Prof. Brawley Poli 243
McGill University Winter 2023
Suggested Paper Topics: Third Assignment
In this paper, you will be applying arguments to cases we have covered. A list of suggested
topics is given below, but you may pursue a different topic if it is approved by Prof. Brawley.
(You must get approval for an alternative topic confirmed by April 3rd). Papers should be no
more than 2250 words, with bibliography included. There is no need for a title page. You should
expect to use 2 or 3 sources from class, as well as 1 to 3 sources from outside the course.
Reminder: The assignment is worth 40% of the course total, and is due April 12th at 5pm. All
submissions must be via MyCourses. Late papers will be penalized 3 points per day.
1. How did the failure of ISI shape domestic interests in South Korea in the 1950s? How did
this experience influence that country’s decision to pursue EOI in the early 1960s? In
contrast, ISI was fairly successful in Brazil from the 1950s through the 1970s. How did that
experience affect Brazil’s response to the debt crisis of the 1980s?
2. To explain Japan’s willingness to increase the value of its currency (vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar)
in the 1980s, do domestic political factors matter more than a bureaucratic politics argument?
3. We have compared two countries’ responses to crises entered on international debt: Brazil in
the 1980s and Greece after 2008. How did systemic factors vary across these two cases?
Were domestic factors similar in these two situations, or different? Which factors were more
important?
4. To explain Germany’s decision to pursue European Monetary Union after the breakdown of
the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1970s, how convincing is an Analytical Liberal
explanation? Would a Constructivist argument be more persuasive?
5. On monetary policy, we have seen Japan act cooperatively with the U.S. in the 1980s; at that
same time, Germany decided to pursue monetary union with its neighbors. How did
systemic forces shape these two countries’ policies in the 1980s? Would an Analytical
Liberal argument explain their policy choices better than a systemic argument based on the
forces you have just presented?
6. In 1911, Canada rejected an offer to liberalize trade with the U.S.; in the 1980s, Canada
accepted a similar bilateral offer. What changed in U.S.-Canada relations? Is there one
argument that seems to work well across both cases?
7. In the 1980s, Brazil rejected the IMF’s recommendations; so too did Malaysia in the late
1990s. Would you explain these countries’ resistance to IMF advice via the same argument?
What would that argument be?
McGill University Winter 2023
Suggested Paper Topics: Third Assignment
In this paper, you will be applying arguments to cases we have covered. A list of suggested
topics is given below, but you may pursue a different topic if it is approved by Prof. Brawley.
(You must get approval for an alternative topic confirmed by April 3rd). Papers should be no
more than 2250 words, with bibliography included. There is no need for a title page. You should
expect to use 2 or 3 sources from class, as well as 1 to 3 sources from outside the course.
Reminder: The assignment is worth 40% of the course total, and is due April 12th at 5pm. All
submissions must be via MyCourses. Late papers will be penalized 3 points per day.
1. How did the failure of ISI shape domestic interests in South Korea in the 1950s? How did
this experience influence that country’s decision to pursue EOI in the early 1960s? In
contrast, ISI was fairly successful in Brazil from the 1950s through the 1970s. How did that
experience affect Brazil’s response to the debt crisis of the 1980s?
2. To explain Japan’s willingness to increase the value of its currency (vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar)
in the 1980s, do domestic political factors matter more than a bureaucratic politics argument?
3. We have compared two countries’ responses to crises entered on international debt: Brazil in
the 1980s and Greece after 2008. How did systemic factors vary across these two cases?
Were domestic factors similar in these two situations, or different? Which factors were more
important?
4. To explain Germany’s decision to pursue European Monetary Union after the breakdown of
the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1970s, how convincing is an Analytical Liberal
explanation? Would a Constructivist argument be more persuasive?
5. On monetary policy, we have seen Japan act cooperatively with the U.S. in the 1980s; at that
same time, Germany decided to pursue monetary union with its neighbors. How did
systemic forces shape these two countries’ policies in the 1980s? Would an Analytical
Liberal argument explain their policy choices better than a systemic argument based on the
forces you have just presented?
6. In 1911, Canada rejected an offer to liberalize trade with the U.S.; in the 1980s, Canada
accepted a similar bilateral offer. What changed in U.S.-Canada relations? Is there one
argument that seems to work well across both cases?
7. In the 1980s, Brazil rejected the IMF’s recommendations; so too did Malaysia in the late
1990s. Would you explain these countries’ resistance to IMF advice via the same argument?
What would that argument be?
