Il lavoro di Ian Shapiro interviene principalmente nei dibattiti riguardanti la democrazia e le metodologie della ricerca nelle scienze sociali. All'interno della teoria democratica, egli sostiene che il valore della democrazia derivi non dalla partecipazione o dalla rappresentanza, ma dalla sua capacità di limitare la dominazione. Nei metodi delle scienze sociali, Shapiro contesta gli approcci guidati dalla teoria o dal metodo. Promuove un approccio basato sul problema, in cui vengono ideati metodi di ricerca appropriati per affrontare la questione specifica.
The book presents a compelling argument for the concept of containment as a viable strategy to safeguard American democracy in a post-September 11 landscape. Drawing parallels to George Kennan's influential "Long Telegram," it outlines a bold vision for national security that emphasizes the need for a robust, strategic response to contemporary threats. Shapiro's analysis seeks to reshape the discourse around American security, suggesting that historical strategies can inform modern challenges.
Investigates a political dilemma, and evaluates answers that have been proposed in the utilitarian, Marxist, social contract, anti-Enlightenment, and democratic traditions.
The magnitude of the Burger Court has been underestimated by historians. When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards dotted the landscape, especially in the South. Nixon promised to transform the Supreme Court--and with four appointments, including a new chief justice, he did. This book tells the story of the Supreme Court that came in between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist and Roberts Courts: the seventeen years, 1969 to 1986, under Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is a period largely written off as a transitional era at the Supreme Court when, according to the common verdict, "nothing happened." How wrong that judgment is. The Burger Court had vitally important choices to make: whether to push school desegregation across district lines; how to respond to the sexual revolution and its new demands for women's equality; whether to validate affirmative action on campuses and in the workplace; whether to shift the balance of criminal law back toward the police and prosecutors; what the First Amendment says about limits on money in politics. The Burger Court forced a president out of office while at the same time enhancing presidential power. It created a legacy that in many ways continues to shape how we live today. Written with a keen sense of history and expert use of the justices' personal papers, this book sheds new light on an important era in American political and legal history.--Adapted from dust jacket
One of our nation's most prolific and widely discussed political theorists, Ian Shapiro speaks with a distinctive voice. His work is Deweyan in its inspiration, cosmopolitan in its concerns, and practical in its referents. In this book, he provides his first extended statement on contemporary democratic politics.Democracy's Place includes seven essays in which Shapiro carefully integrates the theoretical and the applied. Four deal principally with democratic theory and its link to problems of social justice; the other three detail applications in the United States, the postcommunist world, and the author's native South Africa. All advance a view of democratic politics which rests on principled, yet nuanced, suspicion of hierarchical social arrangements and of political blueprints. Shapiro's writing is unified as well by a pervasive concern with the relations between the requirements of democracy and those of social justice. These themes, substantiated by complex yet accessible arguments, offer a constructive democratic perspective on contemporary debates about liberalism, communitarianism, and distributive justice.
Americans face economic hardship but respond with fantastical solutions, from tax-cut magic to the end of capitalism. Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro focus on what truly worries people: their own insecurity. The authors propose concrete reforms affecting jobs, unemployment, health care, and wages and share strategies to achieve changes people need.
A Critique of Applications in Political Science
This is the first comprehensive critical evaluation of the use of rational choice explanations in political science. Writing in an accessible and nontechnical style, Donald P. Green and Ian Shapiro assess rational choice theory where it is reputed to be most successful: the study of collective action, the behavior of political parties and politicians, and such phenomena as voting cycles and Prisoner's Dilemmas. In their hard-hitting critique, Green and Shapiro demonstrate that the much-heralded achievements of rational choice theory are in fact deeply suspect and that fundamental rethinking is needed if rational choice theorists are to contribute to the understanding of politics. Green and Shapiro show that empirical tests of rational choice theories are marred by a series of methodological defects. These defects flow from the characteristic rational choice impulse to defend universal theories of politics. As a result, many tests are so poorly conducted as to be irrelevant to evaluating rational choice models. Tests that are properly conducted either tend to undermine rational choice theories or to lend support for propositions that are banal. Green and Shapiro offer numerous suggestions as to how rational choice propositions might be reformulated as parts of testable hypotheses for the study of politics. In a final chapter they anticipate and respond to a variety of rational choice counterarguments, thereby initiating a dialogue that is bound to continue for some time
The book presents a critical examination of contemporary practices in the social sciences and humanities, highlighting the detrimental effects of an inward-looking myopia among scholars. Ian Shapiro, known for his critique of rational choice theory, argues that this narrow focus leads to a disconnection from reality, affecting various academic disciplines. Through his analysis, he calls for a reevaluation of scholarly approaches to foster a more engaged and realistic understanding of social issues.
The book offers a profound exploration of political philosophy through incisive analyses of key figures and concepts, paired with thoughtful moral insights. Ian Shapiro's ability to blend breadth and depth sets his work apart, providing readers with valuable perspectives on complex political situations. While opinions may vary on his conclusions, the essays promise to enrich understanding and provoke thoughtful discussion among readers.
What should we expect from democracy, and how likely is it that democracies will live up to those expectations? This work offers an assessment of contemporary answers to these questions, and explores its implications for policy and political action. It includes accounts of democracy's purposes that focus on aggregating preferences.
The book explores the surprising repeal of the estate tax in 2001, despite its long-standing presence since 1916 and its application to only the wealthiest two percent of Americans. It highlights the bipartisan support that fueled this repeal, which followed a populist campaign led by a few individuals. The authors, Yale professors Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro, delve into the implications of this political shift, framing it as a significant victory for those who value the work ethic and the American Dream.