Search

This debate comment addresses populism within the US under Trump, and Venezuela under former President Hugo Chavez. It draws out some of the parallels and disconnects between them, and provides a discussion of politics, human rights, and social policy under them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate trends of body mass index (BMI) with age in westernizing Macau and to make comparisons with Australian data. A representative random sample (n = 1406, 18-93 years, 55% female) from Macau was recruited in 2012. The Australian sample was extracted from the Australian Health Survey 2011-2012 (n = 7958, 18 to ≥85 years, 52% female). BMI in Australians was greater than Macanese, mean difference 4.4 kg/m2 (P <.001). While BMI increases steadily with ageing in each population, the plateau for Macau subjects appears 5 to 10 years earlier than Australians. Prevalence of overweight/obesity in young Macanese adults (18-40 years) was 25% (men) and 22% (women), with the greatest increase in BMI from age 25 to 39 years and 24 to 45 years in men and women, respectively. BMI shifts in younger Macanese men and women, which may reflect emerging lifestyle and nutrition transitions, are a future population health concern in Macau. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, several sociologists have moved beyond grand theories of international relations, and empirically examined the motivations of US foreign policy leading into the 21st century. This article discusses the work of three political sociologists who have examined US foreign policy from three prominent perspectives: Michael Mann, William Robinson, and Julian Go. Working from a neo-Weberian perspective, Mann highlights the rise of neoconservatism within the US government that has encouraged foreign expansion. From a neo-Marxist perspective, Robinson emphasizes the importance of transnational capitalist class interests, including the promotion of neoliberal policies, on US foreign policy. And working from a world-systems perspective, Go underscores how the US is a hegemon in decline attempting to regain its imperial footing through military aggression. While these researchers cover much ground and raise important questions, their perspectives also contain several blindspots that future work on issues of US foreign policy could address. Most importantly, these three theoretical perspectives have neglected the importance of ideology in making sense of contemporary US foreign policy, and this article argues that future work should more intensively examine how ideology influences foreign policymaking in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]