Search

This paper focuses on the use of different forms of power by a (leader/patron/hegemonic) state to get the other (non-leader/client) states cooperate with its policies: the use of different forms of power in obtaining cooperation from other states in exercising economic sanctions against a target state. Most of the literature on cooperation operate on the level of bargaining power where the policy changes are directly visible to or observable by the researcher. In this paper, I attempt to show how bargaining power model is not adequate in capturing the complete picture of the relationship between Turkey (a non-leader/client state) and the US (leader/patron state) in their cooperation and non-cooperation with regard to Iraq during the Gulf Crisis and the US War Against Iraq, respectively. In that regard, I attempt to show that the three levels of power (Krause 1991) is a much better and more comprehensive framework in understanding and explaining the power relationship between Turkey and the US. There are three main objectives of this study: (1) to shed more light on the cooperation process, (2) to challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of cooperation that states? cooperative or non-cooperative behaviors are best understood or explained on the bargaining level, and (3) to challenge the utility of paradigms, in this case the rational choice, in the discipline. This study attempts to show why a client state cooperates with a patron state even when this does not look as the best interest to that state, i.e., that state?s first preference is not to cooperate or that state does not have a dominant strategy to cooperate. Similarly, this study also aims at showing why a client state does not cooperate with a patron state even though cooperation seems to be the best interest to the client state. My working hypothesis is that Turkey?s cooperation (or non-cooperation) with the US with regard to the Iraq issue can not be fully understood or explained by using solely a bargaining model which focuses on directly observable (visible) results of a policy or an observable policy change that, for example, could be utilized by either empirical non-quantifiable, or empirical quantifiable data. Lisa Martin?s (1992) game theoretical model is a good framework to look at the relationship between the two states on the bargaining level. But it does not take into consideration the two other levels of power, i.e., it focuses on bargaining power, and omits structural power and hegemonic power. A comprehensive framework of different forms of power relationship between a patron state and a client state is needed to explain the cooperative/non-cooperative behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When scholars seek to measure the "effectiveness" of rights, they are usually trying to understand the extent to which they affect the practices of organizations. Rights live in many placesâ??in the bodies (courts, agencies and legislatures) that produce them, in the minds of the activists who mobilize them, in the broader public and in the popular cultureâ??but it is principally within organizations that rights are materialized, turned into tangible changes in social practices. Thus in this project we seek to 1) create a conceptual framework that captures the protean nature of rights, 2) describe the varied patterns by which organizations respond to rights, and 3) measure how those organizational responses correlate with outcomes. This paper takes a few modest steps toward these goals. We begin with a general framework for understanding rights and organizational change. We develop some basic hypotheses about organizational response to rights, drawn from political science, neo-institutionalist sociology, and organizational theory. We probe these hypotheses using original qualitative and quantitative data drawn from a study of organizational responses to the access provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its state analogues. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how secondary states experience unipolarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital theory, particularly the work of Robert Putnam, has received a great deal of scholarly and popular attention. We argue that Putnam's formulation ignores the ways in which race is fundamental and constitutive to the structure and function of social capital in the United States. We suggest an alternative framework, one that: (1) treats race as more than an independent variable; (2) addresses the structural factors underlying social capital development; and (3) includes the role of gatekeepers in the process. Such a framework would allow us to have a more accurate, and more nuanced, understanding of how social capital operates in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

World migration has more than doubled since 1975 (United Nations, 2006). Social scientists in several disciplinary fields, including political science, anthropology, and sociology, have investigated how an individual's movement across national borders may or may not change their attitudes and behaviors. This burgeoning literature has given rise to numerous definitions of the terms "diaspora" and "diaspora identity" (Brukmann 2005). Diaspora identity has been linked to a wide variety of transnational behaviors, including diaspora lobbying and political mobilization (Shain and Barth 2003), diaspora philanthropic activity (Mohan and Zack-Williams 2002), and diaspora remittances and investment in countries of origin (e.g., Nielsen, Riddle, Majid 2009). Despite the many existing definitions of diaspora identity, few robust empirical measures of this complex concept exist. In this paper, we first draw on the extant theoretical and descriptive diaspora studies literature to identify four main components of the diaspora concept prevalent in the literature: a group consciousness of belonging and solidarity with the country of origin (e.g., Safran 1991, Shain 2007), group consciousness of belonging and solidarity with the country of residence (e.g., Cohen 1997), contact with the country of origin (e.g., Sheffer 2006), and a commitment to the maintenance or restoration of the country of origin (e.g., Safran 1991, Ionescu 2006). Utilizing a survey of over 450 Liberians living in the United States, we then test the reliability and validity of these new measures. We also explore to what degree causal relationships exist among these variables. We conclude by discussing implications of our findings for future research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the conditions under which white Americans will express that being white systematically benefits them. It furthermore examines the role of recognizing this privilege in support of policies of racial equality. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

150 years after his death his 1859 Tocqueville remains one of America’s most beloved political philosophers. He is said to have explored our politics and culture with unrivaled astuteness. But how do Tocqueville’s observations of America stand today? This panel will be dedicated to exploring whether Tocqueville’s discussions of American mores, religion, and civic culture are congruent and continually relevant to the US of the 21st century. This panel thus seeks to investigate and critically appraise current social and political realities seen through a Tocquevillean lens, bringing together insights from political science, sociology, and history. This panel also aims to suggest new directions in Tocqueville scholarship and future avenues of research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last few years a spate of books has rekindled the debate as to the status of American hegemony (eg., P.Khanna, The Second World; F. Zakaria, Post-American World, etc.), and returned systemic inquiry to the earlier 1980s analyses of Robert Gilpin Wa ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

n recent years, an ever expanding political, economic, sociological, and even anthropological literature has tried to give convincing answers to each of the following two questions: (i) Why do we have civil wars in some countries and not in others? (ii) Why does post-conflict peace endure in some countries, while it collapses into renewed fighting in others? Building on our earlier work on political institutions, economic development, and civil war as well as the mentioned literature on causes and consequences of intrastate conflicts, their prevention and recurrence, we argue that addressing the second question ignoring the first almost inevitably leads to answers that are affected by selection bias. In fact, we can show that the non-random selection of civil wars biases not only estimates for the error term and the parameters in all directions, but can falsely indicate that duration dependence of post-conflict civil peace is present when it actually is not. Therefore, we first theoretically develop and then empirically test a rational institutionalist two-stage selection duration model that accounts for the non-random sample selection to explain the variation in the endurance of peace in countries with civil war experience. This is done simultaneously estimating the selection outcome (civil war) and the duration outcome (length of post-conflict peace) using full-information maximum likelihood estimation on a data set of more than 100 civil wars during the 1950-2000 period. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]