Pick two authors (or lectures), one that suggests that democracy is better able to avoid or manage disasters and one that indicates that autocracy is better positioned to deal with such challenges. In your opinion, which one is making the better argument? Why?Explain

Part I: Definitions (20 points each)

Write a short definition for each of the concepts. You should define three concepts. Each definition should not exceed 200 words (not including bibliography). Include a word count.

The definitions should include:

–A definition of the concept

–A discussion of how this concept is relevant for our purposes (how does it help explain what

went wrong?).

–An example of how this concept helps explain real world cases (like those we cover in the

course).

–When relevant, the definition will identify connections to other course concepts and case

studies.

–When relevant, the definition should mention authors that are relevant for this concept (like

those who coined the concept or those that applied it).

–When relevant, a good definition should include a critique of the concept and possibly an example of a case in which the concept does not work as well. What are the limitations and scope conditions of this concept when used for the explanation of things gone wrong? Why?

The definitions are short and should be written concisely and to the point.

Select three of the following five concepts:

⦁ The Collective Action Problem
⦁ Mutual Assured Destruction
⦁ Externalities
⦁ Moral Hazzard
⦁ The J Curve

Part II: Short Essay (40 points)

Answer one of the following two essay prompts in an essay form. Your essay should not exceed 750 words (not including bibliography). Provide a word count.

A good essay will make a clear argument.

A good essay will then bolster the argument theoretically by providing support (or critique) from relevant course readings.

A good essay will also provide support (or critique) of the argument by presenting examples
from relevant empirical cases that we covered in class.

Several of our course readings and lectures argue that political institutions affect the prevalence and severity of certain types of disasters. In particular, the effects of democracy and accountability (vs. autocracy and lack of accountability) were debated at several points throughout the semester.

Pick two authors (or lectures), one that suggests that democracy is better able to avoid or manage disasters and one that indicates that autocracy is better positioned to deal with such challenges. In your opinion, which one is making the better argument? Why?
1.
Discuss this debate in the context of our course material. In your essay discuss relevant arguments from two authors (or lectures) that we read for the course and support your thesis with evidence from two relevant empirical examples (either from the lectures, the readings or the podcasts).

2. Are identifiers such as race, gender, indigeneity, or class useful for the analysis of disasters, their causes and their aftermath? If so why, how, and under what circumstances? Is there any danger in including these issues in our analyses of what went wrong? Are there any downsides for excluding these social cleavages from our investigations?

Discuss these questions in the context of our course material. In your essay discuss relevant arguments from two authors that we read for the course and support your thesis with evidence from two relevant empirical examples (either from the lectures, the readings or the podcasts).

Last Completed Projects