Every US "international relations" department is funded by NatSec ghouls. Agencies, spin-off NGOs, etc. They don't even need to be competent (exhibit A: this article), just the right political orientation.
Case in point, this graphic of an analysis (2011) of the actual US international relations literature:
Show
I’ll oversimplify what these mean in this note below.
Note that “non-paradigmatic” just means it combines multiple, and so it usually means a combination of liberalism (everything is about money), realism (everything is about the state), and constructivism (everything is about ideas and norms)
Every US "international relations" department is funded by NatSec ghouls. Agencies, spin-off NGOs, etc. They don't even need to be competent (exhibit A: this article), just the right political orientation.
Case in point, this graphic of an analysis (2011) of the actual US international relations literature:
I’ll oversimplify what these mean in this note below.
Note that “non-paradigmatic” just means it combines multiple, and so it usually means a combination of liberalism (everything is about money), realism (everything is about the state), and constructivism (everything is about ideas and norms)
Source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x