23 Feb Autocratic regimes particularly personalistic regimes lack a coherent national history that could bind the people to a civic nationalism. Instead, they must rely on ethnonationalism and a me
political science report and need a sample draft to help me learn.
Hello I need a sample essay. Please message me for questions. MUST BE 8 PAGES CHICAGO STYLE. TOPIC IS RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
Requirements:
Basic Outline For Precis
Please refer to the Precis description in the syllabus and on the course website.
I wanted to provide an outline of what I hope the Precis will look like.
This is an example you would not include these three brief paragraphs in your paper, but I am using them as illustration
[Observation: Many autocratic regimes, e.g., Russia, Hungary, Belarus, have turned to ethnonationalism as means to consolidate power leading to increased hostility and militarized disputes with Liberal Democracies.
H1: Autocratic regimes particularly personalistic regimes lack a coherent national history that could bind the people to a civic nationalism. Instead, they must rely on ethnonationalism and a means to prevent uprisings against the dictator.
H2: Ethnonationalism represents a new alternative to liberal democracy. Ethnonationalism has become an attractive ideology to a rising China as they seek to consolidate and annex Hong Kong, Tibet, and Taiwan. Smaller autocracies are bandwagoning with China as means to increase their power in the international system]-DO NOT INCLUDE IN PAPER.
Outline
P1) Introduction (~1/2 page)
Brief overview of the problem?
Brief overview of H1
Brief overview of H2
Roadmap for remainder of paper
P2) H1 (3-4 pages)
Using my example
Provide an overview of the literature on nationalism and autocracies. With an emphasis on how autocracies use nationalism to maintain power.
This is an exploration of the topic as a whole not simply related to our observation.
P3) H2 (3-4 pages)
Using my example
Provide an overview of the literature on nationalism and autocracies. With an emphasis on how autocracies use nationalism to maintain power.
This is an exploration of the topic as a whole not simply related to our observation.
P4) Adjudication (1 page)
In this section you are explaining which hypothesis best explains the observation based on preliminary evidence.
P5) Future research (1/2 page)
Imagine you were going to do this research as a thesis. What evidence would you be collecting to demonstrate that one hypothesis is better than the other
P6) Conclusion (1/2 page)
_2b2`+?S`û+Bb,1+?bim/2MirBHHr`Bi2Ubi`B+iHv2M7Q`+2/V3@RyT;2URR@Ti7QMi-/Qm#H2@bT+2/-R@BM+?K`;BMV`2b2`+?T`û+BbTT2`Xh?BbbbB;MK2MiBb/2bB;M2/iQ?2HTbim/2Mib?QM2i?2bFBHHbi?irBHH#2M22/2/iQ+QM/m+ii?2B`QrMBM/2T2M@/2Mi`2b2`+?2{+B2MiHvM/2z2+iBp2HvX`2b2`+?T`û+BbBb-bm++BM+iHv-i?2T`2HBKBM`vB/2MiB}+iBQMQ7`2b2`+?[m2biBQMBMi?2}2H/rQ`i?vQ77m`i?2`/2p2HQTK2MiM/BMp2biB;iBQMXAiBbBK@TQ`iMiiQMQi2i?ii?BbbbB;MK2MiBbMQi`2b2`+?TT2`BMi?2i`/BiBQMHb2Mb2Xh?BMFQ7i?BbT`QD2+ibi?2+QM+2TimHT`2T`iBQM7Q“2b2`+?MBMi2HH2+imH#Hm2T`BMiXuQmQm;?iiQ7Q+mbQM+H2`HvB/2MiB7vBM;`2b2`+?