This paper demonstrates the use of an in-class simulation to model negotiations in the European Council. Simulations are an increasingly popular way to teach the complex processes of policymaking and negotiations in the European Union (EU) where institutional procedures are difficult to understand and where intergovernmental and supranational issues often conflict. Advocates of active learning promote simulations to get students more involved and to reach an increasingly diverse student body. The simulation presented here has three separate sessions, each covering a different issue and lasting for a week (two class days) each. Modeling the European Council allows students to experience the intergovernmental side of policy decisions in the European Union while at the same time learning about the issues facing EU policymakers. It is a useful tool for teaching about the EU presidency and a worthwhile exercise for studying the national aspects of European integration. Student surveys indicate that students process the information they gain by role-playing better than information they receive in the traditional classroom. A simulation of the European Council gives students a base for understanding issues of European integration and can serve as a springboard for further study of EU institutions.
A recurrent theme in most recent studies of the military regimes in developing countries has been that similarities rather than differences in performance constitute the main feature of comparison between civilian and military regimes (McKinlay and Cohan, 1975, 1976; Jackman, 1976). This paper will examine this theme in the Ghanaian context where civilian and military regimes have frequently alternated. Contrary to many current theories, it suggests that differences do occur between civilian and military regimes in the same country. Differences between civilian and military regimes become more apparent if one looks at the policy goals articulated by the different Ghanaian regimes instead of comparing the performance results of these same regimes.
Simply stated, the major hypothesis of this paper is that the articulated policies and goals of a civilian government in a developing nation will differ economically, socially, politically and in terms of leadership style from the articulated goals of a military government in the same country. Furthermore, clarification of these articulated differences is important for the understanding of how different regimes perceive diemselves and approach the process of governing.
Recent literature has overlooked regime differences because of the similarity in the performance results of both civilian and military regimes. This paper suggests that regime differences do affect policy decisions and that as regimes get stronger they may again begin to affect performance results as well. Ghana appeared to be a good testing ground for showing differences between military and civilian regimes because it had experienced two civilian and two military regimes between 1957 and 1975. At the same time, many conditions and variables remained constant.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.