Islam and Peacebuilding

The book Islam and Peacebuilding edited by John Esposito and Ihsan Yilmaz takes an intensive look at the positive aspects of the Gullen Movement in Turkey. Although Islam is usually associated with extremism and violence, the Gullen approach seems to be a useful method to employ in the Asian region. The movement has built hundreds of schools in Turkey and Central Asia. Part 1 of the book introduces the Gulen Movement. It dives into issues that concern the "Islamic World": secularism, the state, civil society, and most importantly democracy. The issues of contention come up right at the beginning. The second chapter of Part 1 addresses the resources Islam has for the achievement of peacebuilding and gives a brief outline of some of those achievmenets thus far. Part 2 of the book discusses the movement in terms of globalization: the effects it is having on the countries around us and even in the United States! Part 3 discusses the importance of theological and interfaith dialogue. The last chapter finishes off with peacebuilding and Global Action. What it means to be a global citizen and how the movement expands through this lens

All in all, I thought the book was great. There is a lot of leaning towards the movement that comes through because of the positive effects on the nation and outside. It also evaluates aspects of the movement that are non-political while giving an objective view of the areas that are. Although, it is less critical of the movement's movement into politics, it certainly points out some conflicting issues within the state. As a first book, it is a good introduction to the Movement and Gulen himself (much of what he has actually said is quoted and used to explain it in context.)

Summation of research on the Anglo-American health Care Policy

The Anglo-American welfare state--I have learned from researching for this seminar paper, and later writing it-- has traditionally provided aid to those in legimitate aid. It is the contention between the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor.' This is distinction that has been made since the Poor Laws of the Elizabethan era. It was thought that helping those who chose not to help themselves did not, but perpetuate idleness. Charity is best left in the hands of local authorities, or private institutions. The United States and the United Kingdom, in regards to welfare, have operated historically on the aforementioned premises.

However, the US and the UK diverge radically on health care policy. The US-- thanks in part to federalism as well the conflict between limited and positive government--is not able to construct one national policy. At best, the American people have an organizational patchwork to rely upon for health care. Working men and women can access health care through job-related benefits, e.g. health care. The elderly, the unemployed, the under aged, the disable, and those that simply cannot provide for themselves are serviced by Medicare and Medicaid. American servicemen and women are covered by the Veteran's Health Administration. Health care is, ultimately, a private enterprise in the United States. The repeated calls for reform have often falled on deaf eyes because of the fear of a big, all powerful government; an almost paradoxically fear as Americans since the Great Depression have turned to government when societal woes and calamities needed redress.

The UK--thanks to unitary statism--possesses a national health policy. The retention of power in the center, has allowed the British government historically to implement welfare policy, especially in the past century. A change in popular mentality was needed to endear Britons to universal health care. 'Social citizenship' was the underpinning of one government commission which called for an expansion of the British welfare state. Government ought to yield a benevolent hand in ensuring that all its stakeholders have the means to provide a minimum standard of living for themselves and their dependents, in addition, the government must respect their stakeholders when they find other ways to improve their lot in life. The National Health Service finds its origin in social citizenship. All Britons--through general taxation and national health insurance--have access to quality health care.

There is a divergence between the US and the UK on the matter of health care. While Americans will argue that all ought to have access to quality medicine, whether government is the solution or the problem halts any consensus on a the matter. Britons on the other hand have come to believe health care should not be tied to one's ability to pay for it, but one's need or right to it. Health care in the greater context of the Anglo-American welfare state is the exception rather than the norm.

Reflection on My Seminar Paper--the Anglo-American welfare state and health care

Professor Cocozzelli, at the beginning of the semester, told me that the welfare state is a very broad topic to approach. All I knew then was that I wanted to write about the welfare state and its implications. I figured I could do a history and analysis of the three welfare state models--Anglo-American, corporatist, and social democratic--, enough to write a twenty page thesis. The good professor instructed to me to narrow down my topic, what in particular about the welfare state did I what to cover, and furthermore in the context of comparative politics.

I toyed with various other topics as the semester progressed, doing so in light of what I was doing in my other politics courses. At one point, I considered writing a paper exclusively on the Japanese welfare state and the challenges it faced with a declining population. It was not too far off from working I was doing in the Gov't and Politics of the Far East course I took with Professor Metzler. I avoided that topic because it struck as a monster of project to tackle, and frankly I did not know where to begin.

Ultimately, I chose to work with the health care policy of the Anglo-American welfare state. I understood that the Anglo-American welfare state--thanks to a project in Gov't and Politics of Western Europe--is the least generous of all the welfare models. I had the preconceived notion that rightfully so the welfare systems of the US and the UK were restrictive. Government should only provide to those who have demonstrated a great need. Universal health care, I thought, would be something rejected by both Britons and Americans. Not so, as Britons have a national health care system. Thus, in explaining the health care policy of the Anglo-American model I would have to explain the differing political cultures and institutions that divide the US from the UK.

