Browse

This work presents the results of a comprehensive and integrated research project in comparative abortion policy and politics in post‐industrial democracies. It focuses on the questions of state feminism—the extent to which women's policy agencies further goals of women's movements for descriptive and substantive representation. In 11 countries in Western Europe and North America, including Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the US, authors analyse the most significant debates on abortion policies from the 1970s through the 1990s. Following a common research design, individual researchers describe how each issue came to the public agenda, the goals of women's movement actors, the effectiveness of movement actors and women's policy agencies in inserting pro‐woman gendered perspectives into the issue frames, and the policy outcomes. They assess the success of the women's movement in gaining both access to the policy subsystem as well as favourable policy content. The comparative conclusion to the book examines several hypotheses in light of the descriptive information in the chapters. Have women's movement been successful in increasing their representation and thus making policy processes more democratic? To what extent have women's policy agencies been allies of movement activists? What explains patterns of movement success? In addition to state feminism theory, the conclusion assesses the explanatory power of theories of resource mobilization and political opportunity structure on women's movement effectiveness.

The central argument of this book is that voting unity in European legislatures is not primarily the result of the ‘disciplining’ power of the leadership of parliamentary parties, but rather the result of a combination of ideological homogeneity through self-selection into political parties and the calculations of individual legislators about their own long-term benefits. Despite the central role of policy preferences in the subsequent behaviour of legislators, preferences at the level of the individual legislator have been almost entirely neglected in the study of parliaments and legislative behaviour. The book measures these using an until now under-utilized resource: parliamentary surveys. Building on these, the book develops measures of policy incentives of legislators to dissent from their parliamentary parties, and show that preference similarity amongst legislators explains a very substantial proportion of party unity, yet alone cannot explain all of it. Analysing the attitudes of legislators to the demands of party unity, and what drives these attitudes, the book argues that what explains the observed unity (beyond what preference similarity would explain) is the conscious acceptance by MPs that the long-term benefits of belonging to a united party (such as increased influence on legislation, lower transaction costs, and better chances of gaining office) outweigh the short-terms benefits of always voting for their ideal policy outcome. The book buttresses this argument through the analysis of both open-ended survey questions as well as survey questions on the costs and benefits of belonging to a political party in a legislature.

Many elections fail. The most overt malpractices used by rulers include imprisoning dissidents, harassing adversaries, coercing voters, vote-rigging counts, and finally, if losing, blatantly disregarding the people's choice. Administrative irregularities are also common, such as inaccurate electoral registers, ballot miscounts, and security defects. Flawed contests have triggered public protests and international criticism. It is time to take stock of these problems. This book addresses three related themes: what standards and evidence determine when elections fail? What strengthens effective, impartial, and independent electoral authorities? And, do failed contests undermine political legitimacy? International experts bring new concepts, theories, and evidence to illuminate these issues, drawing upon a range of cases in established democracies such as Britain and the United States, newer democracies in Central and Latin America, and diverse regimes in Africa and the Middle East. The book illuminates major themes in studies of democracy and democratization, comparative politics, elections and voting behavior, political sociology, international development, public opinion and political behavior, political institutions, and public policy.

There is a growing body of evidence pointing towards rising levels of public dissatisfaction with the formal political process. Depoliticization refers to a more discrete range of contemporary strategies politicians employ that tend to remove or displace the potential for choice, collective agency, and deliberation. This book examines the relationship between these trends of dissatisfaction and displacement, as understood within the broader shift towards governance. It brings together a number of contributions from scholars who have a varied range of concerns but who nevertheless share a common interest in developing the concept of depoliticization through their engagement with a set of theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and empirical questions. The contributions in this volume explore these questions from a variety of different perspectives by using a number of different empirical examples and case studies from both within the nation state and from other regional, global, and multilevel arenas. In this context, this volume examines the limits and potential of depoliticization as a concept and its contribution to the larger and more established literatures on governance and anti-politics.

Recent elections in the advanced Western democracies have undermined the basic foundations of political systems that had previously beaten back all challenges—from both the Left and the Right. The election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, only months after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, signaled a dramatic shift in the politics of the rich democracies. This book traces the evolution of this shift and argues that it is a long-term result of abandoning the postwar model of egalitarian capitalism in the 1970s. That shift entailed weakening the democratic process in favor of an opaque, technocratic form of governance that allows voters little opportunity to influence policy. With the financial crisis of the late 2000s, these arrangements became unsustainable, as incumbent politicians were unable to provide solutions to economic hardship. Electorates demanded change, and it had to come from outside the system. Using a comparative approach, the text explains why different kinds of anti-system politics emerge in different countries and how political and economic factors impact the degree of electoral instability that emerges. Finally, it discusses the implications of these changes, arguing that the only way for mainstream political forces to survive is for them to embrace a more activist role for government in protecting societies from economic turbulence.

