A woman president in France?

The woman who would be president

Her father believed that a woman's place was in the home - but she could soon be France's first female head of state. The old men who run the country must wish that Ségolène Royal had listened to Papa, writes Angelique Chrisafis

At a sports hall in a small town outside Bordeaux, more than 1,000 smiling people sat wearing stickers depicting a blue sky dotted with fluffy clouds. For weeks these people had been out recruiting others to join their inspirational "movement". Now they were staring past the potted ferns and rock-concert lighting rig towards the stage, waiting to get a glimpse of their leader.

Read More...

Who will be the next Secretary-General of the UN?

Excellent link about the 7 candidates

We'll be discussing the IMF and the WTO much in Wednesday's classes. As a further introduction, these sites are excellent overviews:

A Thorough and Simple Overview from BBC News

From August Review

Investopedia's Entry

A Protest Group's Site

Notes for Wednesday:

COMMUNISM

- eliminate political question in quest for economic equality

Marx:

- private property and free market is FAILING society

- gross disparities in wealth and opportunity

- Dickensian conditions

- say property becomes POWER TO OPPRESS

Economic competition ----> EXPLOITATION

Small rich dominate large poor

Marx: will lead to revolution

Communist solutions:

ELIMINATE PRIVATE PROPERTY - if property is owned by ALL, no one can

be oppressed

Market is therefore eliminated

States make all economic decisions, decide supply/demand

So taxation comes in the form of fixed prices and fixed wages

Profits go directly to state (for benefit of all)

No competition between firms - no real regulation (state self-regulates)

CRITICISM:

states don't have ability to DECREE economic decisions - leads to inefficiency and waste

state has too much power --> authoritarianism, no distinction between public and private

No freedom

MERCANTILISM

- isn't concerned with freedom and equality of citizens

--only interested in STATE POWER

domestic economy is for STATE BENEFIT

Focus on INT'L ECONOMY

originated in 1500s, when Spain began to build its empire, and other European powers followed

- states used political power to control markets elsewhere - make trade exclusive to mother country

State economic power achieved by:

1. active industrial policy

- encourage firms to pick one sector over another, in the form of taxes and subsidies

- control market to achieve highest power

2. Tariffs, nat'l barriers, trade regulations

- Mercantilists believe that importing products weakens national economy and profits

- also leads to dependency

- Japan post WWII - focus on electronics and autos

3. No social expenditures

- believe it makes citizens lazy

- if they have to provide for their own welfare, they'll work harder

- lower taxes, higher profits

4. Low interest rates - encourage borrowing and investment

Benefits: can direct economy toward national goals

intl competitiveness

industrial development

attractive for developing states: East Asian tigers (or Asian Dragons) Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan

Disadvantages:

states shouldn't make these decisions

can lead to waste and competition

-- bubble popped with Asian financial crisis in 1990s, state was too tied to economy

Some say mercantilism led to fascism - use war to get national wealth and power

But - mercantilist states CAN be democracies

COMPARING ECONOMIES

Gross domestic product: total market value of all goods and services produced within a country for a period of one year

misleading - doesn't account for variations within a state.

For instance - less money made in Idaho than in NYC

Germany - more money made in WEST than East

also, fails to take COST OF LIVING into account

So, NYC might MAKE more than Idaho - but might have same STANDARD OF LIVING

GDP - might go up in the case of natural disaster (hurricane katrina) , high crime, etc. Also does not account for inequalities in wealth

PURCHASING POWER PARITY - attempts to estimate the buying power of income in each country by comparing similar costs, such as food and housing. Some say gives a more honest picture of international economy

GINI INDEX - Measures the amount of economic inequality in a society.

US and China have same level of inequality - why?

China is not so communist anymore, encouraging private firms and competition

What does the GINI Index tell us?

SD countries have lower levels of inequality

Some mercantilist countries are relatively equal, while others arent

Differences within liberal nations as well

Which is the bigger problem, poverty or inequality?

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX - developed by UNDP, looks at overall outcome of country's wealth - the health and knowledge of a country's people

adult literacy

life expectancy

educational enrollment

Does a country's wealth benefit its citizens?

Norway and Canada usually battle for #1, US is usually #10, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and Burkina Faso usually alternate last place

Strong correlation between GDP and standard of living

Seems that all systems, with exception of communism, can create high standards of living

BUT even communist (and postcommunist countries) provide a decent standard of living for their GDP group

FUTURE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

The world has changed

Communism has been destroyed, militant mercantilism destroyed by WWII

SD is under attack, under increasing pressure to reform, and even communist China is moving toward a freer market

End of history - Francis Fukuyama -- no more war between ideologies - liberalism, and liberal democracy has WON and that's it

Points to widespread ECONOMIC LIBERALISATION throughout the globe

Economic liberalisation - changes that limit the power of the state over private property and market forces

Do you think economic liberalism is here to stay?

Free trade and trade liberalisation

Big debates over WTO

WWII was also caused by trade imbalances - mercantilist fascist states wreaked havoc

So in 1948, the BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE set up this organization known as the GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT)

- agreed to establish rules for trade and tariffs between trade

- was an int'l org striving to create stability and peace

- created the International Trade Organization (never ratified by US Senate, never happened)

- also created the IMF and World Bank

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: entrusted with overseeing the global economy, monitors exchange rates and balance of payments, as well as offering financial assistance to states who need it

World Bank: group of five institutions responsible for providing loans for countries for the purposes of development and poverty reduction , and for encouraging international investment

- GATT focused on TARIFF REDUCTIONS, reducing non tariff barriers.\

In 1995 - became WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

sets the rules for global trading system

resolves disputes between member states

encourages COMPLETE liberalisation - believes all nations can be wealthy by breaking down trade barriers

argues liberalisation is best because : A. trading system will be more predictable when free, B. should be more competitive, C. should be more accomodating for developing countries, gives them time to catch up

works in rounds - Uruguay round established WTO

Singapore round - 1996 - Singapore Issues: investment protection, competition policy, transparency in trade facilitation

Seattle round - 1999 - ended with failure, massive protests

Cancun round - 2003 - ended in failure, due to failure to resolve Singapore issues,

and agricultural subsidy issues

Hong Kong round - 2005 - came to an agreement about agricultural finances (reference your article) - terminate cotton subsidies in 2006, end all agricultural subsidies by 2013. LDCs got tariff-free trade conditions in developed countries

Is free trade the best way to go?

