Comparative And International Policy: Answer Question 1 ✓ Solved

Comparative and International Policy: Answer question #1 and two other questions from the list below. Points will be awarded for thoroughness, clarity and good organization.

Comparative and International Policy: Answer question #1 and two other questions from the list below. Points will be awarded for thoroughness, clarity and good organization. Limit your answer to 2.5 to 3 double-spaced pages per question. To avoid plagiarism, cite your sources properly throughout your essays. Copying and pasting the instructor’s notes or the textbook is not acceptable; express yourself in your own words.

Question #1 is worth 40% and the other questions are worth 30% each.

1. Explain the meaning of collective security. With reference to the League principles and the League Council, explain how the League of Nations was meant to maintain international peace and security after the First World War. Finally, discuss why and how the League of Nations failed to fulfill its responsibility as the premier global security governance institution in the 20th century.

2. According to class discussion, China is an example of a modernizing authoritarian regime. What does this mean? With reference to the role of the political party in China and in the United States, provide a brief illustration of the main differences between the two countries’ political systems. Finally, describe what you see as the most enduring or persistent weakness of communist rule in China despite the 1980s reforms.

3. Provide a brief explanation of the term postindustrialism as discussed in the lecture and the textbook. Second, discuss the changes associated with this phenomenon in advanced industrial countries. Finally, discuss the impact of postindustrialism on the voting behavior of middle and upper-middle-class voters in Western Europe. Specify the issues that appeal to these groups and their preferred methods of putting those issues on the policy agenda.

4. Illustrate the meaning of cross-national policy learning with reference to any policy issue of your choice. Second, discuss some of the benefits of cross-national policy learning. Finally, with reference to healthcare policy, discuss two factors that militate against cross-national policy learning in US public policy.

5. By way of introduction define the following four concepts: agenda setting, popular agenda, policy agenda, policy implementation. Second, explain the meaning of the policy making process model. Finally, discuss the differences between the agenda-setting phase of the policy process and the policy implementation phase. Identify the policy actors involved in each phase and their roles.

Paper For Above Instructions

The analysis below engages the core themes of comparative and international policy by focusing on three interrelated questions: the dynamics of collective security and the League of Nations, the logic of postindustrial society and its implications for political behavior, and the mechanics of policy formulation through agenda setting and implementation. Together, these inquiries illuminate how historical institutions, evolving economic structures, and policy processes shape state behavior and public outcomes in both domestic and international arenas.

Answer to Question 1: Collective Security and the League of Nations

Collective security rests on the premise that peace and security are best protected when states commit to a joint response to any aggressor, rather than relying on unilateral or ad hoc measures. In the wake of the First World War, the League of Nations was designed to operationalize this logic through a framework of collective action, open diplomacy, and a commitment to disarmament and mutual accountability (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2020). The League’s structural design—especially its principle of collective security and the creation of the Council to coordinate responses—was intended to deter aggression and to mobilize a unified international reaction to violations of peace (Kissinger, 1994). However, several enduring design flaws and historical contingencies limited its effectiveness. The most consequential constraint was the absence of sustained participation by key power centers, notably the United States, which short-circuited the credibility and leverage of the League’s enforcement mechanisms (Kissinger, 1994). The Organization also relied on unanimity or broad consensus for major sanctions and collective action, reducing timely responses to acts of aggression by Japan (1931–1932), Italy (1935–1936), and Germany (1933–1939). In addition, economic crises of the 1930s constrained resources and political will, undermining the deterrent capacity of sanctions and international diplomacy (Baylis et al., 2020). The League’s reliance on moral suasion and non-binding resolutions, rather than credible coercive power, contributed to its gradual erosion as revisionist powers tested the international order (Kissinger, 1994). In retrospect, the League illustrates the critical tension between idealistic norms of collective action and the pragmatic requirements of timely, coercive enforcement in a world of sovereign rivals (Ikenberry, 2011).

In short, the League of Nations embodied the normative appeal of collective security, yet its institutional weaknesses—non-participation by major powers, veto-like decision dynamics, and limited enforcement capacity—hindered its ability to deter aggression and prevent escalation into broader conflict. The lesson for contemporary security governance, echoed by later scholars, is that credible collective security requires robust participation by major powers, credible coercive capabilities, and institutions capable of swift, legitimate enforcement, all balanced against the realities of great-power interests (Kissinger, 1994; Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2020).

