Search

Four papers discuss research exchanges between the United States and the USSR and East Europe. The first paper considers the evolution of perceptions of social scientists in these countries during the Cold War and Detente. The dominant view of American researchers during the Cold War was that the United States, as the most modern society, was the yardstick for measuring other societies. The United States experienced rapid growth of training and research related to the Soviet orbit. However, Soviet scholars were constrained by Marxist-Leninist doctrine and by educational and research policies. In the 1960s, American social scientists gained a greater appreciation for the complexities of modern societies and East European social scientists began innovative studies. The second paper discusses evaluations of research exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union. The conclusion is that these exchanges are scientifically valuable to both countries. The most serious problem is Soviet political repression of its scientific community. The third paper discusses problems and accomplishments of East European studies in the United States. Although progress seems to be steady, American social scientists have come to pursue topics that are politically safe, and thus often of secondary importance. The final paper suggests that in exchanges between the Soviet Union and the United States, both academic and government communities profit. The point that Soviet exchanges are generally in sciences and engineering and American exchanges are in history and literature illustrates that each side sends whom it wishes. Thus, the author concludes that this type of exchange is neither unbalanced nor unfair. (Author/KC)

The question of the relationship between capitalism and democracy is not new; scholars have produced a rich literature about it that includes virtually every considerable point of view. Yet the question is of more than historical interest; with the recent dramatic political and economic upheavals in Eastern Europe and the former USSR, it becomes again a question of great moment. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: first, to summarize briefly the more important, current thinking of U.S. scholars about the capitalism/democracy connection; second, to call attention to the specific economic values and fundamental assumptions about economic activity that underlie U.S. constitutionalism and reinforce democratic norms; and, finally, to consider the implication of the foregoing for the education of citizens in a market-oriented, democractic society. (DB)

A general outline of the development and the status quo of political education in the Netherlands, focusing on the degree of internationalization, is presented. In the light of current and future educational/political developments, attention also is devoted to the North-South issue (the existence of people in developing nations in relation to the existence of people in more developed countries), and the political demands to develop the European dimension in education. An 18-item bibliography is included. (Author/DB)

The article presents abstracts of papers presented at the Sixth Annual International Conference on European Integration held in Skopje, Macedonia in May 2011, including one on the role of the European Union as a global leader and in conflict management, another on the concept of European identity, as well as a comparative analysis of Russian and Western approaches to the concept of multipolarity.

This paper suggests a model of EP representation with a new measure of electoral outcomes. The major concern is how we understand the EP elections under multi-level European political system and by what factors the MEPs' voting behaviors are determined. National constituents are, in my model, assumed to reveal different levels of diversity and intensity of preferences by their electoral choices in EP elections. Moreover, the differences are assumed to be caused by their relative assessment of national representation. Under these assumptions, my model tests MEPs' responsiveness to their national constituents revealed by the election results. From the theoretical perspective of party representation, it is also considered whether MEPs' responsive voting behaviors function as policy alternatives in the EP elections. Methodologically, a simultaneous equation model is presented to reflect the endogenous relationship between European citizens' electoral choices and MEPs' responsiveness. The results reported in this paper find that MEPs tend to respond to the elected party disparity between the EP and national parliament. Absenteeism and seniority also have influence on MEPs'responsiveness. In addition, MEPs' responsive voting patterns work as clear policy alternatives to European citizens as well. However, because of the lack of data currently available, the endogenous relationship is not conclusive. The possible improvements of future results are discussed in this respect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Of all the issues that democratic, trade union, and left wing political parties have tried to address in capitalist societies, the most difficult to challenge has been the issue of capital investment, from private investment to even their own pensions. Democratic and popular forces have been quite successful in establishing welfare states, forming trade unions, imposing regulatory controls on market activity, and achieving modest degrees of worker participation (at least in the most advanced industrialized democracies). Yet they have been generally incapable of obtaining any influence ? let alone control ? over the location of investment in these societies. This paper will examine the possibilities of raising questions of social democratic influence over private and pension investment in Western Europe. By examining the historic contours of the 20th century debates in Germany and Sweden, the two countries where the debate went the farthest, I hope to generate hypotheses as to whether this policy option might represent