Alexis de Tocqueville published his famous study of the United States at a time when modern democracy was still quite young. His study of democratic institutions in the United States, as well as his comparative reflections on political institutions in France, is based on detailed empirical evidence drawn from long and arduous fieldwork using a variety of textual and oral methods. Tocqueville also relied on theoretical work seeking to draw sustainable formulations belonging to a general comparative order while respecting the historical specificities of each institutional form. Using as its basis Alexis de Tocqueville’s landmark study Democracy in America, this book is a comparative study of democracy in India and the United States. It frames the comparison based on the distinct trajectories of the two countries: the United States moving ‘from equality’ at birth towards new forms of inequality over time, and India moving ‘towards equality’ from an inegalitarian social order at independence. The book discusses the experience of democracy in the two democracies, focusing on the effect of democratization on key elements of public life from religion to citizenship, capitalism, the struggle for equality, and the status of minorities (including the Jews) in the two countries.

This book is premised on the notion that subnational undemocratic regimes (SURs) within countries not only differ among each other but that they maintain different relations with the federal government, which is why they are reproduced differently. The book argues that alternative pathways of SUR continuity result first and foremost from the capacity (or lack thereof) of democratic presidents to wield power over SURs and autocrats. If presidents have the (fiscal or partisan) resources to induce cooperation from subnational autocrats and can thus secure credible and routine political support, the former have strong incentives to invest in the continuity and stability of undemocratic provincial regimes and autocrats. Under these circumstances, SUR reproduction from above takes place. Conversely, if presidents fail to exert effective power and are prevented from disciplining subnational autocrats via fiscal or partisan means, they will implement policies to oppose and weaken SURs. This does not necessarily lead to SUR breakdown. Local variables, such as subnational autocrats’ capacity to ensure party elite unity and/or mass political support, shape autocrats’ ability to counterbalance presidential attempts at destabilization, and also allow autocrats to keep their regimes alive. Where this occurs, SUR self-reproduction takes place. This explanation of SUR continuity is tested in contemporary Argentina and Mexico using a multi-method approach. Both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as cross-national and within-country comparisons, are employed to test pathways of SUR continuity in two of Latin America’s largest countries.

This book assesses how Muslims and non-Muslims differ—and do not differ—in the contemporary world. Using rigorous methods and data drawn from around the globe, the text reveals that in some areas Muslims and non-Muslims differ less than is commonly imagined. Muslims are not inclined to favor the fusion of religious and political authority or especially prone to mass political violence. Yet there are differences. These include: gender inequality is more severe among Muslims, Muslims are unusually averse to homosexuality and other controversial behaviors, and democracy is rare in the Muslim world. Other areas of divergence bear the marks of a Muslim advantage: Homicide rates and class-based inequities are less severe among Muslims than non-Muslims. The book's findings have vital implications for human welfare, interfaith understanding, and international relations.

This book analyzes the politics of religion in the Arab world after the emergence of new public spheres over the past few decades. By examining those spheres as they really are, rather than measuring them against an ideal of democratic deliberation, the arguments and the spheres within which they are occur are revealed to be lively and increasingly participatory but also polarizing, divisive, and far from egalitarian. While they have grown in force, these spheres are not efficacious, leading to a widening gap between regimes and the societies they govern. Focusing on arguments aired in new and old media, neighborhood discussions, and parliaments, the book probes debates over constitution, family law, and education in depth. It shows how these various forums where arguments take place are increasingly linked, forming not a uniform citizenry but instead a badly divided one. The linkages among the spheres allow a leader’s words to followers to be overheard and then lampooned by opponents. Various groups become more acutely aware of how deeply they differ. As arguments are detached from the authority of the person making them, they spread in ways that can divide as well as persuade. Without a strong political process to forge agreement and reward coalition building, the reborn Arab politics is exciting and vital but also noisy, rough, and often ineffective.

Why does public management—the art of the state—so often go wrong, producing failure and fiasco instead of public service, and what are the different ways in which control or regulation can be applied to government? Why do we find contradictory recipes for the improvement of public services, and are the forces of modernity set to produce worldwide convergence in ways of organizing government? This study aims to explore such questions, which are central to debates over public management. It combines contemporary and historical experience, and employs grid/group cultural theory as an organizing frame and method of exploration. Using examples from different places and eras, the study seeks to identify the recurring variety of ideas about how to organize public services—and contrary to widespread claims that modernization will bring a new global uniformity, it argues that variety is unlikely to disappear from doctrine and practice in public management. The book has three parts. Part I, Introductory, has three chapters that discuss various aspects of public management. Part II, Classic and Recurring Ideas in Public Management, has four chapters that discuss various ways of doing public management. Part III, Rhetoric, Modernity, and Science in Public Management, has three chapters that discuss the rhetoric, and culture of public management, contemporary public management, and the state of the art of the state.