Review of Health Care and Reform in Industrialized Countries

Health Care and Reform in Industrialized Countries, edited by Marshall W. Raffel, is another reader for anyone interested in health care policy. Raffel did not write the entirety of the book; rather, the book is a collection of essays written by different economists, political theorists, and public health offiicials. Each author covered a particular industrized nation--the book covers much of the West, including Australia, Japan, and New Zealand--and its health care policies and infrastructure. Each section covers a nation's political system, medical practice, health costs, and the like. Thus, the book provides one with the opprotunity to compare and contrast the systems of any two countries listed in the book.

Peter R. Hatcher, a senior hospital manager from Canada, wrote the text concerning the UK's National Health Service (NHS). He described. rather briefly, how England's unitary state permitted the establishment of government-funded health care. The aforementioned, the author contended, has been a near impossibility in the United States because of the sharing of power between federal and local authorities , as well as the division of power between the executive and legislative branches.

The NHS, Hatcher wrote, is funded by the central government from general tax revenue, as well as contribution to a national health insurance plan. This arrangement came about after the release of the 1942 Beveridge Report which advocated "a comprehensive, universally avaliable, publicly financed system of health care to improve the living standards of the population." The National Health Service Act of 1948 made the aforementioned a reality. Britons enjoy a system in which many services are provided 'free at the point of use.' Additional services, if needed, are provided at little to no cost to the stakeholder. This arrangement is guaranteed thanks in part that many hospitals and their doctors are operated and paid by the NHS, thus keeping medical costs down. In addition, English law requires that NHS avoid deficts whenever possible. General practicioners and medical specialists, though not employed by the NHS, the government set terms through contracts. There has been a tendency in British health care to provide long term care in either stakeholders' home or in nursing homes.

The NHS, in Hatcher's estimation, is not a matter of the government extending its hand to those in need, but rather the government ensuring what is a societal right, the access to quality and affordable health care.

Overall, Raffel's text, in this writer's opinion, is a must-read resource if one wants to educate themselves or have a better understanding of health care benefits throughout the industrialized world.

Review of "Health Cate Politics and Policy in America"

Health Care Politics and Policy in America, written by Kant Patel and Mark E. Rushefsky is a lengthy tome. Nonetheless, it is a must read for any one wanting to learn about the American health care system. The two authors wrote in 1999 predating President Obama's recent reform initiative. However, they chart the development of health care as Americans know it today. It is in eleven chapters--and some three hundred pages--that the two authors chart American health care, beginning in an overview of governmental health care policy.

They described the situation in the nineteenth century how limited government--on the federal level--- prevailed and that the public turned to local and state authorities, as well charitable organizations to ensure access to health care. The medical profession suffered in this environment as they were no set standards in educating doctors and pharmacists, and they were compensation for their services were sparse. In addition, medical infrastructure--hospital and clinics--were numerous in and around metropolitan areas, but few and far between in rural areas. Limited government gave way to positive government as Americans demanded that Washington intervene in the crisis of the Great Depression. FDR originally proposed a national health insurance program, but it fell to the wayside lest it jeopardize the entirety of his New Deal initiatives.

In lieu of national health insurance, the federal government encouraged state and local authorities to build hospitals and expand health coverage. Federalism, the authors contended, as well as reliance on the private sector, have thwarted definitive national solutions to health care. Medicare and Medicaid only provide health coverage for a fraction of society, while private workplace based benefits cover a majority. Unfortunately, there is a sizable segment of society that has slipped through the metaphorical cracks.

Katel and Rushefsky, in their text, also discuss the shortcomings of American health care. The rising cost of health care has forced the federal and state government to curtail Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Medical malpractice, and the ensuring litigation, have also made the practice of medicine very expensive. Medicare and Medicaid, in the opinion of the authors, have shifted from an entitlement of need to the entitlement of the middle class. Again, reforms to health care have fallen on deaf ears as as American stakeholders fear that an overhaul will disadvantage many.

If one wants to educate themselves on the development of American health care policy, then Patel and Rushefsky's text would be a great starting point.

A Summary of my research about corruption and Mexico

There were about six or seven articles that proved to be priceless in writing, better understanding and shaping my topic. Certain resources defining corruption, democratization in Mexico, detailing the history and violence were my vital documents in writing this paper.