Economic arguments for it:

A. Will increase level of global OUTPUT because it allows countries to SPECIALIZE in produciton - comparative advantage - produce more of what you're good at

B. Free trade usually stems from laissez-fair economies, which produce more anyway

C. Reciprocal fair trade benefits EXPORTERS - existence of trading blocs causes an increase in supply AND demand. Known as TRADE CREATION

Moral arguments for it:

A. Free trade is a right

-- By restricting trade, states are restricting citizens' rights to buy whatever they want

B. Free trade lowers possibility of war

-- wars are less likely to be fought by trading partners, because so much can be lost

-- encourages INTERDEPENDENCE (explain)

-- Only one war has been fought between countries with MacDonald's (When NATO bombed Serbia - except NATO doesnt have a MacD's)

C. Protectionism might cause divisions within a country, so while it's done to encourage patriotism, it's not really working to that end

D. Free trade reduces poverty

- argue that free trade enables developing nations to "catch up"

- will eliminate poverty quicker

Sociopolitical arguments

A. Free trade enriches cultures

helps culture become a globalized phenomenon

Criticisms of Free Trade:

A. Free trade in RAW MATERIALS hinders development

If developing countries only export raw materials - then won't industrialize

Also, developing nations with valuable raw materials could suffer - could be taken advantage of by developed nations and come out with no profit

Also, free trade might only benefit despots in region

B. Int'l trade requires more resources to distribute

meaning - overseas shipping takes a lot of resources (fossil fuel, money)

only beneficial to developing societies if they produce SO MUCH that it offsets the price of shipping

C. It might be better to shelter and protect young industries than to force them to compete with older, more established firms

D. Free trade may favor developed nations in certain sectors

-entertainment, intellectual property, medicinal patents, software

- WTO regulations make it impossible for developing states to produce generic brands of medicines that might save lives at cheaper cost - although this may have been fixed at the Hong Kong round

E. Free trade promotes offshoring / outsourcing

- for lesser environmental safety standards

- free trade creates an environment in which companies can circumvent safety and environmental regulations

- power goes to corporations, not to governments

- labor goes to the cheapest offer

- some people call it the "race to the bottom"

- argue that labor rights are being abused by outsourcing

- also say that domestic jobs are lost due to outsourcing

Sociopolitical arguments against free trade

A. Undermines cultural diversity

MacDonalidization of the world

- French fight against it, want to preserve their culture

- agriculture - used to be small-scale, independent farmers --- now, it's large scale businesses

-- Canadian issues (Canadian content laws)

B. Dependency theory

- Dependency theory posits that the cause of the low levels of development in less economically developed countries (LEDC's) is caused by their reliance and dependence on more economically developed countries (MEDC's) -

i.e. the LEDC's are undeveloped because they rely on the MEDC's.

Some proponents of dependency theory assert that LEDC's will remain less developed because the surplus that they produce will be siphoned off by MEDC's - under the guise of multinational corporations. There is, as such, no profit left for reinvestment and development.

ex: Caribbean - produces sugar for the developed world, doesnt have the resources to industrialize

C. Free trade undermines national security

INTERDEPENDENCE - mutually dependent; a reciprocal relation between interdependent entities.

"Today, the mission of one institution can be accomplished only by recognizing that it lives in an interdependent world with conflicts and overlapping interests."

So, undermines national security - if nation is dependent on OTHERS for trade, then sovereignty is lost, and they are at the whim of other powers

However - this is unlikely

D. Free trade undermines border control

borders are more flexible and fluid, therefore control is harder to enforce

Now - an alternative might be FAIR TRADE

Fair trade - promotes international labour, environment, and social standards for the production of traded goods and services

Mostly focuses on equal trading rights for less developed countries

Anti-subsidisation in developed world: dairy and agriculture in US and EU

Very anti-WTO, say that it's controlled by the developed countries and serves the developed countries' interests

Now, focuses on agricultural subsidies and dumping (when developed countries dump industrial waste in developing countries)

Fair trade movements also have an element of environmentalism in them - they want developing countries to benefit from trade, but they want environmental standards to be respected as well

"Fair trade coffee"

According to Oxfam, free trade will:

allow developing nations to work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to rich countries at decent prices

should be allowed to protect fledgling industries until they are established enough to compete with other countries (protectionism)

claim the WTO is helping developed nations maintain dominance in the global trading system

DEBT CRISIS

Where did the debt come from?

- First oil shocks - oil-producing countries made lots of money, didn't have high social expenditures, so put the money (petrodollars) in international banks

- the banks needed to pay the interest on these HUGE deposits, so they lent it out to developing countries, where they believed rapid industrialization and new industries would quickly pay it back

-- however, world experienced a SECOND OIL SHOCK, which really made the economy go haywire, and impeded developing nations' ability to produce and make money

-- ever since then, there has been massive lending, but there have been a lot of defaults - Mexico in the early 1980s-- beginning of debt crisis

Types of debt

Unpayable debt - when the external debt exceeds the amount that the country produces (debt is higher than GDP)

Odious debt - debt incurred by undemocratic countries and misspent or misappropriated (loans given for the development of infrastructure that was spent for arms buildup: Uganda)

Sometimes, lending institutions like the World Bank would force countries to implement SAPs - structural adjustment programs - to get their economies back on track. These would include:

privatization, deregulation, no barriers to trade, cutting social expenditures, focusing on direct export, balancing budgets, making foreign investment easier and safer

So, there has been a push for debt forgiveness in this decade as part of a human rights campaign (One, Live 8, Make Poverty History)

Live 8 led to the decision at Gleneagles Scotland, at the G8 conference that 40 billion USD in debt would be forgiven to HIPCs -- Highly Indebted Poor Countries

Benefits of debt relief:

-- Many debts are incurred by dictators, and people have to suffer to pay those loans back, it's immoral

-- often, developing countries have to choose between paying loans and providing for their citizens

-- forgiveness will encourage greater fiscal care and accountability in Africa, and curtail much of the corruption that has taken place

-- adds greater transparency to civil society (transparency - full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information)

-- will increase investment from wealthier nations

Disadvantages of debt relief:

-- only encourages irresponsible budgetary practices that will lead to more debt

-- corruption will still exist

-- debt forgiveness gives governments a blank check

OK - let's discuss Milanovic quickly

Why did poorer countries fail to catch up?

Is it because they've been at war frequently?

Failed to reform as much?

Consistently have worse institutions?

Unable to attract foreign investment?

What do you think?

War - has caused a 40 percent drop in output - explains declines of LDCs

So without war, they would be much richer? What do you think?

Delay in reforms

- but even if they did reform, it would have had only a minimal affect on the economy (.2 percent)

DFI and democracy

- democracy seems not to matter much

-- does this contradict liberal model? does it mean it's wrong?

-- DFI seems to have been a positive affect on LDC economies

So author concludes:

war and strife really make a difference

lender institutions and IFIs really don't help at all

can't really say what democracy or education has to do with economy

An interesting article from Der Spiegel on the pope's remarks about Muslims

Notes for Political Economy....

Lesson Four - Political Economy

Economies don't just spring up and function - they need to be created and put in place by institutions, states, banks, etc to work effectively.

Economy DIRECTLY INFLUENCES politics

Economy can determine levels of equality and freedom.

