I have never taught this course before here at Berkeley http://delong.typepad.com/pe101/2007/10/political-econo.html.
It seems only fair to give the students some idea of what is coming on Saturday December 15: 5-8 PM. For what they are about to receive, may the Lord of the Stars make them truly thankful:
PE 101: Modern Political Economy: Fall 2007: Mock Final Exam
Part 1--Short Answers (1 to 2 paragraphs); do all (50%) of exam:
What facts about the way the world appeared to be working before 1914 made it reasonable for Norman Angell to hope that full-scale wear between great powers was a thing of the past?
Why does George Orwell refuse to be either a classical liberal defender of the British status quo, a traditional conservative, a communist, or a fascist?
Given his historical situation in Britain between the world wars, does it seem to you reasonable or unreasonable that John Maynard Keynes hoped that clever governmental management by smart people would make classical liberal dreams true in practice even though they were not true in theory?
Why does Milton Friedman reject the dominant Polanyian social-democratic consensus of his time--that the logic and working of the market needed to be curbed by an active, powerful, energetic government aggressively regulating in the public interest?
What regions of the world have seen notable economic development successes in the years since WWII? What regions have seen notable economic development failures?
To what extent are modern neoliberals the intellectual children of Norman Angell, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Polanyi, and/or Milton Friedman?
Part 2--Essays; do 2 (50%) of exam:
Looking forward to the twenty-first century, who do you think is likely to win the intellectual cage match between Angell, Schumpeter, Hobson, and Stern? Whose analysis of the roots and functions of cross-border violence and domination is likely to be closest to being true?
In what ways are Milton Friedman and James Scott BFFs? In what ways are they eternal enemies?
What are the most notable differences between Keynes's and Polanyi's analyses of the problems of Europe between the world wars?
What, in your view, should the grand international relations strategy of the United States be in the twenty-first century? What should it do--in economics and in politics? What changes should it try to bring about in other countries, and what tools should it use to try to bring them about?