A student's note

Hello and welcome to the sixth episode of Theory of the Week. A weekly show from A Student’s Note where we explore a theory-esque concept each week.For Christmas we took a little break, and hope you were able to do the same. In any case, we hope you had a fantastic Christmas.This time I would like to explore social contract theory, but there are a lot of theorists who used this heuristic of natural state and society. To account for the different approaches, I chose to contrast the theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two classical contractualists.In my opinion, this comparison gives a good understanding of how different classical theorists came to surprisingly different results.But I have already talked a lot without explaining what a social contract theory is. So let’s start from the beginning. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com

Welcome to the fifth episode of Theory of a Week, a weekly show from a student’s note, where we explore a theory-esque concept each week.This week we are entering the arena of international relations theories by exploring the social-constructivist approach. Social constructivism gives us tools to explain changes in the nature of international politics and offers a powerful critique of neorealist theories, which tend to explain change as a return to a predefined ‘natural state’ of self-help.These tools help us give more nuanced answers when we try, for example, to make sense of NATO allies starting to doubt whether the United States would really defend them, or Germany suddenly redefining its relationship with Russia.For this, I would like to take a slightly different approach than usual and trace the core argument from Alexander Wendt’s 1992 article ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’ from beginning to end, instead of combining different sources and perspectives.So this week, we really need to start from the beginning. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com

Hello and welcome to the fourth episode of Theory of a Week, a weekly show from a student’s note, where we explore a theory-esque concept each week.This week is somewhat of a continuation of last week’s episode, because we will cover a second path‑defining economist: John Maynard Keynes. He was active in early 20th‑century Europe, a period marked by war, social unrest, and the Great Depression. In this crisis‑ridden context, many core economic ideas were questioned – including Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and the belief in fully self‑regulating markets.In this episode, we introduce Keynes’s key insights about aggregate demand, unemployment, and the role of the state in stabilising a capitalist economy. We discuss why, for Keynes, markets can get stuck in deep recessions, why government spending and fiscal policy matter, and how his ideas reshaped macroeconomics and economic policy after the 1930s.If you’re interested in macroeconomics, economic crises, or debates about austerity versus stimulus, this episode on John Maynard Keynes and the rise of Keynesian economics is for you.Let’s get started.Chapters* Introduction* The Great Depression* The break with classical economic thought* The role of the state* A new vision of economic order* Closing thoughtMusic creditsMusic track: Daydreams by PufinoSource: https://freetouse.com/musicMusic for Video (Free Download) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com

Hello and welcome to the third episode of  Theory of a Week, the new weekly show from a student’s note, where we explore a new  theory-esque concept each week.This third episode explores the surprisingly modern thoughts of Adam Smith.In this episode, we travel to 18th‑century Scotland to unpack Adam Smith’s core ideas from The Wealth of Nations: division of labour, the market mechanism, and the famous “invisible hand.” We look at how his explanation of England’s prosperity through specialisation and productivity still underpins modern microeconomics, and how his account of prices gravitating towards a “natural price” anticipates today’s supply‑and‑demand models.At the same time, we explore Smith’s critical side: his worries about the dark side of specialisation, the risk of deskilling and alienation, and his hope that rising productivity would spread wealth through society. If you’re interested in political economy, the history of economic thought, or just want to understand what the “invisible hand” really means (and doesn’t mean), this episode is for you.Let’s get started.Chapters* Introduction* England’s Prosperity* Virtues of Division of Labour* The Invisible Hand* Exploring the Market Mechanism * The Problematisation of Specialisation & Social InequalityMusic creditsMusic track: Daydreams by PufinoSource: https://freetouse.com/musicMusic for Video (Free Download) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com

Hello and welcome to the second episode of Theory of a Week, the new weekly show from a student’s note, where we explore a new theory-esque concept each week.For this second episode I have chosen Esping-Andersen’s contribution of defining three welfare state clusters, because notwithstanding criticism the typology it is still widely used in welfare state research.Esping-Andersen revolutionalised the way in which we compare welfare states today and changed the way researchers measure the extent of individual welfare states. Reason enough to explore his reasoning and his famous typology.Let’s get started.Chapters* Introduction* Three Approaches to Welfare State Development* Case for a multi-layered approach* Andersens analytical categories* Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism Closing QuestionDo we still have three worlds of welfare capitalism? That is, is the typology still useful beyond “the golden age of welfare states”?I believe so because the typology has proven remarkably enduring. Some attempts have been made to expand it and exclude states like the Netherlands and Switzerland entirely, classifying them as « mixed cases » that don’t fit a typological design (unlike ideal types). Furthermore, a data error initially placed Japan incorrectly in the typology. Despite these issues, the typology, with some adjustments to the countries, remains widely used beyond social policy research. And in my experience, it’s discussed in almost all introductory political science courses, demonstrating its lasting impact and persistence in analysing welfare states.But thats just my reading, what do you think?Music creditsMusic track: Daydreams by PufinoSource: https://freetouse.com/musicMusic for Video (Free Download) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com