a viable tactic by the contemporary democratic left to both the pension and democratic deficit issues in Western Europe generally, and the EU specifically. Germany and Sweden have been chosen as critical case studies because their experiences can likely offer useful guidance about the concrete limits to utility of this approach. This paper is divided into three sections. First, it analyzes the issue of investment and private control and shows how difficult it has been for democratic societies to challenge private interests on this core issue. Despite the growing predominance of collective funds (e.g. private pensions and public social insurance funds), democratic societies have never been able to ?democratize? investment decisions. The general arguments raised against such radical proposals by traditional controllers of investment have been that they too directly challenge ?managerial autonomy? or, alternatively, such radical steps are unnecessary because the free choice of individuals to decide where to invest is the essence of individualistic shareholder democracy. Second, the paper looks at the origins of German and Swedish attempts to democratize investment via two different paths and two different kinds of political institutions. It then analyzes their evolution through the 1970s and 1980s and suggests why they ultimately were unsuccessful in achieving their respective goals. Third, the paper concludes with some speculative consideration ? and perhaps more questions than answers ? on the relationship between democracy and investment in societies, such as those in Western Europe and/or the EU, that are both democratic and capitalist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the new institutional architecture of Eastern Europe. It extends Lijphart?s study of democratic institutions to fourteen new democracies in Eastern Europe. In his analysis of advanced democracies, Lijphart found that ten institutional variables cluster on two clearly separate dimensions. This clustering does not occur in the new democracies of Eastern Europe; they do not fall clearly into Lijphart?s consensus and majoritarian camps. On the executives-parties dimension, Eastern European countries are basically consensus except for highly majoritarian forms of interest group representation. On the federal-unity dimension, they are even more divided. While they tend to have unitary, unicameral governments (both majoritarian traits), they have adopted highly consensual modes of constitutional amendment, judicial review, and central banks. While Lijphart suggests that his two types of democracy have a logical coherence, this paper attributes these hybrids to the circumstances prevailing at the time when new institutions were adopted. In particular, communist legacies and international conditions have influenced the choice of new institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I present a model of bargaining under certainty to examine the effects that preferences over policy and office have on bargaining duration. In previous work I have shown that the importance of particularistic politics improves our ability to explain patterns of coalition formation cross-nationally. Simply put, the more important particularistic politics are the more politicians behave as office seekers (as opposed to policy seekers). The focus on particularistic politics thus provides a link between the two main strands of theorizing about coalition formation. The paper thus makes two types of contributions. First, it offers us insights into the factors determining the duration of coalition bargaining in a comparative perspective. Extended periods of coalition bargaining may prevent major policy decisions to be addressed and create uncertainty about the future for both political and economic actors. Furthermore, bargaining duration has occasionally been used as a proxy for the ideological divisions within the coalition. If bargaining duration, however, is influenced by the importance of particularistic politics then the proxy is not an appropriate one. The insight offered by modeling the duration of coalition bargaining does not only apply to the formation of coalition cabinets but can also be applied legislative bargaining more generally where the implications of bargaining delay may be more obvious and persistent. Second, the paper contributes to our understanding of coalition governance more generally and, in particular, provides additional support for my theory of coalitions and particularistic politics. In this paper I derive further hypotheses from that same theory but focus on a different dependent variable. By doing so I am both subjecting the theory to further testing as well increasing its scope. I test the empirical implications of the models on a sample of bargaining situations from 10 Western-European countries (although I am trying to increase that number) using an event history analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Signing of Dayton Peace Agreement of November 21, 1995 not only meant the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina but it also represented the beginning of a new trend in international relations. This trend is characterized by collapsing of traditional realist distinctions between security concerns on the one side, and state and nation-building policies, on the other. If the previous wisdom of the day demanded the primacy of the security agenda over institution and nation-building policies, the current understanding is that the international community (IC) plays a crucial role in fostering democratization and nation-building in the context of failed, multiethnic states. In other words, an active international engagement in ?rebuilding the ship at sea? is nowadays perceived as a security issue in its own right ? a necessary precondition for a more stable and peaceful international environment. This, however, begs the question as to what does the international toolkit of democracy and nation-building contain? Also, is there a gap between the international rhetoric of human rights, democracy