[m2b@iBQM-+QMi2KTHiBM;[m2biBQMbQ7/2}MBiBQMM/QT2`iBQMHBxiBQM-M/bBimiBM;vQm`QrMrQ`FrBi?BMi?2H`;2`mMBp2`b2Q72tBbiBM;b+?QH`b?BTTQi2MiBHHvBM@+Hm/BM;U#miKQbi+2`iBMHvMQiHBKBi2/iQVb2H2+iBQMbTT2`BM;BMi?BbbvHH#mbXAM2bb2M+2-i?BbbbB;MK2MiBbBMi2M/2/iQbBKmHi2i?2}`biM/KQbi/B{+mHibi;2bQ7MvbB;MB}+Mi`2b2`+?2M/2pQ`XS`iQ7i?BbbbB;M2/2t2`+Bb2Bbói2+?MB+HôBMMim`2-BMi?iBiibFbvQmrBi?BM/2T2M/2MiHvB/2MiB7vBM;M/+QKTBHBM;`2H2pMi7QmM/iBQM7Q`vQm`T`QD2+iBM2tBbiBM;b+?QH`b?BTXh?2Qi?2`T`iQ7i?2bbB;MK2Mi-M/T2`?Tbi?2KQ`2BKTQ`iMiQM2-Bbó+`2iBp2ôBMMim`2X>2`2-i?2;QHBbMQibBKTHviQ+QKTBH2Q“2T2iBMp2biB;iBQMb+QM@/m+i2/#vQi?2`b-#miiQTmiiQ;2i?2`+QMpBM+BM;óTBi+?ô7Q`T`QD2+ii?i+QmH/mb27mHHv+QMi`B#mi2iQi?Bb2tBbiBM;#Q/vQ7`2b2`+?XAMb?Q`i-i?2bbB;M@K2MirBHH`2[mB`2bim/2MibiQT`+iB+2i?2`iQ7/2THQvBM;i?2QH/iQ+`2i2i?2M2rX:Bp2Mi?2KmHiBim/2Q7BK;BM#H2[m2biBQMb`2H2pMiiQi?2}2H/-M/K2i?@Q/bpBH#H2iQMbr2`i?2K-i?2`2BbMQbBM;H2óB/2H@ivT2ôTT`Q+?iQ+QK@TQbBM;i?BbTT2`X_i?2`-vQmb?QmH/BKiQbT2M/i?2KDQ`BivQ7i?2HHQii2/bT+2//`2bbBM;i?2KQbiBKTQ`iMiBbbm2b2MiBH2/BMMbr2`BM;vQm`QrMT`@iB+mH`[m2biBQMXhQ#2#BiKQ`2T`2+Bb2-bm++2bb7mHT`û+BbrBHHBMbQK2rvUBX2X-MQiM2+2bb`BHvBM2[mHK2bm`2BMi2`KbQ72KT?bBbQ`óT;2@iBK2ôV++QKTHBb?7Qm`+`BiB+HQ#D2+iBp2b,ÇA/2MiB7vUM//272M/V/2T2M/2Mip`B#H2BX2X-.B/vQm+H2`HvM/T`2+Bb2Hv/2b+`B#27Q+Hb2iQ7óTQi2MiBHQmi+QK2bôiQ#22tTHBM2/\.B/vQmKF2M2tTHB+Bi+b2i?ii?Bb/2T2M/2Mip`B#H2BbMBKTQ`iMiQM2-M//2b2`p2b7m`i?2`bim/v\ÇA/2MiB7vUM//272M/ViH2biirQ+QMi2M/BM;2tTHMiBQMb7Q`i?2pHm2Q7vQm`/2T2M/2Mip`B#H2BX2X-.B/vQmT`2b2MiK2MBM;7mHi?2Q`2iB+H/2#i2Qp2`r?vQM2b?QmH/Q#b2`p2QM2Q7vQm`TQi2MiBHQmi+QK2bQp2`MQi?2`\.B/vQmKF2M2tTHB+Bi+b2i?ivQm`7Q+H2tTHMiBQMb`2+QKT2HHBM;`2HiBp2iQQi?2`TQbbB#BHBiB2b-M/r?v\ÇaF2i+?UM//272M/VT`2HBKBM`vbi`i2;v7Q`/Dm/B+iBM;#2ir22Mi?2b22tTHMiBQMbmbBM;bQK27Q`KQ72KTB`B+H2pB/2M+2BX2X-.B/vQm;Bp2bQK2i?Qm;?ibiQr?i`2H@rQ`H/+b2-Q`+b2b-vQm+QmH/HQQFiR
iQbb2bbi?2++m`+vQ7vQm`p`BQmb+M/B/i22tTHMiBQMbUM/i?2biM/`/bvQmrQmH/2KTHQvBMDm/;BM;#2ir22Mi?2KV\hQi?22ti2MiQi?2`bBMi?2HBi2`im`2?p2T2`7Q`K2/+QKT`#H2MHvb2b-r?irQmH/vQm`bim/v/Q/Bz2`2MiHv\Ç_2~2+i`2bQM#Hv@i?Q`Qm;?mM/2`biM/BM;Q72tBbiBM;b+?QH`b?BT`2@Hi2/iQi?2iQTB+BX2X-.B/vQm`#+F;`QmM/`2b2`+?QMi?2Bbbm2+QMbBbiQ772r+m`bQ`v:QQ;H2b2`+?2bQM27i2`MQQM-Q`/B/vQmKF2b2`B@Qmb2zQ`iiQ7KBHB`Bx2vQm`b2H7rBi?MQM@i`BpBHbKTH2Q7T`QKBM2Mi2tBbiBM;b+?QH`b?BTQMvQm`+?Qb2Mbm#D2+i\k
1Immigration in the United States remains a fiercelydivisive subject. For any position of thepolitical spectrum, it is critical to reach an understandingas to why people from one nation chooseto immigrate to another. This précis will exploretwo possible explanations for changes in the rateof immigration as a product of neoliberalism, particularlyas it relates to the case study of Mexicanmigrants entering the United States. The first possibleexplanation is that there is an inverserelationship between the presence of free trade policyand immigration, which is simply understoodas meaning that free trade and immigration are economicsubstitutes for one another. Thealternative independent variable is that neoliberalpolicy exacerbates inequality in the global south,causing more need for immigration to the global north.Identifying what affects the rates of immigrationis extremely relevant for current politicaldiscourse. Internationally, the topic has become anintense battleground, such as with right-wingpopulism present throughout Europe.1In the 2016 U.S.presidential elections, immgration(primarily in respect to Mexican immigration) playedan especially prominent role. ProfessorJames Gimpel of the University of Maryland providesan excellent summary of this,Apparently tapping into widespread