The events of recent years have demonstrated beyond doubt not only that ethnic pluralism presents major problems for the management of political systems, but that it is also a major cause of their failure and disintegration. This timely and topical book discusses the general issue of ethnic pluralism and considers a range of types of multi-ethnic society within a common analytical framework. It then examines the responses of governments to the problems of ethnic diversity and assesses the effects of ethnic conflict on the development and viability of states.
Territorial pluralism is a form of political autonomy designed to accommodate national, ethnic, or linguistic differences within a state. It has the potential to provide for the peaceful, democratic, and just management of difference. But given traditional concerns about state sovereignty, nation-building, and unity, how realistic is it to expect that a state’s authorities will agree to recognize and empower distinct substate communities? Territorial Pluralism answers this question by examining a wide variety of cases, including developing and industrialized states and democratic and authoritarian regimes. Drawing on examples of both success and failure, contributors analyze specific cases to understand the kinds of institutions that emerge in response to demands for territorial pluralism, as well as their political effects. With identity conflicts continuing to have a major impact on politics around the globe, they argue that territorial pluralism remains a legitimate and effective means for managing difference in multinational states.
What makes a country attractive to foreign investors? To what extent do conditions of governance and politics matter? This book provides the most systematic exploration to date of these crucial questions at the nexus of politics and economics. Using quantitative data and interviews with investment promotion agencies, investment location consultants, political risk insurers, and decision makers at multinational corporations, Nathan Jensen arrives at a surprising conclusion: Countries may be competing for international capital, but government fiscal policy--both taxation and spending--has little impact on multinationals' investment decisions. Although government policy has a limited ability to determine patterns of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, political institutions are central to explaining why some countries are more successful in attracting international capital. First, democratic institutions lower political risks for multinational corporations. Indeed, they lead to massive amounts of foreign direct investment. Second, politically federal institutions, in contrast to fiscally federal institutions, lower political risks for multinationals and allow host countries to attract higher levels of FDI inflows. Third, the International Monetary Fund, often cited as a catalyst for promoting foreign investment, actually deters multinationals from investment in countries under IMF programs. Even after controlling for the factors that lead countries to seek IMF support, IMF agreements are associated with much lower levels of FDI inflows.
What drives a state's choice to assimilate, accommodate or exclude ethnic groups within its territory? In this innovative work on the international politics of nation-building, Harris Mylonas argues that a state's nation-building policies toward non-core groups - individuals perceived as an ethnic group by the ruling elite of a state - are influenced by both its foreign policy goals and its relations with the external patrons of these groups. Through a detailed study of the Balkans, Mylonas shows that how a state treats a non-core group within its own borders is determined largely by whether the state's foreign policy is revisionist or cleaves to the international status quo, and whether it is allied or in rivalry with that group's external patrons. Mylonas injects international politics into the study of nation-building, building a bridge between international relations and the comparative politics of ethnicity and nationalism.
Substate nationalism, especially in the past fifteen years, has noticeably affected the political and territorial stability of many countries, both democratic and democratizing. Norms exist to limit the behavior of collective agents in relation to individuals; the set of universally accepted human rights provides a basic framework. There is a lacuna in international law, however, in the regulation of the behavior of groups toward other groups, with the exception of relations among states. The book offers a normative approach to moderate minority nationalism that treats minorities and majorities in multinational states justly and argues for the differentiation of group rights based on how group agents are constituted. It argues that group agency requires a shared set of beliefs concerning membership and the social ontology it offers ensures that group rights can be aligned with individual rights. It formulates a set of principles that, if adopted, would aid conflict resolution in multinational states. The book pays special attention to national self-determination in transitional societies. The book is intended for everyone in political philosophy and political science interested in global justice and international law and legal practitioners interested in normative issues and group rights
The nation-state is a double sleight of hand, naturalizing both the nation and the state encompassing it. No such naturalization is possible in multinational states. To explain why these countries experience political crises that bring their very existence into question, standard accounts point to conflicts over resources, security, and power. This book turns the spotlight on institutional symbolism. When minority nations in multinational states press for more self-government, they are not only looking to protect their interests. They are asking to be recognized as political communities in their own right. Yet satisfying their demands for recognition threatens to provoke a reaction from members of majority nations who see such changes as a symbolic repudiation of their own vision of politics. Secessionist crises flare up when majority backlash reverses symbolic concessions to minority nations. Through a synoptic historical sweep of Canada, Spain, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, The Symbolic State shows us that institutions may be more important for what they mean than for what they do. A major contribution to the study of comparative nationalism and secession, comparative politics, and social theory, The Symbolic State is particularly timely in an era when the power of symbols – exemplified by Brexit, the Donald Trump presidency, and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement – is reshaping politics.
