PORCIUNCULA, JEHOVEREY D.

3POL1
This is a Critique on Beth Simmons ad Zachary Elkins journal article: The
Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International
Political Economy

The aim of this paper is to critic the articles choice of problem, methods
used, and the way of conclusion of the said chosen journal. Firstly the article does
not indicate a clear definite problem. An informative and suggestive research will
not have a vivid focus if one does not have a dilemma to solve. The study is
informative due to the fact that it mentioned many cases like changes in foreign
economic policy areas, geographic dispersion of the said policy areas, and situations
like occurrence of policy diffusions in trade. Without having a crisis to answer, the
article tended to ride in a suggestive track in which it supplemented numerous
recommendations that made his purpose broader and more confusing. The article
contains many subjects in which each study have different focuses. This resulted to
the deficiency and impossibility of a specific subject matter that will surely yield
many sub-questions to the readers. The authors made a mistake for not imposing a
specific question to be answered. This made their article possess various topics that
generated more and more questions that needs to be addressed.
In the methodology used in the article, most of the examples and figures are
based on models that came from different authors. Those models will never be
consistent due to the fact that they are perceived and received for different use.
Having them in one solid study knowing that it does not have a specific and defined
focus will only produce nothing but inconsistency. The models used may have
supported their argument, but the differences between timeframe used in the
models are a big factor that must be considered in their study. The authors have
even put International Political Economy in their title; however, their chosen title
does not represent their study because the given samples were limited. How can it
reflect to the international community as a whole if their sample does not even
include any specific countries? The manner of how the information was presented in
both analytical and data methods are also questionable due to various variables
measured like proportion of liberalization, capital account openness, and exchange
rate unification. Some of the variables are not quantifiable and can be subjected to
personal biases. This will only make the results or findings of their study vague, less
credible, or inaccurate. Even some of their sources came from IMF; responsible
utilization of data must be practiced to attain an accurate outcome.
The conclusion as expected provided no justice to its title. The authors made
lengthy conclusion having no consistent argument. Globalization of Liberalization
was not even mentioned, but it entirely focused on policy diffusion and heavy-duty
political economy which made the article very hard to comprehend. Various

equations that were included even increased the complexity of the subject matter.
Errors from the beginning made the studys finale like a scrambled piece of advice
that is to be used everywhere without producing any specific goal or striking a
distinct significance that in which it can be applied.
Elkins, Z., & Simmons, B. (2004, February). The Globalization of
Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in
International Political Economy. American Political Science Review
Vol.98, No.1 .