discontent withthe trajectory of U.S. immigrationpolicy was a winning strategy in 2016, as evidencedby Trump’s improvement overRomney among voters with conservative convictions.The Republican nominee’s emphasispushed the Democrats into a difficult corner in whichthey were forced to choose betweenwhite working class voters and racial and ethnic identitypolitics.2If immigration is able to hold such a powerful swayover the voting constituency, then itsmechanics must be understood for predicting futureelections or other political movements. Byrecognizing factors that signal a high or low rateof immigration, political actors will be able tomore effectively strategize how much their platformshould focus on the topic.2James G. Gimpel, Immigration Policy Opinion andthe 2016 Presidential Vote,? CIS.org (Center ofImmigration Studies, December 4, 2017),https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Policy-Opinion-and-2016-Presidential-Vote.1James Dennison and Andrew Geddes, A Rising Tide?The Salience of Immigration and the Rise ofAnti-Immigration Political Parties in Western Europe,?The Political Quarterly90, no. 1 (January 1, 2019):107?16.
2The scope of this précis is to investigate how two empirical factors may predict change inimmigration. The underlying assumption that will bethe starting point for this analysis is that, ona wide scale, individuals do not leave their nationsof origin unless they do not have the means tosupport themselves there. Their economic insecurity drives them to seek better working conditionsin foreign countries. Another critical parameter isthat this research is not geared towards thosethat leave their home country under the threat ofviolence or war. A rising explanation is thatliberal free trade policies act as a substitute forimmigration, as free trade signifies that employersmove their business ventures to countries with cheaplabor and immigration means that cheaplabor instead comes to the employers. The competingexplanation is that economic globalizationhas had a profoundly negative impact on economiesin the global south, severely curtailingavailable work in those nations.Political economist Margaret E. Peters finds thatthe proposed relationship betweenimmigration and free trade as substitutes holds wellunder scrutiny. Her empirical researchpresents 19 graphs with strong correlations with observationsreaching all the way back to the19th century.3At her glance, her findings can besummarized as follows, A change in tradeopenness from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile,or from 17% average tariff level to a 4%average tariff level, leads to a -0.39? change inimmigration policy??4Peters critiques that manyscholars turn to domestic policy to try to understandthe popularity or distaste held forimmigration policy, such as a rise in nativism orincreases in democracy.5However, she arguesthat the international foreign trade policies thatinform these domestic positions should not be5Peters, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and ImmigrationPolicy Making in the United State,? 40.4Peters, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and ImmigrationPolicy Making in the United States,? 30.3Peters, Margaret E. “Open trade, closed borders immigrationin the era of globalization.”World Pol.67(2015): 26.
