Models of contagion arise broadly in both the biological and the social sciences, with applications ranging from the transmission of infectious diseases to the spread of cultural fads. In this Letter, we introduce a general model of contagion which, by explicitly incorporating memory of past exposures to, for example, an infectious agent, rumor, or new product, includes the main features of existing contagion models and interpolates between them. We obtain exact solutions for a simple version of the model, finding that under general conditions only three classes of collective dynamics exist. Furthermore, we find that, for a given length of memory, the class into which a particular system falls is determined by only two parameters. Our model suggests novel measures for assessing the susceptibility of a population to large contagion events, and also a possible strategy for inhibiting or facilitating them.

/pdf/universal-behavior-in-a-generalized-model-of-contagion-426fmc7zhn.pdf

Universal Behavior in a Generalized Model of Contagion

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and de‹ciency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself the enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. (Ibn al-Haytham)1

국제정치이론 = Theory of international politics

Research in international relations has identified a variety of actors who appear to influence U.S. foreign policy, including experts and “epistemic communities,” organized interests (especially business and labor), and ordinary citizens or “public opinion.” This research, however, has often focused on a single factor at a time, rather than systematically testing the relative importance of alternative possible influences. Using extensive survey data gathered over three decades we conduct a comparative test, attempting to account for the expressed foreign policy preferences of policy makers by means of the preferences of the general public and those of several distinct sets of elites. The results of cross-sectional and time-lagged analyses suggest that U.S. foreign policy is most heavily and consistently influenced by internationally oriented business leaders, followed by experts (who, however, may themselves be influenced by business). Labor appears to have significant but smaller impacts. The general public seems to have considerably less effect, except under particular conditions. These results generally hold over several different analytical models (including two-observation time series) and different clusters of issues (economic, military, and diplomatic), with some variations across different institutional settings (the U.S. House, Senate, and executive branch).

/pdf/who-influences-u-s-foreign-policy-390h6vzi84.pdf

Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy

Previous studies provide strong evidence for the Kantian theory of peace, but a satisfactory evaluation requires establishing the causal influence of the variables. Here we focus on the reciprocal relations between economic interdependence and interstate conflict, 1885–1992. Using distributed-lags analyses, we find that economically important trade does have a substantively important effect in reducing dyadic militarized disputes, even with extensive controls for the influence of past conflict. The benefit of interdependence is particularly great in the case of conflict involving military fatalities. Militarized disputes also cause a reduction in trade, as liberal theory predicts. Democracy and joint membership in intergovernmental organizations, too, have important pacific benefits; but we find only limited support for the role of costly signals in establishing the liberal peace. We find no evidence that democratization increases the incidence of interstate disputes; and contrary to realists' expectations, allies are not less conflict prone than states that are not allied. Democracies and states that share membership in many international organizations have higher levels of trade, but allies do not when these influences are held constant.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/3693591

Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992

Liberal international order - both its ideas and real-world political formations - is not embodied in a fixed set of principles or practices. Open markets, international institutions, cooperative security, democratic community, progressive change, collective prob- lem solving, the rule of law - these are aspects of the liberal vision that have made appearances in various combinations and changing ways over the last century. I argue that it is possible to identify three versions or models of liberal international order - versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. The first is associated with the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, the second is the Cold War liberal internationalism of the post- 1945 decades, and the third version is a sort of post-hegemonic liberal internationalism that has only partially appeared and whose full shape and logic is still uncertain. I develop a set of dimensions that allow for identifying different logics of liberal inter- national order and identify variables that will shape the movement from liberal internationalism 2.0 to 3.0.

Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order

World Politics aims to publish outstanding scholarship in the fields of international relations and comparative politics. We are committed to showcasing two kinds of articles: 1) research articles that pose important substantive, political questions; significantly advance theoretical debates; and present original empirical research to advance knowledge on these issues; and 2) review articles that not only analyze and compare the contributions of a number of thematically related books, but also advance our understanding of how we should analyze and pursue future work on these themes; in this regard, World Politics review articles differ from conventional book reviews.

Alexander Astrov

Papers

On world politics