POLITICAL ECONOMY - study of how politics and economies are related, and how their relationship shapes the balance of freedom and equality

COMPONENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Markets and Property

physical location to buy and sell goods (ex: Iranian bazaar)

markets -----> rise of cities

Turkish Great Bazaar -- bargaining -- Ebay

Markets: the interaction between the forces of supply and demand, and they allocate resources through the process of that interaction

ex: Tickle - Me Elmo craze

Markets are DECENTRALIZED - there doesn't have to be a CENTRIPIDAL force directing how much of a product is made, or what it costs, or who should receive these products

Sellers produce products that buyers need

Buyers buy products that sellers sell

When more than one firm produces a product, then we have COMPETITION and INNOVATION

Markets emerge SPONTANEOUSLY...as soon as more than 2 people are engaging in some form of bartering or trade, then a market will automatically EMERGE

If there is a demand, the product will emerge ---- pornography on the web

REGULATION - states need to determine if they want to impose laws on certain kinds of demands - for instance, don't like sale of drugs, so they outlaw that

Minimum wage - state controls price of labor, determines how much labor is worth

States are not all-powerful however: minimum wage is subverted by illegal immigrants, drug trade continues on the black market

PROPERTY

refers to the OWNERSHIP of goods and services

land, buildings, businesses, etc

PROPERTY RIGHTS - right to buy & sell property, right to not have it taken away by the government or other individuals (without just cause and compensation)

Example: what would happen if property rights didn't exist?

Russia post-communism, mobs ruled the streets and extorted payoffs for security

The state needs to create and enforce these rights in order to have a functioning market

PROPERTY doesn't have to be tangible now - you can own rights to songs, rights to websites, rights to air time on TV/radio

States vary in their approaches to property rights - in many developing countries, property rights aren't protected strongly by the states

PUBLIC GOODS

Ex: roads and military defense

Are not easily created just with the existence of demand

also, if they only belonged to a FEW people in a country, then that would cause a problem with human rights

would hinder economic development

would create gross inequalities

therefore, states provide them as PUBLIC GOODS - goods that are used by most of society and which no private person can own

roads, parks, etc --- generate collective equality

Usually - national defense, roads, and primary education are PUBLIC GOODS

But countries vary to the extent in which they provide public goods - some states only offer military defense and roads, some offer military defense, roads, health care, primary education (differences between US and Canada)

Saudi Arabia and Norway: oil is a public good

Cuba: business is a public good

Benefits and disadvantages of public goods:

Everyone has access to it No one takes too good care of it (example of park) can be abused

SOCIAL EXPENDITURES

- the state's provision of public benefits such as education, health care, transport, etc

"welfare state"

many people think though that freeloaders benefit most from this arrangement

Welfare State is still controversial, although it was the status quo in post-war Europe

now, that is changing

Reasons against welfare state:

A. freeloaders

B. lead to counterproductive behavior - loss of incentive - no economic growth

C. other welfare institutions (family, church, Hezbollah) may be weakened

Social expenditures are EXPENSIVE - hard to fund when the aging population is too large

many countries in post-war Europe depend on income taxes to fund their welfare states - when too many people retire, it becomes more difficult to manage

big problem in Germany - people retire at 55 and go to Florida on state money

So why have them?

Many groups may benefit:

aging, elderly, handicapped, unemployed, the poor

However, some may already be provided for through public goods (health care, education, roads)

So if we loop public goods into social expenditures - we see that it's not really the welfare of the poor that is being financed with public money, but welfare of the middle classes

So the middle class and the rich pay for themselves

Money

-- medium of exchange

-- means of streamlining trade --> universal values

Ex: In Georgia and Oregon, a quarter is always worth 25 cents

opposite of barter: where value of goods changes with every exchange

now, a dollar may change in value too - but it will always change UNIVERSALLY

State CREATES and MANAGES money

mint federal reserve bank

were originally promissory notes

now it's currency - reflects faith in system

ex: Articles of Confederation $, more recently, Argentinian pesos

states have control through CENTRAL BANK

CENTRAL BANK

-- controls most of $ in economy

-- controls cost of borrowing $ (interest rates)

-- lowers interest rates to stimulate economy

-- raises interest rates to check inflation

Federal Reserve Bank: Alan Greenspan/Bernard Bernanke

Lowers interest rate

means banks lower rate

loans less expensive

people will borrow more and spend more

more $ in economy ---> economic growth

Raises interest rate

people borrow less and save more

not so much $ in economy

economic growth slows

done to prevent high inflation - so you don't have to pay 5 dollars for bread

in EU, European Central Bank controls the Euro

HYPERINFLATION

inflation that is more than 50% a month for 2+ months

- occurs when govt doesn't have tax revenue to provide services (budget deficit)

-so govt goes into debt --> has to borrow from public, or int'l lending institutions (World Bank, IMF)

wealthy countries: can borrow from anyone, because of political stability and strong econ

poor countries: more difficult, may have defaulted on previous loans, might be politically volatile

so, they might print more $, flooding economy with bills

just decreases value of money

Russia: price of bread: 1000 rubles

Yugoslavia: citizens had to resort to other means of trade

Are high interest rates better?

not always

can cause economic stagnation

high unemployment, low rates of econ growth

no job creation

no $ in economy

Central Banks VERY important: don't want to change directors too much

insulated from political whims and power

can't just dismiss CB heads

fixed term - 4 yrs. Greenspan: 18 years

REGULATION

public bads - do these exist?

environmental concerns

Regulations: rules that set boundaries of a given procedure (could be safety, could be environmental)

Modes of competition -

Monopoly: when a single producer of a good/service dominates market

ex: Con Ed

large corporations --> could charge whatever they want, don't have to produce quality because NO competition

CARTEL

a grouping of producers that try to control a market in collaboration with a small # of other firms

ex: Microsoft

OPEC - 40% of world oil supply

DeBeers - 60% of diamond sales

Monopolies and Cartels ----> stifle competition, increase prices, limit innovation

some states don't like monopolies and will try to break them up:

US: Sherman Anti-Trust Act - divided Standard Oil

but other states are more reluctant to regulate economies

feel they will self-destruct eventually, will get lazy, fail to innovate, and a new firm will emerge

Cartels will fail because:

internal disagreement

temptation to make individual profits by making more - ex: OPEC

Dangers: Nokia in Finland, discuss

-------

Trade:

states must manage both domestic and international trade

states can influence degree of competition and access to goods by determining what can enter country

Tariffs: taxes on imported goods

Quota: limit number of goods coming into the country (ex: textile goods from Bangladesh)

Nontariff barriers: health, packing restrictions

ostensibly: protect citizens. really: make difficult for foreign powers to benefit

ex: health: avian flu --> limit chicken from Asia

mad cow --> EU banned American beef

Why regulate trade?