My documents that assisted me in understand the scope of corruption in Mexico were J. Bailey's 2006 article, Corruption and Democratic Governability in Latin America: Issues of Types, Arenas, Perceptions and Linkages, Botello and Lopez-Rivera's study, "Everything in This Job is Money": Inside the Mexican Police Force, L.E Nagle's article, "Corruption of politicians, law enforcement and the judiciary in Mexico complicity across the border" and J.S. Nye's, Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Nye and Bailey assisted in my understanding of corruption. Notably Bailey provided an in depth analysis into different types of corruption and its causes. Botello and Lopez-Rivera and L.E Nagle provided information on the depth of corruption in certain public institutions in Mexico and the mentality of corruption in the Mexican society. Notably, Nagle's article provided a comparative and theoretical understand of corruption in three different spheres that without which, my paper and thesis would have suffered greatly. Nagle's article allowed me to understand the structural issue of corruption in various Mexican institutions.

In terms to the democratization and violence and centralizing of power in Mexico, again Nagel's article assisted in my understanding of this approach through clearly defining the issue of corruption and the history of PRI. However, S. O'Neil's article, " The Real War in Mexico," emphasised the importance of democratization of Mexico in combating the structure that the cartels have thrived under. Finally, M.G. Manwaring's article, " A Contemporary Challenge to State Sovereignty: Gangs and Other Illicit Transnational Criminal Organization in Central America, El Salvador, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil," provided an in depth and comparative analysis of the history, violence, corruption and threats to democracy and stability that the cartels and corruption have in Mexico.

Through my research, my understanding of the issue of corruption has greatly increased as well as the importance that democracy plays in this issue. Additionally, I had the perception that prior to President Calderon, there were very little efforts to combat the cartels. This is not true. Even more so, the way in which the cartels were combated against in the past proved to be ineffective and yet, those violent measures that were previously attempted are still being executed by Calderon. My research has showed me that the issue of the cartels to some degree, lies in part with the structure of corruption and history of public institutions in Mexico. This is where I reason, that only through changing the structure that has made corruption so permissible, can there be a possibility of eliminating it and checking the power of the cartels. I argue that through democratization and centralization of this democratic power, the structure is potentially able to change and combat corruption and cartels.

Mexico Seeks to Unify Police to Fight Drugs

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/world/americas/02mexico.html

This article simply discusses how Calderon is seeking to unify the police force. The significance of this article for my research is that this a major move of Calderon to centralize power away from the localities in order to combat corruption that many feel has institutionalized among the local police force.

Wolff on the economic crisis

Rick Wolff is one of the predominant analysts on the current financial crisis and is a Marxist Economist. I have personally met Wolff on a number of occasions and seen him speak in many venues. I thought some of you might appreciate this and I will post the link to his site which has much more content:
http://www.rdwolff.com/
The Fed and the Great Recession That Won't Go Away
Related Terms :

by Richard Wolff.Published on November 8, 2010
In the shadow cast by mass media coverage of elections in which under 40 % of eligible citizens voted, the Federal Reserve recognized what the candidates could or would not. The capitalist crisis is still upon us, shows few signs of fading soon, and provides strong hints that it might get worse. So despite record cash on banks’ and non-financial corporations’ balance sheets, the Federal Reserve decided to buy another $600 billion worth of Treasury bonds in the open market. Once again the hope is that this extra printed cash distributed to those willing to sell Treasury Bonds will not end up merely adding to their existing cash hoards. This time, so the story goes, it may end up being lent to business and individuals who will spend the money and thereby goose the economy out of deep recession.

One Concept Slavoj Zizek Missed

I finally had the opportunity to listen to the youtube video and consume the information. I agree with many of Zizek's assertions and his reasoning is quite sound. I do think that the large catastrophic issues that we face as a species must be dealt with in the next century. It is merely not a question of whether or not we should address them; we are being forced and compelled to address them because they are unavoidable. No longer may we simply ignore all of these pressing issues.
One "hole" in the capitalist ideology stands out in my opinion. Zizek, I believe, would agree with me. There are two fundamental assumptions that are essential to the capitalist economic system's functioning and our understanding of the way that markets operate:

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

I left two comments in response to Prof. Cocozzelli's post of the Riz Khan interview. In my comments I introduced my belief in Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development.

The following is a short video from youtube about the benefits of these ideas.

The Questions I pose for discussion are:

Are these idea's realistically employable?

Can a change in corporate behavior change the values of society?

Can a change in corporate behavior help government and society "save the environment"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdkYieDuVvY

Riz Khan - Are we living in the end times?

This is an interview with the philosopher and social critic Slavoj Zizek. It's kind of a fun discussion, and pretty perceptive at times.

PUBLIC POLICY - THE ISSUE OF IMPLEMENTATION

What is public policy?