Answer to Question 3: Postindustrialism and Its Political Implications

Postindustrialism refers to a structural shift in advanced economies from manufacturing-based activity to service-oriented, information-rich, and knowledge-driven sectors. Daniel Bell’s classic formulation highlighted the rise of a postindustrial society in which services, R&D, finance, education, and professional/technical occupations predominate, reshaping the economy and society (Bell, 1973). This transition has been accompanied by changes in labor markets, urban geography, and the distribution of wealth and influence. In many advanced economies, the growth of the knowledge economy has elevated the importance of education, credentialism, and continual skill upgrading, while automation and globalization reshape employment patterns and wage premia (Baylis et al., 2020; Rodrik, 2011). The political implications are significant: as the middle and upper-middle classes accumulate stakes in knowledge-based sectors, policy preferences shift toward issues these groups tend to value—quality public services, education, innovation policy, fiscal prudence, and social tolerance—while economic insecurity among other groups continues to fuel populist and protectionist sentiments (Bell, 1973; Lipset, 1959).

Voting behavior among these middle and upper-middle-class cohorts often reflects their stake in stable, predictable governance, emphasis on market-friendly but knowledge-intensive public goods, and demand for policies that protect property rights and intellectual capital. The shift toward issue-based politics—environmental regulation, technology policy, education, and trade’s selective protections—reflects postindustrial concerns about productivity, competitiveness, and social trust. In Western Europe, these voters historically favored parties that combine social protection with liberal social values and credible governance, aligning with liberal-conservative or social-liberal platforms that emphasize modernization and technocratic competence (Oatley, 2019; Baylis et al., 2020). The literature on postindustrial society thus helps explain observed realignments in party systems across advanced democracies, where policy agendas increasingly center on knowledge economies, innovation, climate policy, and social cohesion in a rapidly changing global economy (Bell, 1973; Rodrik, 2011).

Answer to Question 5: Concepts, Policy Making Process, and Implementation

Agenda setting refers to the process by which issues rise onto the public, political, or policy agenda, driven by media attention, interest groups, experts, and political entrepreneurs who highlight problems and propose solutions (Lasswell, 1936). The popular and policy agendas reflect the public’s concerns and the government’s priorities, respectively. The policy implementation phase concerns translating adopted policies into administrative action, programs, and services, with real-world effects on behavior and outcomes. The policy making process model typically encompasses problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation, and evaluation. This framework emphasizes that policy change is the product of interactions among political actors, institutions, and ideas (Lasswell, 1936; Baylis et al., 2020). A key distinction between agenda setting and implementation is that the former centers on problem recognition and political priority, while the latter involves administrative capacity, resource allocation, and organizational routines that deliver outcomes on the ground. In agenda setting, actors include the media, interest groups, and political leaders who influence what issues are salient; in implementation, the actors are bureaucrats, agencies, frontline workers, and local governments responsible for carrying out policy decisions (Nye, 2004; Baylis et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Collective security, postindustrial dynamics, and policy formation are intertwined elements of contemporary governance. The League of Nations provides a historical reminder that collective action requires credible enforcement and broad participation, while postindustrialism helps explain evolving political coalitions around education, innovation, and social policy. Finally, understanding agenda setting and implementation illuminates how policy ideas become concrete public programs and how those programs are experienced in society. Together, these strands emphasize the importance of institutions, economic structures, and administrative capacity in shaping political outcomes in both domestic and international contexts (Kissinger, 1994; Bell, 1973; Lasswell, 1936; Baylis et al., 2020; Shambaugh, 2013; Ikenberry, 2011).

References

• Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2020). The Globalization of World Politics (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The American Role in a Complex Global Order. Princeton University Press.
• North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting History. Cambridge University Press.
• Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Shambaugh, D. (2013). China Goes Global: The Partial Power. Oxford University Press.
• Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books.
• Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. McGraw-Hill.
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
• Oatley, T. (2019). International Political Economy. Cambridge University Press.