This book focuses on a previously unexamined phenomenon: how host governments utilize diasporas to advance their foreign policy agendas in mutually beneficial ways. The book advances a four-factor theoretical model to analyze the phenomenon for when this occurs, and it delves into the multiple avenues across which it takes place, in a variety of regimes, and across political, security, and commercial matters, proposing a classification with examples worldwide. It shows how, with the endorsement of the host government, select diaspora groups become spokespersons for a heterogeneous diaspora at large, advancing their interests and those of the host state. The contribution is grounded in research on diaspora and migration, ethnic lobbies, and transnationalism. The eight cases of testing the model include the Lebanese-American diaspora on policy toward Syria and Lebanon under George W. Bush, including UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act; the Iraqi National Congress and the US administration in “selling” the 2003 Iraq war to the US and international public; the two ends of the political spectrum of Cuban-American organizations on Cuba policy under Presidents Carter and Reagan; the Iranian government’s use of Shi’i clerics from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (1982–2003) vis-à-vis Iraq and with Iraqi refugees and prisoners of war. In commercial matters, it includes the multidiaspora International Diaspora Engagement Alliance (IdEA) of the US State Department (2011–) directed at homeland development; and the Brazilian state and Syro-Lebanese members of the Arab-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce since the 1970s, as an intermediary with the Arab League.

Asymmetrical Neighbors explains the variations in state building across the borderland area between China, Myanmar, and Thailand. It presents a comparative historical account of the state and nation-building processes in the ethnically diverse and geographically rugged borderland area where China meets Southeast Asia. It argues the failure of the Myanmar state to consolidate its control over its borderland area is partly due to the political and military meddling by its two more powerful neighbors during the Cold War. Furthermore, both China and Thailand, being more economically advanced than Myanmar, have exerted heavy economic influence on the borderland area at the cost of Myanmar’s economic sovereignty. The book provides a historical account of the borderland that traces the pattern of relations between valley states and upland people before the mid-twentieth century. Then it discusses the implications of the Chinese nationalist KMT troops in Burma and Thailand and Burmese and Thai communist insurgencies since the mid-1960s on attempts by the three states to consolidate their respective borderland areas. The book also portrays the dynamics of the borderland economy and the dominance of both China and Thailand on Myanmar’s borderland territory in the post-Cold War period. It further discusses the comparative nation-building processes among the three states and the implications for the ethnic minority groups in the borderland area and their national identity contestations. Finally, the book provides an updated account of the current ethnic conflicts along Myanmar’s restive borderland and its ongoing peace negotiation process.

Since the early years of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese state has sought to regulate the practice of religion. The institutions it created for that purpose were meant to ensure that religious practice would not happen outside the supervision of the state. Since the 1990s, however, unregistered religious sites have proliferated in China, and those include Protestant house churches. China is said to have more unregistered churches than registered ones. Unregistered churches have, for the most part, deliberately chosen not to register with the State Administration for Religious Affairs, and they have also bypassed a number of other central government regulations on religious activities. Despite the fact that they are illegal, local public security bureaus have tolerated those churches. The book argues that they have done so to contain the influence of Protestantism in Chinese cities. It conceptualizes containment, explains why public security bureaus have contained house churches, and discusses the strategy’s impact on authoritarian regime resilience. Autocracies other than China have similarly contained informal religious groups. The book delves into the Mukhabarat’s containment of jihadi Salafists in post-Zarqawi Jordan, and Anwar al-Sadat’s containment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1970s Egypt.

The post-Cold War world has witnessed the extensive development of regional international organizations world-wide. The realtionship between their membership and democratization remains a topic of intense scholarly debate. This book opens up a new aspect of the debate by examining regional organization as set up by autocracies (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and China)—referring to them as “non-democratic regional organizations.” How do these newly emerged organizations counteract and confront the democratization process in their own member states and beyond their borders? How and why do the political regimes, the economic development and the cultures of their member states impac the foundation and development of these organizations? What influence do these organizations have on migration, trade, conflicts, and democratization? The book addresses these questions by developing a new theory of authoritarian regionalism. Employing quantitative analysis of authoritarian regionalism world-wide and its historical development since the 1950s, as well as analysing case studies of post-Soviet Eurasia, the book argues that authoritarian regionalism is a new phenomenon in world politics and that modern non-democratic organizations differ from their historical predecessors and that their influence has radically increased in terms of geographic scope and intensity in the last few years. As such, authoritarian regionalism is an important addition to studies of comparative regionalism and the international dimension of authoritarianism. From the policy perspective, non-democratic regional organizations pose a challenge for Western actors in promoting democracy around the world.