"Policy," of course, is a term with a rich variety of definitions and nuanced elaborations. We continue with the Laswell and Kaplan (1950: 71) usage, where policy is a "projected program of goal values and practices," because this formulation includes both the initial aims and supplementary procedures. Public policies are thus rules for action which directly or indirectly affect the whole population of a country and which usually are established by statutory authorities. As the comparative study of subnational program implementation has demonstrated, public policies are continuously reinterpreted and modified, simplified, and/or restricted at successive levels of government (Altenstetter and Bj6rkman, 1978). New rules for actions may supersede or coexist with old be- havioral parameters; new goals may emerge from a change in value perspectives. In addition, changes in public policy at one level of government influence per- formance at other levels.

Iranian Revolution and the Battle of Ideals

I have spent a large portion of the month of October on gathering, reading, and analyzing scholarly articles on the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I have finally developed a thesis for the paper and I now feel much more comfortable when I write. I have decided to first analyze the many different socioeconomic groups that were active participants in the Iranian revolution. My thesis asserts that the revolution itself was a revolution to abolish the institution of the monarchy. However, as the revolution progressed some of the most active participants and most enthusiastic revolutionaries, the bazaaris, were forced to organize in and around mosques for security reasons. Of course, other groups like the industrial working class and white-collar state employees also mobilized but did not seek shelter in the mosques like the merchant classes. Instead, revolutionary leaders like Khomeini sought to rhetorically attack the state as both employer and repressive institution. Much of the revolutionary upsurge that came from merchant and industrial working classes was a result of the shah's economic policies that ravaged the Iranian economy in the late '70s. These groups did not demand the establishment of an Islamic republic, but an end to the economic policies that had led to economic depression and the state's repressive implementation of policy.

New, (and hopefully last) directional change

I knew from the beginning that I wanted to do a paper on Venezuela. I originally started out attempting to prove change through advancing democracy and participatory institutions but I found this hard to research. Furthermore after having broken it down into the political, economic, and social spheres and looking back at my sources I realized I was pretty much rewriting one of my sources that I had been citing heavily, OOPS!

Brubaker [ch. 2/3/5]

In ch. 2 of Brubaker's "Nationalism Reframed", he discusses the structure of Soviet Russia through an institutionalist perspective. He does this namely through analyzing how "nationhood and nationality" were institutionalized via territorial/political means along with ethnocultural/personal maneuvers. From the onset, one can easily see a common trait among most if not all Communist/Dictatorial regimes - namely gathering a large number of people around a common identity - in this case, Soviets, speaking the Russian language. Without this common identity, it is near if not definitely impossible to unite people under a single rule of law.

Brubaker attributes Soviet Russia's downfall to inherent issues such as a displacement of ethnic groups throughout the entire Soviet empire - Russian and non-Russian alike. Also in part, Soviet Russia had a constitution that provided for a representative government from the various ethnic groups represented within its empire. As democratic as this might appear, the Communist regime (more often than not) ended up having the final say. As such, the elected representatives of these ethnic groups became the figureheads for individual ethnic secessions from the Soviet empire.

Review of "Origins and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Ann M. Lesch and Dan Tschirgi

The Arab-Israeli Conflict

The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss, and analyze the book "Origins and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Ann M. Lesch and Dan Tschirgi. This book, one of a series of historical examinations, covers the reasons the Arab-Israeli Conflict began and kept escalating. It contains a variety of essays and historical discussions from several well-respected historians and experts. In fact, a panel of expert advisors oversees production of each book in the series to ensure quality and objectivity.
Throughout this book, the editors and authors attempt to get at the root of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, discuss internal and external factors in the conflict, and some ideological and realistic differences between the two opponents. This book presents an historical overview of events that all combined to lead up to the conflict. These events actually began centuries ago when Muslim Arabs moved into the area and created powerful empires that soon began to rule the Middle East and other areas of the world. It also shows how Europe entered the picture in the 18th century and indicates a gradual decline in the power of the Arab empires. The authors maintain that European intervention provoked the Muslim world in the late 1700s, and they have established a long-standing tradition of fighting to hold on to their land and their way of life. This has led to almost steady conflict in the region throughout modern history. The authors also establish why events of the Middle East have dominated world news for over 50 years. Truly, the conflict began eons ago, but escalated after World War II when Israel was created out of Palestinian territory. Some people call this entire disagreement over land and who belongs where the Middle East Conflict. No matter what it is called, it is clearly a contentious issue that has created a new world order of sorts.