generate state revenue (tariff, taxes, etc)

foster local industry (PROTECTIONISM - discuss farm subsidies)

Protect local jobs

keep wealth in the country

Why not? (Trade liberalisation)

promote competition --> lowest price wins --> more people can afford it

stimulate domestic innovation --> forceful industrialisation

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE - ability to produce a good/service more efficiently relative to other countries' efficiency in producing same good

POLITICAL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

actual relationship between political and economic institutions in a country, as well as the policies and outcomes they create

difference between theory and practice -- USSR was NOT pure communism

LIBERALISM

individual freedom, limit on state power

individuals can make economic decisions for themselves

Adam Smith: invisible hand guides market, free from state control

individuals can create economic growth better than state

wants a WEAK state

very little regulation

CAPITALISM - system of production based on private ownership and free markets

State should only produce basic public goods (education, health)

make sure it's restricted, to prevent free loaders

Contrast educational system of US and Germany

Keep regulation and taxes to minimum

Central Banks limited in power

Accept unemployment to be NECESSARY EVIL

Free trade is promoted (no tariffs or quotas), will encourage competition

States should only step in when crises occur --> Great Depression, for instance (changing point in US economic policy)

LAISSEZ FAIRE - "leave alone" don't interrupt natural economic processes

Argument that democracies REQUIRE free market -- can't flourish with an overly strong state

Ex: US, UK, Canada, Oz, NZ exception: Singapore. So democracy and liberalism doesn't HAVE to go hand in hand

Neoliberalism: free markets, greater individualism, tolerance for inequality

- resurgence around the globe

- Washington Consensus to stimulate growth in Latin America

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

combines liberalism and communism

has private property and open markets - but EVOLVED towards this

SDs broke with communism because they rejected the idea of a violent revolution, and didn't want the state to have the power to redistribute wealth

Edward Bernstein:

rejected revolution

democracy can evolve into socialism through ballot box

SDs do NOT like the gross inequalities they claim exist in liberal economies

Polarizes society: workers v. owners, city v. farm, poor v. rich, loss of cohesion, leads to instability of state

So say, economy MUST be regulated

In socialism, state is NOT seen as a threat to liberty

POSITIVE rights

Difference between positive and negative

Negative - to be protected FROM something (bill of rights)

Positive - to be provided WITH something (welfare state, contemporary human rights in Europe)

So state will provide both negative and positive rights in SD system

UNEMPLOYMENT and economic injustice: cannot be tolerated

Several ways:

Encourage property/markets but control so it benefits society as a whole

ex: oil in Norway vs oil in US

Expand public goods

Strong CB

Promote trade, but in a way that doesn't threaten jobs (France, farm subsidies)

High level of SOCIAL EXPENDITURE

NEOCORPORATISM: uses policy to build consensus over competiton, by creating a limited # of associations that represent large segment of business and labor

Business owners, union leaders, state

ex: Germany - German Federation of Trade Unions

- less prone to conflict (no labor disruption or strikes)

-very difficult to hire/fire

-- hinders flexibility of business, can't do necessary restructuring

ex: Germany - stagnating economy - can't do necessary restructuring - some optimism with election of Angela Merkel as chancellor

STATE OWNERSHIP

public goods extended to include lumber, oil, steel, autos (Renault - France)

Benefits/advantages

COMMUNISM

- eliminate political question in quest for economic equality

Marx:

- private property and free market is FAILING society

- gross disparities in wealth and opportunity

- Dickensian conditions

- say property becomes POWER TO OPPRESS

Economic competition ----> EXPLOITATION

Small rich dominate large poor

Marx: will lead to revolution

Communist solutions:

ELIMINATE PRIVATE PROPERTY - if property is owned by ALL, no one can

be oppressed

Market is therefore eliminated

States make all economic decisions, decide supply/demand

So taxation comes in the form of fixed prices and fixed wages

Profits go directly to state (for benefit of all)

No competition between firms - no real regulation (state self-regulates)

CRITICISM:

states don't have ability to DECREE economic decisions - leads to inefficiency and waste

state has too much power --> authoritarianism, no distinction between public and private

No freedom

Hello class!

Thanks to those who have already posted. Here's a discussion question to get us thinking over the weekend:

It appears the Thai military coup is still going strong. If Thaksen was really so bad, does it justify the military coming in and taking power?

Save Darfur

It's been a busy day in international politics!!

Military coup in Thailand

An excellent article on unrest in Hungary, as of last night -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2364503,00.html

An interesting news story from NPR on the life and times of Franjo Tudjman.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1067748

Also - CSI Library's webpage:

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/

From here, click on "Find Journals in A-Z" Title List

Type in the title, as noted in the syllabus.

Click on the link which includes the date you're searching for. Stay away from Microfilm.

At this point, the screen will ask for your barcode. It's located on the back of your student ID.

After inserting the bar code, you can choose which volume and issue you're looking for. All that information is included in the syllabus.

E. Exclusion
point to Russians in Estonia
not granted full rights of citizenship
encouraged to leave, but Estonia is their home too

F. Removal - either ethnic cleansing or forced assimilation
Srebenica
Native American tribes in the US
Forced assimilation - Basques in Spain

G. Genocide - a state-directed war against members of a specific ethnic or national group with the explicit objective of killing all or part of them
Ex: Armenian genocide in Turkey, 1915
How can we prevent any of these things from happening?

1. Citizenship should not be a reflection of ethnicity or nationality, but of where you call your home
ex: Germany
2. Greater protection for minority rights
3. How do we prevent genocide? Is it the leaders? Is it the whole population? Whom do we hold accountable?
UN established the clause outlawing genocide in 1948 - has it helped? Genocides have occurred since then.

TED GURR - ETHNIC CONFLICT ON THE WANE
ways to deal with separatist movements
encourage accommodation and negotiation
World community has new global strategy: CONTAIN ETHNIC CONFLICT AT ALL COSTS
Came after devastating wars in Balkans, and massacres in Rwanda

Now says - states should negotiate with separatist movements:
devolution of state power
is this developing an embryonic nation state and encouraging independence?
recognizing group rights
sharing power
real shift from confrontation ---> accommodation
basic agreement that managing ethnic conflict is an INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Gurr notes that there are FEWER ethnic conflicts than ever before
he says, because they learned that negotiation with the state is much less costly
than violence

Few wars have started since 1993
Says, ethnic warfare may encourage SPILLOVERS
SPILLOVERS - when conflicts go beyond the parties involved, and disrupt neighboring nations
occurred in Sri Lanka, southern Sudan, and Nagorno-Karabakh. discuss these.

Gurr says governments are realizing that PREVENTATIVE action is the way to go.
so before ethnic groups FULLY MOBILIZE (talk about mobilization), sit down with ethnic leaders and negotiate a power-sharing agreement

Harder for ethnic leaders to start a rallying war cry, as most states have implemented measures to protect their minorities from oppression and discrimination
A new regime?
on how to handle ethnic crises, and how to respond to ethnic repression and violence
1. Protecting minority rights - freedom from discrimination, institutional remedies, allow them to exercise some autonomy

Creating autonomy is harder than banning discrimination. Many states are unwilling to give up power, like having centralized centres of power.

