The case studies examined in this volume demonstrate the human rights abuses that State policies cause by building mega-dams without any forethought to the indigenous peoples whose homes will stand in the way of these vast concrete barrages. On one level, it is still perplexing to me why governments cause such pain and anguish to their citizens – and to their bureaucrats, police, and armies, who must deal with angry mobs of people, who are about to be dispossessed or who have already been driven out of their homes. Of course, on another level, one is not so naïve as not to recognize that power, politics, self-interest, and corruption are also the mainstay of governments and government policies.
Browse by title
Epistocracy is on the rise. The chapters in this volume all document, in one way or another, the role of experts and knowledge organizations in the development of global policies and their implementation by international organizations, donor agencies, and other globally mobile policy actors. The constellations of these actors are called here ‘transnational policy commu¬nities’. They form around a specific policy problem (like refugees or ocean pollution) or alternatively around a policy sector (like global health policy or global environmental policy). Other terms have been used in this volume. Eve Fouilleux writes about the concept of a transnational ‘organizational/institu¬tional field’ that is composed of both a set of institutions, including practices, understandings, and rules as well as a network of organizations. It matters less the terminology used, and the disciplinary or conceptual frame adopted, as all the chapters point to new spaces for making global policy not only inside inter¬national organizations but also in their interactions. These transnational policy communities help fill the void of authority at the global and regional levels where there are ‘non jurisdictional spaces’ such as the oceans, the Antarctic, or global care chains.
Edited by David Dolowitz, Magdaléna Hadjiisky and Romuald Normand
Sara Valaguzza and Eduardo Parisi
Sara Valaguzza and Eduardo Parisi
David Siroky and Michael Hechter
Why are some countries prone to ethno-nationalist conflict, whereas others are plagued by class conflict? This is a question that has seldom been raised and rarely been examined empirically. This paper presents a social-structural theory to account for the variable incidence of these two forms of political instability. These two types of conflict result from distinct principles of group solidarity – ethnicity and class – and since each individual is simultaneously a member of an ethnic group (or many such groups) and a particular class, these two principles vary in the degree to which they are mutually exclusive or cross-cutting. The degree of economic stratification between groups and economic segmentation within them shapes the relative salience of each principle of group solidarity in any society and is associated with a characteristic form of political mobilization. In places where between-group inequalities are high, and within-group inequalities low, ethnicity should be the dominant principle of group solidarity and serve as the primary basis of group conflict. By contrast, in countries where between-group inequalities are low, and within-group inequalities high, class is more likely to serve as the dominant principle of group solidarity, and conflicts along class lines are more likely. We test these conjectures with data in over 100 countries on cross-cutting cleavages, ethnic war, and class conflict. The results are supportive of the theory, and provide evidence that how groups are stratified and segmented in societies shapes the type of civil war.
This article contends that class politics has receded in advanced capitalist societies during the last century, while cultural politics has increased, and it focuses on social and political institutions, rather than on occupational structure, to explain the shift. Participation in solidary groups has consequences for the social bases of politics, and the political salience of such groups is affected by social institutions that are independent of occupational structure. The first such institution is direct rule. Whereas indirect rule tends to promote class politics, direct rule favors cultural politics. Rapid expansion of direct rule since the 1960s has muted class politics and increased cultural politics. This relationship is not deterministic, however; other institutions can mitigate the effects of direct rule on the social bases of politics.
A structural theory of the relationship between class and status group formation is presented. The approach postulates, first, that differences in the solidarity of any objectively defined group are independently determined within by the extent of stratification among these groups and interaction within them. These expectations are confirmed by an analysis of variation in the solidarity of 17 American ethnic groups in 1970. Second, the relative importance of class as against status group divisions in societies as a whole is held to depend upon the degree of hierarchy and segmentation of their respective cultural divisions of labor. Supportive evidence is found in the examination of differences in the strength of class voting among five Australian states in 1964.