Thursday, October 26, 2006
Dissertation thoughts
As some of you know I’m doing an MRes in Global Politics at Birkbeck. A substantial part of the course is the dissertation about 15,000 words to be exact and I just wanted to have a play around with a few ideas about what I will do it on before the deadline rather than after.
I always think that it is better to do something which you’re interested in. What I’m most interested in at the moment in international relations is the growing power of China and what effect this is having on the international system. The nature of the course isn’t so much a traditional realism vs. liberalism international relations course thought these are covered rather it deals with international political economy which is the interaction of states and markets and with the globalisation debate, which I want to reflect in the nature of the dissertation.
What I am proposing to study is China’s growing demand for oil and the effect this is having on the international system in particular the position of the United States. Are we seeing states act in a way where they are defining there national interest in terms of their energy security? For instance the Chinese state owned China Exim Bank is providing financial support to the three main Chinese state oil companies Sinopec, China National Petroleum Corporation and China National Offshore Oil Corporation so they can go around the world buying up oil assets in order to secure for China the oil necessary to keep the economy functioning and the Chinese Communist Party in power.
If you look at what is happening in Central Asia you have the Americans there partly because of the war on terror but also because of the oil and natural gas and the Chinese are there as well. Not least because it is their back yard. Central Asia is natural territory for the Chinese as it’s not known as an area renowned for its vibrant democracy and support for human rights. Indeed the Chinese have set up an organisation called the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which is a collection of repressive central Asian states, China and Russia. I remember Mark Leonard now of the Centre for European Reform making a point at a Fabian fringe meeting at conference this year that they were trying to create an anti democratic axis. Though I would add that such an organisation would also be very useful in smoothing over any trade problems as well.
It is important in international relations to engage with theory after all it is mainly a theory based discipline. Essentially I disagree with Hegemonic Stability Theory this is the idea that the international system is run by one powerful state; the Hegemon, in the 19th century it would have been the British but is now considered to be America. I want to argue the case that at least in terms of energy security the position is much more anarchic and that we are in a very multipolar world where no state is all powerful.
Finally there is the issue of the methodology. I don’t want to get caught in the trap of it being all theory as theory is basically erudite opinion. If political science is to be scientific then it has to work within a framework of fact. There is a major problem in international relations in that to be scientific the results that you produce really need to be reproducible but if you are arguing about the decline and emergence of major powers this is not really within the ability of academics to reproduce. That should not mean however we cannot take a rigorous behaviourist approach. Ideas on how to actually achieve that are most welcome. ¶ 2:04 pm
I always think that it is better to do something which you’re interested in. What I’m most interested in at the moment in international relations is the growing power of China and what effect this is having on the international system. The nature of the course isn’t so much a traditional realism vs. liberalism international relations course thought these are covered rather it deals with international political economy which is the interaction of states and markets and with the globalisation debate, which I want to reflect in the nature of the dissertation.
What I am proposing to study is China’s growing demand for oil and the effect this is having on the international system in particular the position of the United States. Are we seeing states act in a way where they are defining there national interest in terms of their energy security? For instance the Chinese state owned China Exim Bank is providing financial support to the three main Chinese state oil companies Sinopec, China National Petroleum Corporation and China National Offshore Oil Corporation so they can go around the world buying up oil assets in order to secure for China the oil necessary to keep the economy functioning and the Chinese Communist Party in power.
If you look at what is happening in Central Asia you have the Americans there partly because of the war on terror but also because of the oil and natural gas and the Chinese are there as well. Not least because it is their back yard. Central Asia is natural territory for the Chinese as it’s not known as an area renowned for its vibrant democracy and support for human rights. Indeed the Chinese have set up an organisation called the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which is a collection of repressive central Asian states, China and Russia. I remember Mark Leonard now of the Centre for European Reform making a point at a Fabian fringe meeting at conference this year that they were trying to create an anti democratic axis. Though I would add that such an organisation would also be very useful in smoothing over any trade problems as well.
It is important in international relations to engage with theory after all it is mainly a theory based discipline. Essentially I disagree with Hegemonic Stability Theory this is the idea that the international system is run by one powerful state; the Hegemon, in the 19th century it would have been the British but is now considered to be America. I want to argue the case that at least in terms of energy security the position is much more anarchic and that we are in a very multipolar world where no state is all powerful.
Finally there is the issue of the methodology. I don’t want to get caught in the trap of it being all theory as theory is basically erudite opinion. If political science is to be scientific then it has to work within a framework of fact. There is a major problem in international relations in that to be scientific the results that you produce really need to be reproducible but if you are arguing about the decline and emergence of major powers this is not really within the ability of academics to reproduce. That should not mean however we cannot take a rigorous behaviourist approach. Ideas on how to actually achieve that are most welcome. ¶ 2:04 pm