Also fear that autonomy will lead to secession and independence - some scholars agree.
However, Gurr maintains that autonomy VERY RARELY leads to independence. What do you think?

2. Democratize - it provides ways for minorities to secure their rights and have a say in the government
3. ethnic disputes are BEST settled by negotiation and mutual accomodation
example: Russia and Tatarstan.

FOUR factors lead to this regime being INSTITUTIONALIZED:
A. Atlantic democracies are promoting democratic institutions and practices all over the world. They provide good examples as well.
B. Engagement by the UN, regional bodies, interested NGOs on behalf of minority rights
OAU, O Islamic Conference, Council of Europe
C. Unanimous consensus among foreign policy scholars that we don't want war anymore, so do what you can to prevent it
D. The costs of conflict are too high.

OBSTACLES TO WORLD PEACE
It may seem like ethnic wars are all over the place - but that's because they get more attention than they did before
But, states do believe ethnic conflicts don't have to exist.
"The new liberal wisdom holds that sovereignty can be trumped by humanitarianism and that the international cavalry will ride to the rescue of minorities who face genocide." Is this true? Can we believe this?

International system has 3 main actors:
states
ethnic movements
regional and international organizations

Gurr argues states are still most powerful - can't prevent another Chechnya or Tibet
BUT they have to realize that they're not immune from the new world order either.

Gurr says some ethnic conflicts CANNOT be resolved until one side wins decisively. He gives the example of Sudan. Let's discuss Darfur for a bit.

Other ethnic conflicts might be technically resolved - but who knows how long the ceasefire will last.

Greatest challenges are in Africa

DRC causes massive problems, massive spillovers through the centre of the continent
hard to end these conflicts because many of the parties do not want to stop fighting

So this example, along with Kosovo, East Timor, and Chechnya depend on the POLITICAL WILL of the main actors to stop it.

DEFINE POLITICAL WILL. Willingness of state, organization, or actor to come to a peaceful resolution, in this case.

AFTER ETHNICITY-Gurr believes that ethnic conflict will become less prevalent over time.

He thinks ethnic groups will realize that they don't have all that much to gain from going to war or negotiating autonomy, and eventually this method of warfare will end.

He predicts it will be replaced by class warfare or faith-based warfare. Into some degree - support for mass movements is pretty interchangeable

POLITICAL ATTITUDES\-- concerned with the speed and methods of political change - radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary, particularistic: relative to the specific context of a given country

ex: nationalizing oil might be radical in the United States - but not in Iran or Norway
-- Distinct from political ideologies

Extreme left:
Radicalism
belief in dramatic, often revolutionary change of the existing political, social, or economic order ex: Marxists in 19th century Europe, sought to change all 3
-current system is BROKEN, cannot be SALVAGED
-- distrust slow, evolutionary change
old system, old institutions, old centres of power, must all be abolished to make way for newer, better order
-- some radicals say force and violence is necessary to achieve their goals, others disagree

Liberalism
attempt to change the political system for the BETTER
system is not BROKEN and CANNOT be repaired - it just needs to be improved
distrust radicals
do not want a rapid change in governmental system of government
liberals tend to favor INTERNATIONAL institutions like the UN - believe they can compel states to act in an ETHICAL fashion
only constant effort can create permanent change

Conservatism
distrusts change of any sort
says it's unnecessary- it's disruptive and leads to uncertain outcomes
the state and the regime are vital structures that should not be changed or reformed in any sense
stress continuity and stability above all else - i.e. status quo
change will cause more problems than it solves
Edmund Burke - conservative English thinker

three principles:
Humans need guidance and direction from traditional authorities for society to enjoy peace and stability, because humans are irrational
Argues that traditional authorities should pass on long-standing moral teachings through the family, religious institutions, and governmental laws
Insists that compliance with traditional morality is more important than individual liberty -- people should not have the freedom to violate moral precepts

Reactionary
do not like change BUT do not like the present much either
they want to turn BACK the clock and go back to a "simpler" time, when the state had more power
they want to reinstate old values
but usually, the past that they see is one that never really existed
will use force if necessary; many fundamentalisms are reactionary in nature
Talk about differences in radicalism, etc in various countries - US, Canada, China, Iran

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
-- set of political values regarding the fundamental goals of politics
-- exemplified by five dominant modern ideologies: liberalism, social democracy, communism, fascism, and anarchy
distinct from political attitudes

LIBERALISM
Separate it from American politics - don't think Republican or Democrat
-- Liberalism originated during the time of monarchies
-- therefore, they wanted to REDUCE the power of the monarchs and have ELECTED, REPRESENTATIVE governments
-- classic liberalism believes that the INDIVIDUAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE STATE
-- wants freedom from the government to do what it wants
-- acknowledged this kind of liberty would result in a lot of inequality, not a bad thing
MODERN LIBERALISM -
-is a little bit different
- believes that government intervention into individual and social life is sometimes
necessary to prevent some individuals from denying freedom to others
-- liberty should be understood in broad, expansive, positive terms: as the liberty to develop human potential and contribute in a meaningful way to society
-- Economic inequality is to be regarded with suspicion, as a condition likely to
undermine the welfare of those who have lower incomes and thus erode their
chances of being free

COMMUNISM
- wanted a society that had no division of classes
-- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1847 (was a critique of free market capitalism)
-- they envisioned a system where all the people owned the MEANS OF PRODUCTION (factories, etc), and that way, there would be no OPPRESSION of the worker classes
BOURGEOISIE VS PROLETARIAT
Marx's theory ran in stages - he believed in these:
A. There is a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system
B. Transitional state period known as the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, which was to be temporary
C. Eventually, once the economy was set back in place, the state would "wither away" and would no longer exist.
Obviously, this never happened - states who did try the revolution got stuck in Step B.
Communism was based on a few principles:
state ownership of industries was the best way to go
- workers would not be oppressed
- supply and demand could be conquered by a COMMAND ECONOMY (go over this)
individual freedom was not necessary once economic needs were met
a powerful state is a necessity to implement these measures
Examples: Soviet Union, China
However, power was abused (China's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's purges)
The ideal Marxist state was never attained.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
aka Socialism
supports private property and markets but believes that the state has a strong role to play
in regulating the economy and providing benefits to the public - seeks to balance freedom
and equality
Focuses on GENERAL WELFARE rather than INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, COOPERATION rather than COMPETITION
needs a state with strong capacity and autonomy to ensure greater economic equality
however - still recognizes the importance of individual freedom
best example: Norway and the Nordic countries