Mediatic representation has become an integral part of politics and policy. The dominance of incident-oriented media formats has led students of politics and media to fear a trend of ‘dumbing down’: the privileging of style over content. This book takes issue with the ‘dumbing down’ thesis both on theoretical and empirical grounds. In particular it investigates how an authoritative governance is possible in crisis-ridden circumstances in a mediatized environment. Maarten Hajer comes up with a communicative understanding of authority, creating a new basis for an authoritative governance in a world marked by political and institutional fragmentation. Extending his discourse-analytical framework, Hajer uses both discursive and dramaturgical methods to study policy makers in their struggle for authority. Three elaborate case studies provide a wealth of details of the dynamics of authority in today's mediatized polity and the peculiar role of crisis and incidents in this. The message of the book is that in the age of mediatization governance needs to be performed. Hajer illuminates contours of a new authoritative governance that encompass different elements than usually get represented in the media or indeed in textbooks on media studies, public policy, or governance. The book shows new ways to recombine traditional government of standing institutions to notions of network governance. The book thus provides new ideas about authoritative governance which is based on the need to actively create relations with a variety of publics.

For more than a century members of political parties have played a central role in many parliamentary democracies, helping parties to mobilize voters, and visibly linking party leaders with their grassroots supporters. Yet in the twenty-first century, party memberships are shrinking. In response, many parties have been changing both the obligations and the rights of party members. This book investigates the changing status of party membership in nineteen established parliamentary democracies, asking when and why party memberships started falling, and why members have gained new political rights even as their numbers have declined. The examination shows that both supply-side and demand-side forces are encouraging political parties to offer party members more, and more meaningful, opportunities for political participation. These forces also lead parties to offer new and lower-cost modes of affiliation. The resulting changes are producing multi-speed membership parties, ones that offer supporters multiple ways to connect with a party, and that encourage individuals to connect in different ways at different points in the political cycle. This book examines the consequences of these ongoing transformations for political parties, and for the democracies in which they compete.

The 2011 Arab uprisings represented the collapse of old ruling bargains across the Arab world and the manifestation of demands for new premises of rule. The book is divided into two parts. The first part is designed to contextualize the Arab Spring, while the second focuses on individual case studies. Part 1 begins with a chapter that traces the rise and fall of ruling bargains in the Middle East and the growing primacy of only one of the elements of the ruling bargain, namely fear, as the main tool of governance across the Middle East and especially the Arab world, a process which began in the 1960s and 1970s and lasted into the 2000s. Part 2 begins with Nader Hashemi’s analysis of Iran’s 2009 Green Movement, which is not generally considered to be part of the Arab Spring. But the Green Movement did represent a popular, mass-based effort to reformulate the ruling bargain that had evolved under the Iranian Islamic Republic over the preceding thirty years. It then examines Egypt’s Tahrir Square revolution, the region’s monarchies and their resilience to revolution. The book ends by considering Islamist groups, the situation in Syria, and Libya’s future.

Most EU-scholars conceive of the EU as a multilevel polity with strong powers to regulate economic policy externalities among the member states but little power to intervene in, let alone assume, core functions of sovereign government (‘core state powers’) such as foreign and defence policy, public finance, public administration, and the maintenance of law and order. This book challenges this view. Based on a systematic comparison of integration processes in military security, fiscal policy, and public administration, it finds steady progress in the integration of core state powers, although with substantial sectoral variation. But the EU is not heading towards state-building. In contrast to the historical experience of national federations, the European integration of core state powers proceeds mostly by regulating national capacities, not by creating European ones, and leads to territorial fragmentation rather than increased cohesiveness.

This book is a comparative study of how and why border policy has become increasingly important, politicized, and divisive in Europe and the United States. It focuses on how border governance has emerged as an important focus of policy in itself, rather than merely contingent on trade and, above all, on immigration policy. New data indicate a massive increase of walls and barriers between countries after 2001. In our more globalized world, borders are back with a vengeance. However, at the same time that more controls have been established, the flow of people and the growth of trade have continued at an impressive rate. The claims by scholars and political actors of an emerging Fortress Europe and Fortress America have clearly been exaggerated. They express goals and intentions, rather than outcomes. The argument in this book is that the gap between objectives and outcomes should be understood as a result of the complex politics of the border and border control. Although there has been consistent support for harsher border control on both sides of the Atlantic, there has also been important, if more focused, support for more open borders and more permissive border control. If electoral politics often favor border restriction, the politics of policymaking can be more advantageous for groups that favor access. These are separate political tracks, the author maintains, but they are always in dynamic interaction.