Brubaker Chapters 2,3 5

Brubaker discusses how nationalism has been both the cause and effect of the great reorganization of political boundaries in Europe and how in less than a hundred years the changes that took place in such continent almost gave nationalism a new definition. In the introduction, Brubaker gives the reader some background information regarding the “Single European Act” proposed in 1992, where Europe wanted to dissolve national frontiers within and create some sort of a super nation where citizens and goods would be able to move freely. Although the project didn’t work, in a way it served as a possible blueprint for a similar national movement. Brubaker argues that “…nationalism should be understood without invoking nations as substantial entities… we should focus on nationhood and nationness, on “nation” as a practical category…” (Brubaker, Pg 7, 1996).
Chapter two uses the Soviet Union and its successor state as a unique example where Brubaker argues that nationhood and nationality and even ethno cultural nationality played an important role in the Russian society. The Soviet regime transmitted a set of expectations where members from different races and cultural groups were expected to feel a sense of belonging even though many people living under the Soviet government were not citizens or even ethnically Russians. Brubaker argues that those factors will probably cause an “explosive” ethno national conflict. Chapter three and five creates a link between the Soviet Union and post-communist Europe how small newly created nations and ethnic groups try to find their way and create a new national homeland. Brubaker also compares and contrast Weimar Germany and post Soviet Russian and how the loss of territory, weak democratic political structure and economy affected deeply ethnic groups and the nations surrounding both countries.

Review of "A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East"

One book I have been reading is titled A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East and written by Lawrence Freedman. The entire book is not about Iran or subjects concerning Iran. However, chapter 4 is titled "Revolution in Iran" and that is the chapter I have focused on thus far. My paper will attempt to analyze the Iranian Islamic Revolution and how clerics managed to seize power through revolutionary upheaval. The subsequent fusion of Iranian state law with Muslim Sharia law in the aftermath of the revolution will also be analyzed. The chapter offers one exampl of analysis concerning the revolution and Khoemeini’s role in securing clerical dominance during the post-revolutionary period.

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Chapter 6 and 7

In this chapter Moore discusses the path to Indian democracy and how in hindsight achieving this democracy was very unlikely. During the Mogul and British rule in India the central government was largely superfluous and the local level of village community was the framework for all social activity. The presence of caste systems in society hindered any change through innovation and opposition by the creation of new sub castes hence any sort of opposition was very unlikely to emerge into a rebellion, as was the case in China. “Caste served, and still serves, to organize the life of the village community, the basic cell of Indian society and the fundamental unit into which it tended to disintegrate wherever a strong ruler was lacking” (Moore; pg 317)

The political and social system of the Mogul Era was agrarian bureaucracy, which weakened in the eighteenth century. One of the main reasons for the late growth of parliamentary democracy was due to the weakness of he national aristocracy.

Iran's Leader and the Importance of Clerics

An article published on October 21, 2010, was relevant to my research paper so I decided to post it tonight. My paper asserts that Shi'ite clerics possess an ability to dominate the political process in Iran. This article clearly portrays how Shi'ite clerics are essential to the stability and legitimacy of the Iranian post-revolutionary government. In many ways, Iran's present constitutional provisions guarantee that the nation will remain Shi'ite for quite some time. In way may seem very nostalgic, Iranian revolutionary leaders decided to continue the "Islamic Revolution" that succeeded in toppling the Shah's government in 1979 by establishing what is effectively a modern day theocracy. Shi'ism, which is the dominant Muslim sect in the country, is afforded special status in the constitution itself. This article gives credence to my claim that political leaders must ally themselves with Shi'ite clerics to exercise political power. In fact, the entire government may need clerical support to maintain its fragile hold on legitimacy within the nation. The article shows Khamenei in his recent efforts to end intra-government and clerical factionalism over the re-election of Ahmadinejad in 2008. He stressed the need to exude national unity in the face of foreign threats. This inherent fear of "foreign manipulation" is also part of my paper. Due to cultural factors and the history of the Iranian culture, contemporary Iranian leaders are able to galvanize support for the government and maintain legitimacy through both advertising the possibility of threats from foreign governments and receiving open support from Muslim clerics. I have included two links: one to the original article and one to Khamenei's personal website.



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69K32Z20101021



http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1372&Itemid=2

Interesting pieces in today's New York Times

Of course there are always articles in the Times that are relevant to comparative politics, but there are two news pieces and an opinion piece that really jumped out at me today. One is on US moves to build an agreement on trade balances, the second is on the Greek economy, and the opinion piece is Krugman's take on the British austerity budget.

Enclosure of the Commons?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1861145,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7737643.stm

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy; Chapter Seven and Part III

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy is a very useful text in comparative government and politics. Its author, Barrington Moore, Jr, takes very serious the question why some modern nation-states---namely the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, China, and India---have become flourishing democracies, or brutal dictatorships. In Chapter 7 of his text, Moore chronicles the history of Indian politics, from as far back as the Mogul occupation through British colonialism to the present day. It is seemingly miraculous, in the author's opinion, that modern India is a functional parliamentary democracy. Moore explained his conviction when he wrote:

"If imperfect, the democracy was no sham. There had been a working parliamentary system since Independence in 1947, an independent judiciary, and the standard liberal freedoms...There is a paradox here...Political democracy may seem strange in both an Asian setting and one without an industrial revolution."

