Prof. Brawley Poli 243
McGill University Winter 2023
Suggested Paper Topics: Second Assignment
In this paper, you will be applying arguments to one of the 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 an alternative topic confirmed by March 10th). Papers should be no
more than 1500 words, with bibliography included. There is no need for a title page. You are
expected to use 2 or 3 sources from class, as well as 1 to 3 sources from outside the course.
Reminder: The assignment is worth 25% of the course total, and is due March 17th at 5pm. All
submissions must be via MyCourses. Late papers will be penalized 3 points per day.
1. According to the Stolper-Samuelson approach, should Britain have repealed the Corn Laws
in 1846? Would Constructivism offer a more persuasive explanation?
2. At the end of the 1870s, Canada introduced the National Policy. Can we explain this policy
choice by using the Stolper-Samuelson theorem? What rival approach might offer a better
explanation?
3. In 1911, President Taft proposed a reciprocal trade agreement with Canada. Why did Taft do
this? Would you be satisfied with the argument (within Analytical Liberalism) based on the
sector-specific model of trade? What is added by introducing intra-industry firm
heterogeneity?
4. Canadians voted against the U.S. offer for reciprocal tariff reductions in 1911. How would
an Analytical Liberal argument based on intra-industry firm heterogeneity explain this
outcome? Would an argument from Structural Realism be better here?
5. Can Analytical Liberals explain Britain’s Repeal of the Corn Laws? Which specific
argument within Analytical Liberalism is most accurate? Would a Constructivist argument
be more persuasive?
6. How would Structural Realists explain Britain’s Return to the Gold Standard after World War
I? Would this be more persuasive than an Analytical Liberal’s explanation?
7. What distinguishes a Marxist argument for Britain’s Repeal of the Corn Laws from an
Analytical Liberal argument? Which do you find more persuasive? Why?
8. Britain’s return to the gold standard after Word War I at such a high exchange rate is
puzzling. How would an Analytical Liberal explain this specific outcome? How would a
Constructivist? Which argument is better?
McGill University Winter 2023
Suggested Paper Topics: Second Assignment
In this paper, you will be applying arguments to one of the 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 an alternative topic confirmed by March 10th). Papers should be no
more than 1500 words, with bibliography included. There is no need for a title page. You are
expected to use 2 or 3 sources from class, as well as 1 to 3 sources from outside the course.
Reminder: The assignment is worth 25% of the course total, and is due March 17th at 5pm. All
submissions must be via MyCourses. Late papers will be penalized 3 points per day.
1. According to the Stolper-Samuelson approach, should Britain have repealed the Corn Laws
in 1846? Would Constructivism offer a more persuasive explanation?
2. At the end of the 1870s, Canada introduced the National Policy. Can we explain this policy
choice by using the Stolper-Samuelson theorem? What rival approach might offer a better
explanation?
3. In 1911, President Taft proposed a reciprocal trade agreement with Canada. Why did Taft do
this? Would you be satisfied with the argument (within Analytical Liberalism) based on the
sector-specific model of trade? What is added by introducing intra-industry firm
heterogeneity?
4. Canadians voted against the U.S. offer for reciprocal tariff reductions in 1911. How would
an Analytical Liberal argument based on intra-industry firm heterogeneity explain this
outcome? Would an argument from Structural Realism be better here?
5. Can Analytical Liberals explain Britain’s Repeal of the Corn Laws? Which specific
argument within Analytical Liberalism is most accurate? Would a Constructivist argument
be more persuasive?
6. How would Structural Realists explain Britain’s Return to the Gold Standard after World War
I? Would this be more persuasive than an Analytical Liberal’s explanation?
7. What distinguishes a Marxist argument for Britain’s Repeal of the Corn Laws from an
Analytical Liberal argument? Which do you find more persuasive? Why?
8. Britain’s return to the gold standard after Word War I at such a high exchange rate is
puzzling. How would an Analytical Liberal explain this specific outcome? How would a
Constructivist? Which argument is better?