FASCISM
- argues in favor of a totalitarian state that regulates any and all parts of life deemed to be relevant to politics, as determined by state officials
talk about Life is Beautiful, the scene with the math and the derelicts
- Asserts that the state is more important than the individual
- rejects the idea that civil institutions should have an important role in limited the power of the states and in criticizing the laws of the states
- affirms that individuals are to gain a sense of purpose by psychologically identifying with a totalistic state and devoting themselves to service to that state
-rejects concept of equality, believed in elitism
- advocates nationalism and/or racism
- prevalent in 1920s and 1930s Europe in Italy (Mussolini) and Germany (Hitler)
- THE INDIVIDUAL EXISTS ONLY FOR THE NATION'S PURPOSES
Examples of Italian Legislation:
- A proclamation by Mussolini in 1928 announced that popular culture should reflect fascist ideals. Women would be forbidden to wear pants.
- A pronouncement in 1929 stipulated that publishers were to submit political manuscripts to fascist representatives for approval

ANARCHISM
- rejects the notion of the Westphalian state altogether
- stresses elimination of both state and private property to ensure freedom and equality for all
- believes that a high degree of personal freedom and social equality is possible
- anarchy has never been achieved INTENTIONALLY
So political ideologies all take stances on how freedom and equality should be balanced.
They all play a role in international relations and internal relations.

POLITICAL CULTURE
- basic norms for political activity in a society
- a determining factor in what ideologies will dominate a country's political regime
- unique to a given country or group
- distinct from political attitudes and ideologies
Political culture explains a country's choice of ideology
What is culture?
- basic institutions that help define a society
- tells people what is and what is not acceptable
- it creates identities - but people can either accept or reject culture
Political culture refers specifically to the basic norms for political activity in a society
There are those who dispute that a political culture even exists - because individuals have such widely different views.
However, I believe you can talk about a basic political culture
Examples: talk about Junker Germany and its predisposition for war
post-WWII Germany and its predisposition for coalition-building
free market liberalism of UK and US
contrasted against predisposition for authoritarianism in China
socialism in Scandinavia
sometimes, people say that Islamic countries are predispositioned towards autocracy
Political cultures may change - before, US was all about freedom
now, post 9/11, more about security
Europe: post-materialism
Post-materialism is an economic philosophy that emphasizes quality of life and environmental sustainability issues instead of earning income and material possessions.
says citizens should have a bigger voice in the government
society should be based on IDEAS, not ECONOMICS
environmental causes figure large here

Hello folks.

I'm going to be posting the notes beforehand, as per request by the night section of 240. This way, you can copy and print these notes before class, and follow the flow of the lesson without worrying about writing everything down.

Here are the notes from Monday. I apologise for formatting issues, I hope to make it much cleaner in the coming weeks.

Also, just a reminder - I will be holding office hours on Thursday morning from 11 am to 12 pm, which will be held on the third floor of the library. To be doubly sure that I will be there, I suggest you shoot me an email if you intend to come during this time so I can be sure to meet with you.

And now, for Monday's notes.


Lesson 3 - Nationalism and Ethnicity
Society: a collection of people bound by shared institutions that define how human relations should be conducted
How do YOU define yourself?

Identities SHAPE politics - Armenia/Azerbaijan debate
Canadian/US debate

Ethnic identity:
-- specific attributes and societal institutions that make one group of people culturally different from others
-- often based on customs, language, religion, or other factors
-- ascriptive, generally assigned at birth
-- doesn't HAVE to be political
ETHNICITY: specific attributes and societal institutions that make one group of people culturally different from others
Book says people CHOOSE their identities --- is that necessarily the case?
Example: Handel, born German, became UK citizen
There is no set criteria for being a separate ethnicity - for instance, Bosnian case - really only religion separated them
Sometimes, ethnicities really aren't all that different - Hutus and Tutsis, for instance

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION - built out of the environment and society we live in

NATIONAL IDENTITY - Based on concept of NATION - a group of people bound together by a common set of political aspirations (self-government and sovereignty)
Often derived from national identity (but not always)
Inherently political
It's the basis for NATIONALISM: pride in one's people and belief
They have a unique political destiny - Example: Quebec

However - minority groups and ethnic groups don't always necessarily want to separate from their nation

Ethnicity can lead to nationalism if a distinct group develops political aspiration as a way to assert or defend its own uniqueness.

For instance - Quebecois felt they were UNDER ATTACK from anglophone canada, had to fight to preserve French culture/language -
Bill 101 - everything bilingual

However, ethnicity doesn't always lead to nationalism.

Can nationalism exist without ethnicity?

Book says yes - national identity CAN be constructed even when a common or dominant ethnic identity is absent. Ex: United States

Other ideas regarding the origin of nationalities:

PRIMORDIAL, INVENTED, CONSTRUCTIVIST

Primordialism - believes the modern nation is a representation of age-old cultural patterns

NATIONALISMS always existed. People were always Croats, Uighurs, Tuaregs

Human beings have always had the need to organize themselves into groups.

From this, nationalities emanated.

Thus, ethnicities have:
1. SENSE OF CONTINUITY

2. SHARED MEMORY

3. COLLECTIVE DESTINY
they have a unique political destiny
Example: Quebec

"Ancient Hatreds" - Robert Kaplan\'s book on the Balkans

NATIONALISM AS INVENTED - Benedict Anderson

- IMAGINED COMMUNITIES

says a NATION is SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED and ultimately 'imagined' by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.

explain what it means to be imagined

role of the novel - enabled individuals to identify with their fellow countrymen for the first time

also - reference scene from English Patient

Arnold argues that "nations and nationalism are products of modernity [Industrial Revolution] and have been created as means to political and economic ends

Let's talk about Gellner

He said: "Nationalism is primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent."

In the pre-modern world (agriculture) rulers had little incentive to create a cultural homogeneity on the ruled

But in MODERN (post-industrialized) society - work becomes more SPECIALIZED

Need learning, need schooling - creates a standard language, standard culture

There is more cooperative work - so you need to be able to COMMUNICATE with others

Hence, the development of ethnicity

Now, one more debate within Nationalism

Ethnic (Eastern) vs Civic (Western)

Civic -typified by Western, democratic state, rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, free elections, adult suffrage,
seen to be separate from RELIGION and CULTURE
should be neutral to the ethnic groups within the state
espouses diversity

UK ---> but not always the case

Ethnic/illiberal Nationalism-
Eastern European
Nation existed BEFORE state, therefore state PROTECTS nation
obviously favor individuals from their race/ethnicity
Estonia
Easier to create than civic ones

Is there a problem with this dichotomy (division)?
Doesn't take history into consideration - Eastern ethnicities and boundaries are much more complicated, and they've had less time to figure it out than the Western nations
Most nations lie somewhere in the middle
Where do we draw the line in defining nationalism? Deaf nationalism, queer nationalism - can we accept these as valid?