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: France, Chapter 2

In this Chapter, Moore is quick to contrast English and French politics pre-democratic era. The French Nobility lived off the peasants in France- they where reliant on the dues collected as opposed to being reliant on noble land like in England. They capitalized on the labor of the peasants and not their LAND. Their main source of income came from peasant dues and not from selling produce. The noble response to commercial agricultrle was also quie weak. The wine trade was internal and everyone produced itall over the country. It was not a resourceful commodity. In addition, their was a preexisting prejeduice that revolved around making money off the farm- royal power did not want nobility to challenge it by creating an independent economic base. To royal delight, landowners kept trying to extract more and more money from peasants. As long as they produced an income, they were usefull to noblemen.

The important thing is, that the fusion between countryside and town was taking place through the crown, not against it which would reap differnt political and ecnomic consequences from England. The main problem was that ecnomic changes that were taking place in France did not move AWAY from feudalism . Also, the sale of offices kept the kind independent from the aristocracy. Agrarian problems persisted but the French monarchy was strongly opposed to modernization- if internal barriers and the legal system would modernize, many things such as the sales of offices and other modes of corruption would have to end. In order for measureable change to exist, a violent end to the old regime would have to take place for a smooth road to democracy to move in. The radicalism that pervaded peasant and bourgeuoise classes was the main reason behind the long time it took to shape a new capatlist democractic system

FROM IMPUNITY TO ACCOUNTABILITY: AFRICA’S DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Center for Public Scholarship presents the 22nd Social Research conference
Thursday and Friday, November 18-19, 2010

I noticed a flier at my internship and I thought it might be handy for anyone who is researching issues in Africa or is simply interested in this topic.

Here's the link: http://www.newschool.edu/centers/socres/africa/

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Preface, Chapter 1 & 2

Preface:

Barrington Moore combines outlines of how he will discuss the numerous political roles played by the upper classes and the peasantry in the process of changing from an agrarian society to that of a modern industrial one. Specifically, he will does so by analyzing the historic conditions that permitted these countries to go in the direction that they ultimately did. Moore frames his analysis into two parts. In Part I, he discusses the route to democracy and capitalism for three different case (England, France, United States). Conversely, Part II covers communism (China), fascism(Japan) and the Asiatic version of democracy(India). Through these cases, Moore will demonstrate the similarities and clear differences in a comparative sense. Notably, his study will concentrate on certain stages in a gradual/ prolonged social process that has worked itself out in many countries.

Barrington Moore: Preface, Chapter 1, Chapter 2

Barrington Moore’s work is detail oriented with broad themes. As I believe several people will be writing about this topic I will try to avoid repetitive details as much as possible. Moore writes his work seeking to “understand the role of the landed upper classes and the peasants in the bourgeois revolutions leading to capitalist democracy, the abortive bourgeois revolutions leading to fascism, and the peasant revolutions leading to communism” In his preface Moore outlines what his work will consist of. He seeks to prove that social structure determines what path a nation travels. For examples, he uses Britain, France and the United States as capitalist democracies, Japan as a fascist dictatorship, and China as a communist regime. The first two chapters detail the experience of Britain and France. Moore attempts to show that even though France and Britain have similar democratic capitalist systems in place, they arrived to the same location via incredibly different paths.

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: PREFACE AND CHAPTER 1

Hello class,

I am assigned Preface, Chapter 1 AND 2. Reviews for the preface and Chapter 1 would have to do for now being that I did not get through Chapter 2.

Preface.

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy by Barrington Moore describes the relationship between the upper class and the peasantry in the transformation from an agrarian to industrial society. He illustrates the important stages that took place in a social process that worked it self out in several countries. He describes the innovations that lead to political power, through violence or other ways in countries that have or had political power in a global context. Part I of the text analyzes the democratic route of France, England, and the U.S. He identifies three historical routes that lead to preindustrial to modern world. (1) Bourgeois revolutions are those that have a group in society with an independent economic base which "attack obstacles to a democratic version of capitalism that has been inherited from the past". This means that in countries where historical circumstances have been an obstacle to democracy have an upper class with economic means who try and successfully alter it. (2) the Capitalist and Reactionary Form have weak industrial and commercial classes that rely on older and dominant ruling classes to put together political and economic changes necessary for modern industrialization to take place. The outcome is usually a brief period of democracy followed by fascism. (3) the last is communism which asserts that an agrarian bureaucracy inhibits commercial and industrial change. The urban classes are far to weak to modernize and a huge peasantry remains. India does not fall into any of the categories outlined. Addressed is the issue of how the upper class and peasants reacted to the challenge of commercial agriculture and how that determined political outcomes.