3ignored when analyzing immigration policy.6Her argument is well substantiated, and conformswell to historical trends of policy.The nature of her argument is also somewhat limitedin scope in explaining immigration.Certainly, her data strongly supports an inverse relationshipbetween free trade andanti-immigration policy, but her sample size is also quite small. She only accounts for 19 countries,which are subdivided into 7 settler states, 5 Europeanliberal democracies, 5 export-orientedindustrializers, and 2 rentier states. These stateswere used to diversify economic policy, as theytend to use similar regulations and have tended tohave similar trade policies.?7However, thissame reasoning also runs the risk of making the datalook tokenistic. For example, the immigrationpolicies of 2 rentier states does not represent allstates with a rentier economy. A country likeSaudi Arabia (which is represented in the data) doesnot necessarily function identically to acountry like Venezuela. Perhaps it does in respectto Peters? hypothesis of economic trade andimmigration policy, but the data in this study isquite limited to say so definitively.Edward D. Mansfield and Diana C. Mutz bring a contradictoryattitude of free trade to thediscussion. In their empirical research, they findthat results indicate that perceptions of howtrade affects the U.S. economy, union membership,and education strongly influence mass opinionabout trade.?8While this may fall into the warningthat Peters gave about focusing toodomestically, public perception of international tradedoes ultimately go on to affect internationalpolicy. Interestingly, Mansfield and Mutz predicta 35% increase in likelihood to oppose free tradeif one belongs to a labor union.9This finding iscontradictory to one of Peters? propositions, whichis that unions oppose immigration on the grounds thatimmigrants compete with native labor for9Mansfield and Mutz, Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest,Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety,?446.8Mansfield, Edward D., and Diana C. Mutz. “Supportfor Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics,and Out-Group Anxiety.” International Organization63, no. 3 (2009): 444.7Peters, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and ImmigrationPolicy Making in the United State,? 22.6Peters, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and ImmigrationPolicy Making in the United State,? 40.
4jobs.10Continuing the dissonance, much of public opinion?s distrust of free trade comes fromout-group related anxieties, which are formed on raciallines.11However, these are similar talkingpoints that the right-wing populists mentioned atthe beginning of the précis use againstimmigration. While these contrary points do not quite detract from Peters? empirical findings, theycertainly do not strengthen it.An unspoken norm in these articles is that they fixateon immigration as foreign policy, noton the rates on immigration itself. According tothe Pew Research Center, unauthorized migrationto the United States is on the rise again. In Mayof 2019, monthly migrant apprehensions at theUnited States-Mexico border peaked at 132,856 people.The rate of apprehensions sharpleydeclined to 16,182 as of April 2020, but has shotback up again to 96,974 as recently as February2021.12President Donald Trump may have worked to tightenthe security of the U.S. Mexicoborder and renegotiated NAFTA into the USMCA, butthere is still an interest for immigrationthat is not being addressed. The official policy fitsPeters? model, immigration policy goes downand free trade policy goes up, but that does not explaineverything. There must be a reason thatpeople are choosing to immigrate in such large quantities.In Mexico, the acceptance of neoliberal policiesand receptiveness to foreign investorscaused extreme damage to their economy. Twelve yearsafter NAFTA had been enacted, realMexican wages dropped by 22%, while worker productivityincreased 45%.13Comparatively, theaverage Mexican wage went from 23% of the U.S. manufacturingwage in 1975 to less than an13David Bacon, Displacement and Migration.? Chap.3 inIllegal People: How Globalization CreatesMigration and Criminalizes Immigrants(Boston: BeaconPress, 2008), 59.12John Gramlich, Migrant Apprehensions at U.S.-MexicoBorder Are Surging Again,? Pew ResearchCenter (Pew Research Center, March 15, 2021),https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/15/migrant-apprehensions-at-u-s-mexico-border-are-surging-again/.11Mansfield and Mutz, Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest,Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety,?440.10Peters, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and ImmigrationPolicy Making in the United State,? 34.