Citizenship and Patriotism:
Citizenship - another form of self-identification, is a PURELY POLITICAL identity
Citizenship:An individual\'s relationship to the state - individual swears allegiance to it, and state provides benefits and rights"
purely political, easier to change

It\'s the basis for PATRIOTISM

Citizenship is a bit more INCLUSIVE than ascriptive ethnicity

still depends on ethnicity and nationality
-- example: France - has hard time integrating Muslim immigrants into French society

some areas of Germany also have trouble


Different forms of nationalism:
Michael Hechter (Containing Nationalism, 2000


STATE-BUILDING NATIONALISM: The active incorporation of diverse regions and culturally distinct peoples into a single, larger identity governed by a single, larger state, with the goal of creating a homogenous whole from the heterogenous parts. (Russian empire)

IRREDENTIST NATIONALISM: The intent or attempt to extend state boundaries to include territories populated by one's co-nationals, though administered by an adjacent state. (Tibet)

UNIFICATION NATIONALISM: The movement to merge politically divided, but culturally homogenous, regions and territories under one state. (Kurds)

There was an idea among scholars that eventually nationalities and ethnicities would fade away. "Local" identities would give way to "cosmopolitan" identities, and would end parochialism

However, now scholars understand ethnicity as something very real and unlikely to fade. The end of the Cold War really brought out people's ethnicities, and we've seen a jump in the number of ethnic conflicts.

Sources of Ethnic Conflict - Why do some groups seem to get along, while others erupt into war?Ethnic conflict: different ethnic groups struggle to achieve certain political or economic goals at each other's expense

National conflict: one ethnic group attempts to establish its own state

Ethnic conflict examples: Afghanistan, Yugoslavia

Nationalist examples: Algeria, Rhodesia, India

Combined: Fall of the Soviet Union

Conflicts emerge in different ways:
Top down - do leaders instigate these conflicts?

Take the case of Franjo Tudjman in Croatia and Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia
Stalin Central Asia

Bottom up - do the people instigate these conflicts?

Originates when long-standing friction , competition, or grievances occcur

Need a history of hostility or violence between groups

Pakistan and India - only need a little push to go into all-out war

Very rarely are these causes SOLELY bottom up or top down - as in all things political, there are a MULTIPLICITY of factors that lead to these problems

Take Bosnian example to show how it works both ways

Another reason for ethnic conflict: THE NUMBER OF ETHNICITIES VASTLY OUTNUMBERS THE NUMBER OF STATES (3,000 to 191)

We need to remember that it also took the West a long time to come to a period of peace. Hence, why ethnic conflict usually takes place outside of the developed world.

END OF IMPERIALISM -The nation-state is a relatively new development in the rest of the world. Used to being part of empires.

IMPOSED BORDERS - often didn't follow the boundaries of ethnic groups

Example: Nigeria (Yoruba, Ibo, Hausa-Forlani)

Created ethnic groups at times where there were none, to prevent uprisings and rebellions

Rwanda - a worthy case to look at

Thus, created fixed ethnic identities

When Belgians left in the 1960s, much ethnic conflict, culminating in the massacres of 1994, in which 500,000 Tutsis were killed in 8 days

"We wish to inform you that tomorrow you will be killed"

Hotel Rwanda

PATTERNS OF ETHNIC CONFLICT

A. Communal violence
-can result from the intermingling of groups

- can be distributed so haphazardly that you can't divide through territoryn-- India and Beirut - very volatile mix
given to sporadic and violent outbursts

B. Repression of Ethnic Enclaves--enclaves created through imperial exhaustion (collapse of empires/ creation of new states with areas left over).

Ethnic groups in these enclaves have both contemporary affiliations to, and historic claims upon, the territory that they inhabit-- examples: Kurds in Turkey, Baluchis in Pakistan

however, violence most likely to occur when the enclaves have PATRON STATES on or near the borders of REPRESSIVE states...hence, Russians in the Baltic states, Moslems in Bosnia, Azeris in Armenia

C. Irredentism and Retrieval-- Irredentism: one state's attempt to claim or reincorporate contiguous territory occupied by ethnic kinsmen

Alsace-Lorraine in France after Franco-Prussian War
Now - Tajiks in Afghanistan, Russians in Kazakhstan, Azeris in Iran
Irredentism has been a by-product of transition and uncertainty in the international order. Irredentist propensities may lie dormant for years and then erupt when interstate arrangements are destabilized. The latent and overt phases of irredentism are therefore closely connected to occurrences in the international arena in general and regional politics in particular.

D. Secessionist Movements
-- do not always start with an ethnic group wanting independence - but usually always ends up in ethnic conflict
-- example: Chechnya
-- due to failures in integration and assimilation
-- feel that they can't compete in the state
-- usually will always cost them economically
-- but, separatists feel that independence is worth the price to pay - they want control over their own land
-- Two specific cases of secessionist movements are worth noting because of their potential effects on regional stability and military strategy. The first is the violent but successful independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia. This secessionist victory sets a precedent that may contribute to a domino effect throughout Africa, where some degree of regional stability had been achieved by the acceptance of colonial borders, no matter how arbitrarily they may have been drawn.

Republicans facing tough elections are questioning Bush's policies on Iraq

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Any other time one would expect Republican lawmaker Curt Weldon to be an unwavering supporter of President George W. Bush's Iraq policy. After all, just this summer the Pennsylvania congressman was saying the jury remains out on whether Iraq still holds weapons of mass destruction

Read the rest of the article at: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/12/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_Republicans.php

The State: Class Notes

THE STATE

Max Weber: Monopoly on violence

----A set of political institutions to generate and carry out policy

----Typically highly institutionalized (explain!)

-----Has army, policy, taxation, judiciary, social-welfare system

(give example of Russian taxes - does this make a state?)

-----SOVEREIGN

Sovereignty: Ability to carry out actions of policies within a territory independently from external actors or internal rivals

External actors: Other countries (China and Tibet example)

Internal actors: competing regions, competing political characters, rebel movements (Georgia: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Ajaria)

According to international law, a state has three requirements:

1. A PERMANENT population

2. A DEFINED territory

3. A GOVERNMENT capable of maintaining effective control over its territory, AND conducting international relations with other states

Give examples of: Israel, Nigeria, China (Uighurs), United States - do they fit all of these requirements?

Doesn't mean definition of state isn't accurate - just that very few states fit this description perfectly

Ten functions of the state:

total monopoly on violence - but must be used wisely, must have checks and balances to counterbalance the threat of force to be trusted by citizens

Administrative control - breadth/depth of state's control over territory, seen in division of responsibilities throughout country

Management of Public Finances - must be managed to adequately provide resources, must not rely on external sources for funds.