NOTE: COMMON and words like common fields and common cultivation refer to a piece of open land for public use. You will see it a lot in the discussion below and its worth clarifying since I didn't know what a "common" was as I was doing the reading, until it was so overwhelmingly obvious that I should look it up.

Part One: Revolutionary Origins of Capitalist Democracy

Chapter 1: England and Contributions of Violence to Gradualism

Before the English Civil War, a few changes that were taking place a few centuries back emphasized the increasing importance of commerce and a push away from feudal order was taking place o the countryside and in the towns. Commercial life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were mainly in opposition to the crown. The Tudor Dynasty, by consolidating royal power pushed landowners towards commercial agriculture alongside the growing importance of the wool trade. Changing views about economic action and agriculture became increasingly important. People began to view agrarian problems as a way of investing capital as opposed to the best method to supporting people. Enclosures, which encroached upon the rights given to the population of people working on the manor, established "legal and semi legal ways to deprive peasants of rights." Another group with a strong influence of English political life during this time were to yeomen who owned small plots of land. They were small very aggressive capitalists who used enclosure through mutual agreements with peasants or by eating away at big landowner's commons and fields. They promoted agrarian capitalism along with the landed upper class. Meanwhile, the peasantry large and powerless as it must have been, were not in favor of capitalist changes. They had cooperative and coordinated interests in commons and did not like new techniques that would hurt the way they lived under the old system. Modern and social change where in the hands of men of commerce in the countryside and towns. These innovators with new economic ideas in mind where directly opposed to the royal monopolies that sought to protect peasants from eviction by enclosure. The clash between royal policy and those commercially minded and financially able led to Civil Wat that overcame divine policy and promoted production of use that was individually profitable. Opposed to the idea that aristocratic landowners destroyed the peasantry, Moore emphasizes that enclosure destroyed the structure of the English peasantry in traditional villages. Parliamentary control over the processes of enclosure after the civil war was now open and democratic. The increase in size of farms with new agrarian techniques in mind yield higher profits at lower costs of larger units. Older methods, where common cultivation was important (especially for peasants), slowly became less applicable to the new situation. In this way, landowners where pushing away peasants to pave the way for new agrarian methods. The rural capitalists had two important actors: the big land owner, who dealt with the legal and political aspect and the large tenant farmer who made the economic contribution. Consolidation of holdings, enclosure, and replacement of leases for years where important policies that emphasize the affects of making away commons. By doing it legally, cottagers and peasants were stripped from the opportunity to make a living the way they were used to while being given NO alternative. As commons disappeared and new economic systems based on money came about, old peasant life disintegrated. The most important effect of enclosure is that it strengthened the land owners and hurt the peasantry as to remove them from English political life.

The violence that took place in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries happened in two ways and prepared the nineteenth century for peacefulness: it was open and revolutionary (the Civil War) and concealed and legal (enclosure and other policies that hurt the peasantry). The strength of Parliament lies in the economic values and actions that took place before the war. The landed upper class where important political actors that advanced for commercial and industrial capitalism. The destruction of the peasantry as brutal as it was contributed to a peaceful democratic transition. A political order and modern state that was rationalized before made it possibile for England to play a significant role in industrialization globally. The nobility and gentry maintained tremendous political power on local and national levels. Englands progress towards democracy is essentially a result of the violence that led to a strong independent Parliament and commercial and industrial interests that did not see peasants as a serious problem. The landed upper class could transition simply because the economic position could be moved from base to base without much difficulty. It eroded slowly and they were still able to maintain political power even as transition was taking place.

ALLAN ON CHAP. 10, 12, 14

The three authors, McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly begin their paper by stating that most of the field work in regard to Contentious Politics was focused on social movements of the North, revolutions, civil wars and terrorism, and politics of post authoritarian revolutions. Before they begin to state their position on the matter of Contentious Politics, they clearly state that the field has been tremendous paradigms. Many in the field have turned “culturalist” from structuralist and others have turned to rational-choice. But the authors clearly state that they encourage crossing different disciplines and using many different variables like history, geography, culture, structure of institutions, etc… The authors define the different properties of Contentious Politics. These properties are interactions, claims, and governments. Different persons or groups of persons (organizations) are connected together by their claims for different resources, values, powers, etc… in society. These claimants are non-state actors. Contentious Politics usually interacts with other non contentious political processes such as routine public administration, organization of elections, military conscription, tax collection, etc… Governments are supposed to provide balance between the competing persons in society. Governments use the power of coercion to intervene in contention among non-state actors.