5eighth of it by 2002.14Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, even went as far as tosay NAFTA was directly connected to the peso crashof 1994 due to speculators cashing out oftheir Mexican assets.15Nafta also pulled down customsbarriers, smothering Mexican agriculturalproducts in their own domestic market, putting manyfarm workers out of a job.16With this inmind, it should also be noted that upwards of 6 millionMexicans immigrated to the United Statesin the thirteen years after the treaty went into effect. The Mexican population in the U.S. wentfrom 10 to 12 million from just the period of 2000to 2005 alone, and the vast majority of thesemigrant people were undocumented.17The takeaway fromthis large amount of information shouldbe two elements. The first is that free trade createdtense economic conditions in Mexico,encouraging many to seek a more secure life elsewhere.The second should be that people did justthis by the millions, despite the proposed relationshipbetween anti-immigration policy and freetrade.The economic structures of neoliberalism have beenheavily criticized by Álvaro Del RegilCastilla as the root cause for modern Mexican immigration.He posits that there are manybeneficiaries to the economic realities just described.First, there are the institutional investors ofinternational financial markets and their corporationsmaximise their shareholder value? and thepoliticians who serve as proxies of those institutionalinvestors.18It is also of great interest to theUnited States populace. Castilla says that Wagesof US workers are subsidised by Mexicanworkers. Savings in Modern-Slave-Work wages paid inMexico subsidise the much higher wagespaid to equivalent workers in the US of the samecorporations.?19This same subsidization? is19Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 65.18Álvaro Del Regil Castilla, The Underlying Causesof Immigration from Mexico to the United States,?Revista Internacional de Salarios Dignos1, no. 02(November 1, 2019),64,http://revistasinvestigacion.lasalle.mx/index.php/OISAD/article/view/2574.17Bacon, Displacement and Migration,? 64.16Bacon, Displacement and Migration,? 62.15Bacon, Displacement and Migration,? 61.14Bacon, Displacement and Migration,? 59.
6what allows American consumers to enjoy such low prices on many goods and services.20In thisway, Castilla says that the U.S. receives cheap laborfrom Mexico no matter which side of theborder one looks at.21In Mexico, neoliberal policyhas been weakening the Mexican economy sothat foreigner owners can gain control of industrywhile simultaneously paying unlivable lowwages to maximize profit. These conditions drive many from their homes to seek greateropportunity within the U.S., where these undocumentedimmigrants work inside of the informaleconomy that pays far less than the U.S. minimum wage.Because they are undocumented andtherefore limited in ecomomic opportunity, they servevirtually the same form of unsustainablecheap labor that caused them to leave their homesin the first place.Castilla also makes an interesting challenge to lessradical neoliberal economic explanationswhere he declares imperialism. The premise that heis deconstructing is that neoclassicaleconomic theory, which, as expected, looks at immigrationas an individual choice, where migrantsgo through a decision process to migrate or not andwhere to migrate based on comparative cost -benefit expectations between the home country andvarious host countries as well as the labourquestion of demand and supply.?22He says that thesethinkers will state that economic andpolitical factors will convince a migrant to move,but they will not comment on what the roots ofthose causes of those factors actually are.23If onehas an actual interest in understanding thepolitical problem of immigration, the explanationand solution must come from those root causes.In the case of Mexico, Castilla says that it is verydirectly the result of collusion of thecentre-periphery elites to exploit the labour pooland natural resources. The US is a direct actorand stakeholder, along with the Mexican oligarchy,in the prevailing ethos of political instability23Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 15.22Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 15.21Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 16.20Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 65.
7and repression??24With the main problem identified and described at length, he also talks aboutworking towards eliminating immigration as a politicalissue.Castilla primarily seeks to solve these issues througha restoration of the living wage. Thefirst method would be to close the wage gap generated by wealth extraction policy. The examplethat he uses is with the Ford manufacturing plants.A Ford factory worker in Michigan makes$48.97/hour, but a worker in Mexico who works an identicaljob makes $4.68/hour or 9.6% innominal terms.25Castilla recommends that this gapis closed along with the Mexican government?sminimum wage recovery plan, and estimates it willtake about 14 years to become equivalent.26Healso says that the minimum wage must also catch upto the Indispensable Basket of Goods metric,which could take approximately 23 years.27In thisway, Castilla is confident that the economy ofMexico would be far more healthy and prone to growth,as citizens would actually have disposableincome to spend and stimulate the economy.This literature provides a much more radical takeon the causes of immigration. It isthorough, but perhaps questionable in its application.Structural systems, by their very nature, arequite resistant to change. They are ingrained to maintaininstitutions against erosion. While muchof this literature focuses on Mexican-American immigration,it is also applicable to a GlobalSouth-North relationship. Colonialism has gained tractionoutside of academia in recent years, andthis sort of narrative could very well be a naturalextension of colonialism vis-à-vis wealthextraction. Although it has gained traction, it stillstands that many westerners do resist it. Giventhat the shadow of the Cold War still affects discussionof government services, meaning many seecommunism as equal to evil and capitalism as good,removing these neoliberal privatized holdingsand promoting a living wage could prove quite difficult.Difficulty may not be pertinent to whether27Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 65.26Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 65.25Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 31.24Castilla, The Underlying Causes of Immigration fromMexico to the United States,? 16.