Substate nationalism, especially in the past fifteen years, has noticeably affected the political and territorial stability of many countries, both democratic and democratizing. Norms exist to limit the behavior of collective agents in relation to individuals; the set of universally accepted human rights provides a basic framework. There is a lacuna in international law, however, in the regulation of the behavior of groups toward other groups, with the exception of relations among states. The book offers a normative approach to moderate minority nationalism that treats minorities and majorities in multinational states justly and argues for the differentiation of group rights based on how group agents are constituted. It argues that group agency requires a shared set of beliefs concerning membership and the social ontology it offers ensures that group rights can be aligned with individual rights. It formulates a set of principles that, if adopted, would aid conflict resolution in multinational states. The book pays special attention to national self-determination in transitional societies. The book is intended for everyone in political philosophy and political science interested in global justice and international law and legal practitioners interested in normative issues and group rights
Constitutional politics is exceptionally intense and unpredictable. It involves negotiations over the very nature of the state and the implications of self- determination. Multinational democracies face pressing challenges to the existing order because they are composed of communities with distinct cultures, histories, and aspirations, striving to coexist under mutually agreed-upon terms. Conflict over the recognition of these multiple identities and the distribution of power and resources is inevitable and, indeed, part of what defines democratic life in multinational societies. In Constitutional Politics in Multinational Democracies André Lecours, Nikola Brassard-Dion, and Guy Laforest bring together experts on multinational democracies to analyze the claims of minority nations about their political future and the responses they elicit through constitutional politics. Essays focus on the nature of these states and the actors and political process within them. This framework allows for a multidimensional examination of crucial political periods in these democracies by assessing what constitutional politics is, who is involved in it, and how it happens. Case studies include Catalonia and Spain, Puerto Rico and the United States, Scotland and the United Kingdom, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Quebec and the Métis People in Canada. Theoretically significant and empirically rich, Constitutional Politics in Multinational Democracies is a necessary read for any student of multinationalism.
Published in English for the first time, this book defends the idea that nationhood remains a central aspect of modernity. After the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the following decade confirmed this hypothesis with the rise of independence movements in Europe (in Scotland and Flanders) and the persistence of claims to nationhood the world over (for example, in Kurdistan and Tibet). A dual perspective informs Dieckhoff's analysis: to understand the hidden social and cultural underpinnings of post-Cold War identity dynamics, from Kosovo to Catalonia and from Flanders to Corsica, and to examine how societies can meet the challenge of national pluralism. Finding liberalism, republicanism and multiculturalism unequal to this task, he argues that only by building 'multi-nation' democratic states can the issues be properly addressed and secessions prevented. Contemporary liberal discourse often treats nationalism as an archaic aberration - as a primitive form of tribalism astray in the modern world. Dieckhoff's sensitive and clear-headed analysis shows why nationalism is in fact a fundamental facet of modernity, which must be dealt with as such by states vulnerable to breakup.
Has globalization forever undermined the state as the mighty guarantor of public welfare and security? In the 1990s, the prevailing and even hopeful view was that it had. The euphoria did not last long. Today the "return of the state" is increasingly being discussed as a desirable reality. This book is the first to bring together a group of prominent scholars from comparative politics, international relations, and sociology to systematically reassess--through a historical lens that moves beyond the standard focus on the West--state-society relations and state power at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The contributors examine the sources and forms of state power in light of a range of welfare and security needs in order to tell us what states can do today. They assess the extent to which international social forces affect states, and the capacity of states to adapt in specific issue areas. Their striking conclusion is that states have continued to be pivotal in diverse areas such as nationalism, national security, multiculturalism, taxation, and industrial relations. Offering rich insights on the changing contours of state power, The Nation-State in Question will be of interest to social scientists, students, and policymakers alike. John Hall's introduction is followed by chapters by Peter Baldwin, John Campbell, Francesco Duina, Grzegorz Ekiert, Jeffrey Herbst, Christopher Hood, Anatoly Khazanov, Brendan O'Leary, T. V. Paul, Bernard Yack, Rudra Sil, and Minxin Pei. The conclusion is by John Ikenberry.