and minority protection, on the one side, and the ways these principles are being perceived and acted upon by local elites and public in general in internationally run states? In dealing with theses questions, the paper?s focus will be primarily on the Southeast European experiences with the twin process of democratization and nation-building. First, the international blueprint of democratization will be presented. Then, the international toolkit of democratization will be evaluated from the perspective of the (in)compatibility between the processes of democratization and nation-building. Third section will offer a comparative evaluation of nation-building and power sharing arrangements in the region. Finally, I will critically evaluate why some of the most cherished techniques of power sharing yielded the unanticipated results that challenge the very project of internationally sponsored democratization. For the copy of the paper, please send request to dguzina@wlu.ca [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims at measuring the process of democratization, subdivided into the liberalization of the autocratic regime, the mode of transition, and the consolidation of democracy. The ca. 30 countries included in the study are situated in different regions in the world, mainly Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Republics, and Latin America. Most of them have experienced transitions away from different types of autocracies since 1974. However, we also include some countries from the Middle East and Northern Africa, which are, at best, in an embryonic stage of liberalization. The concepts will be measured in the form of a scalogram. Two coders assign scores for 27 indicators measured on an annual basis. Thus, the data provides a comparative measure of the level of liberalization and consolidation each country has achieved at any point in time over the period 1974-2000. In addition to this, each country’s mode of transition can be identified. The major task of our paper consists in exploring this cross-sectional, time series data to reveal their ‘patterns’. Such an investigation will be mainly guided by the question of how the different aspects of the complex processes of liberalization and consolidation are related to each other over time and space. One main finding is that our data both on liberalization and consolidation has a one-dimensional structure. Based on this finding, we can create scales of liberalization and consolidation. We find that most countries from Central and Eastern Europe perform comparatively well. Not only do they reach the same high levels of liberalization and consolidation like the Southern European cases, but they also do so in a much shorter time span than Spain, Portugal, Greece, or any of the Latin American cases in the 70s and 80s [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European economic integration has been much more successful than European political integration. This paper argues that European political integration lacks good justifying arguments. More generally, the debate over the European project lacks a clear understanding of what constitutes a good justifying argument. This paper proposes a reasonable standard of justification that all arguments in support of political integration ought to be able to satisfy. On the basis of this theory of justification, the paper considers a number of different arguments in support of a European postsovereign polity. While most euro-enthusiasts favor postsovereignty over a European superstate, this paper argues that a European superstate lacks some of the more obvious failings of a postsovereign polity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature that has sought to explain the affects of the economy on voting is extensive. However, these findings are for the most part based on Western democratic models. Consequently, political scientists have failed to take advantage of the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to see if these models are robust. Given the changes over the past decade, this paper tests the extent to which extant theories can be used to explain election outcomes in this region of the world. In this particular study, Polish monthly public opinion data is utilized to determine more accurately whom the electorate holds accountable during periods of economic stress in semi-presidential systems?the president or the prime minister. The findings in this paper suggest that a strong determinant of electoral accountability and the allocation of blame are dependent upon whether the government is unified or divided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The superpowers' Cold War nuclear arsenals have been frequently mocked as "arsenals of folly" that greatly exceeded the requirements of deterrence. This paper instead demonstrates that the U.S. arsenal was principally driven by the political economy of U.S. military commitments to Europe. Ultimately the least bad option for the United States given constraints was to plausibly threaten nuclear first use, which in turn required plausible damage limitation by destroying Soviet nuclear forces. This paper demonstrates that this logic inexorably drove U.S. nuclear doctrine and posture, and in fact had the desired effect on the Soviet leadership of making nuclear first use seem plausible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do parties that do not fight for controlling government, that do not behave in a traditional government-opposition dynamic, that do not have the incentive of forming coalition differ from traditional parties? How do parties that cannot offer to carry on specific policies campaign for votes? I will address these questions in this paper. More specifically, I argue that the studies of legislative behavior at the EU level need to understand this new actor and the role of them in the new Europe to come. In this paper, I develop a theoretical model of the European level political party. I argue that this party presents completely different characteristics from the conventional definition of parties used in political science. The European parties develop a technocratic profile given the EU institutional setting. Furthermore, I posit that this has implications for the European parliament as a whole, who has already developed a more technocratic profile. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that traditional western political theory, because of its exclusive reliance on the western canon, is by definition a limited enterprise. A comparative perspective allows us to understand the nature and basis of a civilizational criterion against which the degree of civility and humanness of the Other is measured by different civilizations. Theoretical claims made in the paper are supported by references to several encounters between the west and its others with a special focus on European encounter with the New World. The absence of an Europe-like system of ideas among the Amerindians provides for a unique opportunity to see the role played by canonicity in the construction of Other and a re-evaluation of Self. The paper contributes to the broader argument in favor of comparative political theory as a new subfield of political theory in the west on the one hand, and serves as a critique of prevalent modes of political theorizing in the west on the other. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper takes the recent (summer 2008) intra-EU-European clash between Italy and Romania as a starting point for a critical analysis of the present state of a EU-European citizenship. The paper argues that the central problem of a EU-European citizenship, as evidenced in the clash, lies in the fissures between the construction of citizenship as a political identity associated with the protective functions of a nationally-framed "state" and "Europe" as a topos of a historical-cultural and normative identity claim. It relies in its analysis on the general literature on (EU-) citizenship and on Roma in Europe; Italian, Romanian and international news coverage; interviews with Romanian politicians, intellectuals, and a leading Roma activist as the summer events unfolded; materials provided by various national and transnational organizations. That the normative invocation of a common European identity at the moment appears less and less able to muster the force necessary to check the political allure of a return to the strong nationally-framed protective state is seen as part and parcel of the larger crisis of institutional reform that presently defines the EU-European project of regional integration. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to present a heuristically useful model to analyse the European political cooperation. It is observed that the convergence between the theoretical fields of European Studies and International Relations since the 1990's enabled a greater understanding of political integration not only in Europe. This progressive theoretical convergence in both fields allows the ontological generalization of premises to the development of an analytical model for the study of political integration. In this sense, by outlining a heuristically model to analyse the European political cooperation, this paper offers the first step to observe similarities and differences between political integration processes beyond Europe. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically assesses the concept “‘civilian’/’normative’ power” and intends to clarify what it entails from the perspective of the South Caucasus. This research aims to fill in the gap in the existing literature on the EU as a “‘civilian’/’normative’ power”, which a) provides a self-centered narrative and/or b) justifies that the EU is a normative power by referring to its functions. The paper argues that the narrative and the functions of the EU hardly help to evaluate the EU’s ‘civilianness’/‘normativity’. In the meantime, only by doing this can the difference between the EU and the US supposedly as a “‘non-civilian’ and ‘non-normative’ power” â€" as suggested by the academic literature - be sustained. Moreover, since the concept ‘power’ presupposes an agent-object relationship it cannot be understood if only conveyed through the EU’s internally-driven discourse and automatic mirroring of the latter in the academic literature. A policy-recipient perspective is needed to test whether, to what extent and in what way the EU is a “’civilian’/’normative’ power” as compared to the US. The South Caucasus serves as a case-study for this purpose. The paper suggests that the US can justly be called a “‘civilian’/’normative’ power” if looked at from the South Caucasus, even if its way of conducting policy is different from that of the EU. Nonetheless, provided the EU’s (potential) proximity to the South Caucasus and in case of unequivocal good-disposition of all the actors in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia towards the EU, the leverage of the Union will grow. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between individuals and States is usually described in univocal terms when it comes to the protection of human rights. The picture that is usually painted in this respect depicts rights as a means to protect the individual from the intrusion of the State. This paper tries to show that the supranationalisation and transnationalisation of human rights in Europe have transformed both the nature of human rights and the use that is made of them. It mainly aims to put judicial discourses and lawmaking in their political context and it explores how supranational and national actors (governments and their agents, judges, advocate generals, referendaires, law professors, NGO’s, etc.) strategically endeavour to defend their interests by invoking rights. Traditional figurations in which governments resist to the empire of highly institutionalised national and overlapping European regimes, which have allowed individuals and private groups to rise above the State are of course still commonplace. Yet, this contribution focuses on “another side” of human rights where supranational public and