8the aftermath of neoliberalism in the Global South is morally permissible, but it is pertinent towhat we are able to do to work towards a resolutionfor reducing immigration.The articles on how neoliberal policies promote immigration to the global north make foran interesting recontextualization for Peters? proposedrelationship between free trade andimmigration. When defining her parameters, Peterssays,There are two over-lapping universes of cases to whichthe theory could apply. First, thetheory applies to relatively (low-skill) labor scarcestates. These are states that haverelatively high wages in comparison to the rest ofthe world or in comparison to their majortrading partners. Second, we want to ensure that thecountries studied are countries thatmigrants want to move to.28Earlier in the paper, this small sample size was critiquedfor its limited statistical range of 19samples. While she says it far more diplomaticallythan the second set of authors, Peters isactually describings the same set of circumstancesthat cause immigration. These are countriesthat need an exploitable workforce, and have the economicreputation that attracts migrantworkers. While she focuses on the relationship betweenfree trade and immigration as substitutes,she is also making an analogous system of migrationand deportation. Bacon illustrates this with ahistorical example, In the depression of the 1930s,Mexican workers were rounded up anddeported by the thousands when the unemployment ratewent up. When World War II started, theU.S. government negotiated their return as braceros.Growers needed workers, but didn?t want toraise wages to draw them from cities.?29While I donot think that is what Peters intended, as shewas focused on matters of international policy, theparallels are still present.Overall, the rate of immigration being affected byinequality cultivated the global south byextractionist policy points research in an interestingdirection. The empirical evidence that thisschool of thinking uses to prove their points is asexhaustive as it is persuasive. While researchingthrough other sources that did not make the cut ofthe written précis, it was a common theme for29Bacon, Displacement and Migration,? 75.28Peters, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and ImmigrationPolicy Making in the United State,? 11.
9many scholars to (perhaps out of humility) leave their topics wide open, with little knowledge ofput forward on how immigration comes about or what issues it is sensitive towards. In the contextof neoliberal exploitation policy, there is much moreconstructive analysis and plan of correction, asis evident by the proportionality in the two competingideas in this précis. However, it should benoted that confidence and persuasiveness do not bythemselves equal right. While scholars likeCastilla have engaging critiques and recommendations,implementing their ideas in the long term isimmensely difficult. In the future, I think expandingthis investigation of neoliberal exploitation toother Latin American countries would be a worthwhileendeavor. It could even lead to widespreadconnections to the Global North-South relationshipas a whole. While the application of the ideaspresented is easily transferable, actually seeingthe empirical data would be more than worthwhile.
THIS IS FOR PURE Illustration. You may or may not, pick this topic
Why has China launched balloons? into Canadian and US airspace? [Observation]
H1: Xi is personalizing China. Xi is taking low stake actions to signal strength to regime insiders.
US isn?t going to start a way over balloons?
This is street cred? for Xi
Low risk way of showing strength/ risk tolerance
The audience? is internal
H2: This is an actual test balloon. Similar to Salami tactics
US isn?t going to start a way over balloons?
Not going to cause a way
But it is a data point about how the US responses to provocation
This is a way of testing how the US acts in 2023
P= parts
Outline
P1) Introduction (~1/2 page)
Brief overview of the problem?
E.g. China launching balloons
Brief overview of H1
Xi is signaling to regime insiders he is OG
Brief overview of H2
China is testing the waters
Roadmap for remainder of paper
Where the paper is going and how you explore? these Hs
H2 is better
[Important note: You?re a not writing a mystery novel. I.e., Tell me the conclusion]
P2) H1 (3-4 pages)
Provide an overview of the literature on internal signaling through conflict provocation
This is an exploration of the topic as a whole not simply related to our observation.
[Note: In these 3-4 pages wear the hat? of the H]
P3) H1 (3-4 pages)
Provide an overview of the literature on salami tactics
This is an exploration of the topic as a whole not simply related to our observation.
[Note: In these 3-4 pages wear the hat? of the H]
Everything in yellow can be reused for the final paper
P4) Adjudication (1 page)
In this section you are explaining which hypothesis best explains the observation based on preliminary evidence.
Per my example: Why H2 is better
P5) Future research (1/2 page)
Pretend? You were going to carry this out
What would be the ideal evidence to support your claim that H2 > H1
P6) Conclusion (1/2 page)
Wrap things up