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE STATES have budgets that determine the state's priorities

Investments in human capital - citizens must feel a PART of the government and governing structure - must be INVESTED in the state to make it work. Otherwise, risk DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

DELINEATION OF CITIZEN RIGHTS/DUTIES - can be best achieved when governments seek to create EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY for all

PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES - transport, water, power - citizens can participate in state activities, economy will flourish

FORMATION OF THE MARKET - facilitates growth of trade and economy - establish property rights, laws governing economic exchange

Example gone wrong: in post-communist world, there was no protection for entrepreneurs, no laws, it was mayhem and stymied economic growth

MANAGE ASSETS OF THE STATE - refers to states ability to license and regulate industry. In licensing, enables businesses to flourish while protecting the consumer. In regulating, maintains quality control AND facilitates globalization

AUTHORITY OVER INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - entering into treaties and public borrowing, to benefit the public and expand industries and trade

Problem: Quebec seeks its own relations with nations, goes above Canada

RULE OF LAW - implies that government authority may ONLY be exercised in accordance with written laws, which were adopted through established procedure. Leaders and elites are NOT above the law.

----------------

A REGIME is different.

We usually associate it with DICTATORSHIPS (Nazi regime, Baathist regime)

But, a REGIME is the fundamental rules and NORMS of politics.

Go over NORMS. -- determines what is RIGHT and APPROPRIATE behavior in a society

REGIMES are the rules of norms regarding individual power, collective freedom, and how power is to be attained and used

Institutionalized, but can be changed by major events

Go over institutionalization

Events: revolution, gross abuse of power, economic collapse

France and the Fifth Regime, South Africa post-apartheid

: Democratic Regime: freedom of the people, elections, accountability

variances: US, Canada, UK

Authoritarian Regime: no freedom, decrees, centralized power, abuse of power

variances: China, Cuba, Uzbekistan

DO A SPECTRUM HERE

GOVERNMENT

Give example of working in British Parliament - when the Thatcher government fell....

Leadership that runs the state

Weakly institutionalized

Thatcherite reforms were largely reversed by Blair

Characterized by President/PM/Dictator

Limited by existing regime - discuss

--------

DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE

With the exception of Antarctica, every stretch of land is now controlled by one state or another

How did we get here?

Political organization:

May have originated due to environment and agriculture, switched from nomad to sedentary

Suddenly, the problem of LIMITED RESOURCES became very important

Increasing specialisation of human beings – who decides who farms?

Economic problems like surpluses - WHO gets WHAT?

Collective security vs. individual freedom - how to navigate?

Had to reconcile freedom and equality

Monopoly of force evolved

Why did humans become political communities?

Thomas Hobbes: "social contract" to over come anarchy – could not be revoked

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "Social contract" - between ruler and ruled, once ruler violated contract, it was annulled

John Locke: Social contract theory based on fundamental rights in state of nature, said government should be limited to preventing private property

Karl Marx: political community exploitative, rich take advantage of the poor, striving for fully equal society outside of politics altogether

Coercion vs. consensus

Is any state based on truly one or the other? Also reintroduce the spectrum

Development of modern state-

Roman empire collapses

Institutions disappear

Dark Ages

a chance to start from scratch

organized crime was rampant - people organized different ways to protect themselves

Eventually, settled on the state, a new form of political organization

Three advantages:

A. ENCOURAGED economic development

realized feudal system wasn't making it, so privatized land and created incentives for higher productivity

B. Encouraged TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

inbcreases productivity

C. HOMOGENIZATION of people in territories

printing press enabled people to think of themselves as "one nation"

stability made intrastate traveling easier

beginning of colonisation

decreasing power of R.C. church

Treaty of Westphalia:

Signed in 1648, established the nation-state as we know it today

Background:

Europe is broken into several empires: Spain, Holy Roman Empire, etc

Each went to war with each other for a variety of reasons, one of which being religion

Tried to establish which Christian religion was "right"

Treaty ended that

Basically said: Whatever religion the prince of a region is, so his subjects will be

So basic achievements of Treaty:

--- à States are based on TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY - all territory within a border is subject to law of governing state

- à States are INDEPENDENT and must be respected by other states

-- à Made International Relations SECULAR (within Europe at least)

-- àGave state monopoly on WAR

Another change -

Treaty of Versailles - introduced the idea that states shouldn't be ALL sovereign without limit - League of Nations, but failed because of lack of commitment by member states

Turning Point: World War II - recognized absolute sovereignty could be disastrous, UN, beginnings of EU

Evolution of States:

Use map

These did not ALWAYS exist.

States EVOLVE and CHANGE with political change

Examples: Empires, USSR

German history - Weimar Republic - Nazi Germany/Third Reich - West Germany/East Germany - Federal Republic of Germany

COMPARING STATE POWER

States vary in power...why?

Legitimacy

"The property states possess when their citizens view their sovereignty as appropriate, proper, or acceptable"

based on CONSENT

examples for and against – French, Spanish govt is legitimate. Azerbaijan and Lebanon – not legitimate

Three forms of legitimacy:

1. Traditional

2. Charismatic

3. Rational-legal

1. Traditional

-Max Weber

-present in long-existing systems

Monarchy in France - ancien regime - always that way

- ritual and continuity

2. Charismatic

- based on the power of ideas, and how those ideas are presented

- Adolf Hitler - very sympathetic character to Germans victimized by Versailles

- usually dies with the charismatic leader, unless leader builds up a ritualistic system to keep power in place (ex: Mao's China)

3. Rational-legal

- Based on rules and laws that are highly institutionalized

- elections in advanced democratic states (US, UK, Germany)

- depends on OFFICE, not INDIVIDUAL

- therefore, TRANSFER OF POWER is very easy

- very hard in newly democratized states, ex: Nigeria, Kenya

All sorts of political figures with legitimacy can be found in rational-legal states.

Charismatic: Al Sharpton

Traditional: Kennedys, Bushes, Queen Elizabeth II

Without legitimacy, states would have to COERCE citizens to follow its rules - example, Uzbekistan, high imprisonment rate, Iran relies on extensive police to enforce its laws

Centralisation vs Decentralisation

Federalism vs unitary states

- devolves decision-making to lower orders (states, provinces, Lander) Federalism

US, Germany

- decide everything on the central level, with little to no local authorityUnitary states

Examples: UK (before 1997), Japan, Norway

Strong states vs weak states

: can defend territory, make/enforce rules, collect taxes, manage economyStrong states

Ask examples.

: can't do these things - bad at taxes - bad at justice - bad at resource allocationWeak states

Failed states possible

Two big definitions:

: refers to ability of state to wield power in order to carry out basic tasks of providing security and reconciling freedom and equality CAPACITY

: ability of the state to wield power independent of the publicAUTONOMY

Democracies try to balance the two

?Debate Questions: Is it the state's responsibility to promote equality

US vs Norway

Should states try to help us be ethical? Should they legislate morality?

Christian right vs. Taleban in Afghanistan