An expanded version of "The Future of Conflict: Neurowarfare", both of which discuss emerging neurotechnology, neuroscience, and their implications for war, politics, medicine, ethics, and society.
The current debates revolving around 5G, Huawei, and how they are resolved, are highly visible indicators of the technology based shifts in the global order which are setting the tone for the 21st century. Currently, it seems that many in the US and the PRC are using Cold War and Thucydides Trap paradigms, with a zero-sum mentality. At least in the case of 5G technology, the UK seems to have taken a more nuanced approach.
This article comes as the UK prepares its new National Cyber Security Strategy, reviewing the 5G and cyber security debates surrounding Huawei in a highly interdisciplinary manner, and directing readers to a rich variety of resources. In addition to its analysis of issues and solutions often absent from the discourse, this article’s feature contribution is the argument that the UK can be more than an example of a middle way. Specifically, if the UK scales up and internationalizes its Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Center, perhaps by creating an International Cyber Security Evaluation Center, it can lead its allies and the world in 5G, 6G, cybersecurity, and international relations, filling a vital leadership vacuum.
This analytical paper asks, does the One-China policy shape the People’s Republic of China’s foreign policy? This paper begins by briefly defining the One-China policy and situating it in the respective histories of China and its current incarnation as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Then, after untangling the often muddled classifications of soft, sharp, and hard power, the question is interrogated in the context of each class of power (Nye, 2004; Nye, 2011; Nye, 2018; Raby, 2019; Walker & Ludwig, 2017). This analytical essay concludes that the PRC does employ predominantly sharp and hard power strategies that are heavily influenced by the One-China policy.
Abstract
This study is the first of a series of studies, collectively embodying a multiphase mixed methods design. The overall objective of these studies is to explore and address a variety of issues and features of the discipline of economics, particularly as they relate to and represent past present and future factors of globalization, education, citizenship, and society. This is done by collecting and analyzing data on numerous aspects of the undergraduate economics curriculum, economics as a discipline, and economics as applied in the real world.
The overall purpose of these studies is to inform ongoing debates concerning the future of the discipline of economics and how it is taught, by examining and creating paradigms and methods that may be of aide. Additionally these studies collectively aim to outline, and in small ways develop, potential technological and organizational solutions for detailed longitudinal curriculum tracking. The frameworks employed and developed in these studies may eventually be scaled and adapted for all sorts of curricula. Ideally, the completion of this study’s overall objective yields practical insights and tools that empower faculty and departments, in economics and eventually in general, to better understand and design their own curriculum.
This immediate study fills gaps in and updates data on the curriculum of undergraduate economics majors in U.S. institutions, while also establishing a baseline data set for future studies to build on. A qualitative census methodology is adapted and employed to explore how various institutional and program factors relate to certain types of major program requirements. Descriptive statistics are used for analysis, primarily to allow for comparisons to previous studies. In sum, the purpose of the data collected and analyzed in this census is to give a glimpse into the current state of the undergraduate economics curriculum in the U.S., and to inform the qualitative, quantitative, and transformative studies that are to follow in this multiphase series.