CHAPTER 14

The chapter begins by reviewing the work of some of the first to research the modern welfare state such as Adolph Wagner and Gusta Schmoller who hypothesized that social spending will increase with income. Others attributed the particular development of a nation’s welfare policies to its labor market and level of industrialization. I agree particularly with Karl Polanyi’s assessment that society or regimes protect themselves by adopting some form of social insurance to secure their labor force, keep loyal party patrons, and maintain stability. Polanyi found similarities in the responses to the turbulent effects of late 19^th century capitalism (such as external competition, price variation, ect.) between Victorian England and the Prussia of Bismark. The expansion of suffrage also had a great effect on the pace and scope of the development of the welfare state. States primarily sought to keep peasants in the country side with their early social programs, yet later developed programs to both subdue and patronize the peasantry.

Pehlman on Zuckerman & Lichbach 10, 12 and 14

Chapters 10, 12, and 14

Chapter 10 is an explanation of the perimeters of what is studied within contentious politics and a brief history of the evolution of the discipline. The authors attribute the origin of the study of contentious politics to be of a ‘dominant structuralist tradition’ yet they explain how the discipline has evolved to include more paradigms and explanations of contentious politics.

Another crucial adaptation in the development of examining contentious politics has been the broadness of issues that is has grown to study and compare. While the discipline was first interested in reformist social movements (such as the counter culture and anti-war movements of the 1960’s) it now includes phenomena as seemingly diverse as terrorism, insurgencies, ethnic conflict and union strike activity.

Kim Comments on Chapter 10, 12, 14

Chapter 10

In this exerpt the writers bring up the conversation upon comparative perspectives on Contentious Politics. From the beginning, the writers state that this topic of discussion is "fragmented, disconnected, and contentious." I was able to realize that throughout the chapter, for the writers bring up many different theories and approaches within this subject, but also gives a dispute upon why a specific approach is not entirely valid enough to be the best way to study this subject. This is for, there is a variety of forms of contentious actions across the board, and also, a certain contentious act that may be similar in nature with another state has different variables in which makes each contentious act individually specific.

Comments on Chapters 4-5 in Zuckerman and Lichbach

Ira Katznelson sufficiently explains the purpose of his essay by claiming it is an "admiration, concern, and exhortation" of contemporary historical institutionalism. Mr. Katznelson certainly does admire the boundaries that contemporary comparativists have transcended in their studies and the way in which methodologies and paradigms have been fused together to produce better analytical studies. He also praises the new literature in comparative politics for moving beyond a battle of methodologies towards an increased effort in "identifying and probing a range of challenging issues". His praise recognizes the potential in contemporary comparative politics to utilize the newly developed pluralism in the particular field of institutional analysis. Indeed, he concludes his work by stating that no one subject can suffice, and making the striking claim that no mode of analysis can be self-sufficient.

Comments on Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman's Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, 2nd Edition 2009 (Cambridge University Press)

(The following was originally posted by Alina Nudelman on the Blackboard site. - Prof. Cocozzelli)

Chapter 1

Zuckerman argues in this chapter that there are many different areas of politics and it is a very broad topic so explanations in comparative politics must be clear on every level (pg. 1). for him explanations and arguments need to be based on acts and proof not just statistics. I think that since politics is so broad sometimes the mere inclusion of facts does not mean that it proves anything because more than likely you will find facts arguing against the initial statement as well. I think that Zuckerman would agree that facts and numbers can be find to support an argument and dismiss it just the same, it is the specifics that make the difference.

In order to understand comparative politics, it is not enough to stick to one way of understanding or researching it. Some use field research, others tend to use a more cultural, rational way of looking at issues such as globalization and politics and violence. Politics takes you to different places all the time, “Changes in the 'real world' of contentious politics have forced scholars to broaden their attention from social movements in Europe and the United States to newer, more wide-ranging, and more violent forms of conflict” (pg. 8, par. 4)

Welcome to the GOV 4993 Senior Seminar in Comparative Politics Blog

This is the blog of St. John's University Senior Seminar in Comparative Government and Politics. The Seminar is the capstone course for graduating seniors majoring in Government and Politics at St. John's. On the blog the seminar participants will be discussing their perspective on comparative politics as a subfield in political science, the particular research projects they are engaged in for the semester, and their work in small groups addressing overlapping topics in the subfield. Additionally, the participants will discuss contemporary politics and political science. Along with that, you'll find the occasional book review and review essay. 

So thanks for visiting the blog, we hope it proves to be an interesting and worthwhile forum.