate agents like to tell you that a house is a great investment. Your house is appreciating and you get to live in it. Sometimes both are true statements. But appreciation of the house isn't enough to make it a good investment (or a reason to buy a particularly large house on the argument that if the investment is going to appreciate, it's better to have a bigger stake). Home owners like to savor how much they sold their house for above what they paid for it. When measuring the return, they rarely subtract the direct monetary costs—the repairs, the taxes, and the fees and commissions of lawyers, real estate agents and government agencies. But I've never known the proud Boston or Washington or L.A. house seller who calculates the foregone investment opportunities from tying up the down payment and the mortgage payments over the life of the time in the house. Similarly, real estate agents (and contractors) like to tell you that re-doing your kitchen is a good idea because you'll get the money back in the form of a higher price when you sell your house. So the kitchen is free! And in the meanwhile, you get to enjoy the pleasures of the kitchen. That logic is fine as long as you get enough pleasure from the kitchen to offset the opportunity cost of tying your money up in cabinetry and granite and giving up the return you could have earned doing something else with the money. One aspect of home ownership and opportunity cost is particularly tricky. Suppose your house appreciates. You could sell it and move to a smaller house or a house in a different neighborhood. But you decide to stay. The appreciation of your house means it has gotten more costly to live in it. But that increase in cost, being an opportunity cost rather than an out-of-pocket cost does not mean you are worse off. In fact, it is a sign that you are better off—an asset you own has appreciated and your wealth is higher at least as long as the appreciation stays in place. Opportunity cost is different from what we think of colloquially as cost, which usually means a monetary payment. Opportunity cost guides rational decision-making. But an increase in costs doesn't necessarily mean that you are worse off than you were before. Sunk costs are sunk, historical costs are history Opportunity cost is a forward-looking concept. If my car breaks down and I fix it, and it breaks down again, the decision to fix it a second time is independent of the first repairs costs. It is irrational to think that I have to fix it because I've put so much money into the car already—if I don't fix it, I'll lose all the money I've already invested. I've already lost the money on the first repair. Now I should only ask whether the second set of repairs are worth it. A variation on the "sunk cost" argument is the irrelevancy of historical costs. What the seller paid for a house twenty years ago has little effect on the market price today. Complaining that the seller is charging an exorbitant price compared to what the seller paid originally, only insures you will have trouble finding someone to sell you a house that meets your standards of a fair price. On the flip side, explaining to a prospective buyer in a housing market that has collapsed, that your price is high because after all, you paid a lot for it once and it's only fair that you get your money back plus a fair return, is unlikely to be a successful strategy for selling your house. Market prices ignore history. Replacement costs are more relevant than historical costs. If a friend gives you a Van Gogh as a wedding present and a few years later, a drunken dinner guest plunges a carving knife through it after losing his balance, your guest wouldn't tell you to shrug it off because after all, it was a gift, you didn't pay anything for it. Self-sufficiency vs. relying on others Perhaps the most important application of opportunity cost is the decision to do things for yourself vs. hiring someone. Doing it yourself is often cheaper and can be fun. But the cost of doing it yourself is the value of the other things you could have done with your time. Those other things might include working a part-time job or doing consulting, which means you forego money. So doing it yourself can be costly in the monetary sense. But the non-monetary costs can dwarf the monetary costs. Time spent painting your house yourself is time you can't spend reading to your children or being with your spouse or volunteering at the local soup kitchen. Ultimately, anything close to genuine self-sufficiency is the road to poverty. An avid do-it-yourselfer might change her own oil, bake her own bread and build a bookcase in her basement workshop. But she won't forge her own steel and the fashion her own car. She won't grow her own wheat or mill her own flour. She won't cut down a tree and plane the wood for that bookcase. And even if she did, she'll buy the saw. She won't make it for herself. Opportunity cost is key to understanding the concept of comparative advantage. See Comparative Advantage, by Lauren F. Landsburg and Treasure Island: The Power of Trade Part I. The Seemingly Simple Story of Comparative Advantage, by Russ Roberts. By specializing in a very small set of skills, selling those skills in the marketplace and relying on the skills of other specializing individuals we create much of what we call specialization. We specialize because the costs of self-sufficiency are so high. Of all the constraints we face, the constraint of 24 hours in a day and a finite lifetime are ones we cannot escape. Getting the most out of life means using that precious time wisely. Using that time wisely means using and understanding opportunity cost. Directory: rest -> wikis -> hspolicy16 -> spaces spaces -> Their conception of death as a biological end to life denies the value of death as a reversible and subjective transformation Download 273.08 Kb. Share with your friends:
|