private actors have developed a dense web of fundamental norms with the, often explicit, aim to build a state at the EU level, whereas national governments have come to defend their interests by invoking human rights instruments in supranational courts.Drawing on in-depth interviews with European judges and other supranational judicial actors, as well as on a contextual qualitative analysis of the case law of European courts, the paper aims to provide insights into how “national sovereignties” are being “threatened” by supranational institutions and private actors that have specialised in the defence of human rights and how these actors aim to constitute a supranational polity through the instrumentalisation of human rights. In this vein, it will focus on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, on the role of this case law as a political agent for other European institutions and transnational networks of judicial epistemic communities. Whereas the European courts’ increasingly nested linkage has given rise to new forms of supranational judicial diplomacy between judicial actors of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European Court of Human Rights (ECourtHR) and national courts that goes beyond traditional understandings of adjudication - since it allows the courts to dominate national actors more efficiently - the paper then dwells on specific cases in which governments invoke human rights instruments like the European Convention of Human Rights in order to protect “their sovereignty”, i.e. to defend the State against the intrusion of European politics and to defend national citizenship by trying to limit, for example, the freedom of movement by invoking human rights. More generally, the paper will draw on socio-historic empirical data to explain how and why fundamental norms are being instrumentalised by all kinds of public and private actors and how rights are being transformed as they are shaped by them. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Western European countries differ according to the ways in which they organize local government, not least in the manner in which mayors are selected, in the mayors' statutory positions and responsibilities, and the institutional relations between the council and the mayor/executive board. The institutional arrangements have been modified in several countries. Focal question in the paper is whether the institutional reforms have resulted in a revitalization of local politics and democracy. A first measure to revitalize local politics is a separation of local political powers. In Germany, the UK, Italy, and the Netherlands powers of the council as the representation of the citizenry at the one hand, and the Mayor or the Executive Board at the other, have been separated. They now both have their more or less exclusive statutory powers, tasks and responsibilities, in some cases resulting from the introduction of directly elected mayors. Question then is, whether these policies lead to a revitalization of local politics. Secondly, in a number of Western European countries governments have introduced direct elections for the mayor's office. Despite differences between countries, in all cases the assumption is, that direct mayoral elections do make a difference and that directly elected mayors will appear to be strong leaders. Question, however is to what extent is mayoral performance affected by selection procedures and the statutory position of the mayoral office? The results of a number of comparative empirical studies will be presented in the paper. It will become clear that there are huge differences in mayoral performance. Several factors influencing that performance will be identified. The most important conclusion is that mayoral selection procedures and statutory positions do affect mayoral performance, although not as much as expected. Other factors are at stake. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the impact of external impulses on European democratization from 1830 to 1940. It distinguishes three types of diffusion, namely (1) the gradual spread of values and norms; (2) the diffusion of instrumental knowledge about the design of political institutions; and (3) the spread of situational judgments about the feasibility of initiating political change. The latter type of external impulse, derived from the attainment of substantial change in another polity, can produce dramatic waves of regime contention. But since the actual distribution of power in emulating countries often differs from the frontrunner, these conflicts produce various types of results. The paper discusses four types of outcomes of diffusion, namely (1) successful replication; (2) preemptive reform; (3) abortive replication; and (4) blockage of replication efforts. The latter two outcomes help explain why in European history, not only political liberalism and democracy diffused, but during certain time periods authoritarianism, corporatism, and fascism spread as well. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates about religious symbols in public places and the post-9/11 controversies about the compatibility of Islam and democracy within and beyond Europe indicate the coming of a major new conflict area in liberal democracies. This paper starts with the observation of an ongoing and in some respects increasing significance of religion in the politics of Western democracies and links it to processes of pluralization and globalization, which in turn are related to migration moves across the world. Based on a typology of nationality codes in 19 Western democracies, the paper asks what role religion, understood as confessional legacy, individual religiosity, institutional actors and Christian parties, play in shaping citizenship policies. It follows the "family of nations" concept in comparative policy research (Castles) and argues that the interplay of nation building, religious traditions and church-state-relations brings religion back into this highly secular policy domain. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]