Suchergebnisse

Multinational enterprises are often accused to have a preference for investing in countries in which the working populations' civil and political rights are largely disregarded. This paper presents an empirical investigation of the popular political repression boosts FDI hypothesis and arrives at the conclusion that the hypothesis is not supported. On the contrary, multinational enterprises rather appear to be attracted by countries in which civil and political freedom is respected. Our finding thus supports the notion that there is a positive relationship between democracy and economic growth.

Abounding acts of repression committed in democracies have continued to be overlooked and under-analyzed by many researchers and scholars due to "democratic exceptionalism". As the United States enters yet another consecutive year of declining political satisfaction and freedom. It has become pertinent that as conflict study researchers, scholars, and readers alike that there is a basic understanding of coercion including acts that have been committed within our own countries. Countless scholars have focused conflict study research on underdeveloped or emerging democracies, yet many have overlooked the seamy side of developed ones. This article aims to explain the relationship between the United States and state-sponsored repression from the 1990s to 2015. In hopes to better understand how variables like economic, social, and political vulnerabilities as well as race and sex influence repressive trends in the United States. In addition, this article hopes to extend the scope of conflict study research by including mass incarceration as a form of repression that has been used to control not only dissent but also satisfy the needs of elites to maintain a present state of affairs. This article tests various hypothesis to understand how repression continues to function in modern American society. ; 2018-12-01 ; B.S. ; College of Sciences, Political Science ; Bachelors ; This record was generated from author submitted information.

Reports the new wave of repression of the government of Moi which began in early 1995. Ever since `multiparty' was introduced at the end of 1991, the government has used tactics reminiscent of colonial `divide and rule' policy to counter the threat that democracy poses to tyranny. In recent years, a number of groups in Kenya have boldly published reports criticising government violations of human rights. Reviews these and the repression experienced by individuals.

Examines the nature of political repression in Kenya with specific focus on the role of journalists & writers of both fiction & nonfiction. Based on an analysis of government cases against opposition writers, it is suggested that fact & fiction have become almost indistinguishable in Kenyan courts. Although Kenya adopted a multiparty democratic system in the early 1990s, this shift has only masked the true presence of a tyrannical one-party system characterized by a new wave of government repressions such as firebombings of magazine offices, banning of newspapers, the suppression of groups researching public policy & corruption, arrests of opposition leaders, & the fabrication of a guerrilla movement. Even fictional writing has assumed a revolutionary tone, & a number of fiction writers have been arrested & executed. Despite the massive censorship measures employed by the government, it is concluded that Kenyan citizens are aware of the nonrealistic nature of their media sources, & have learned to question & reexamine stories of "courtroom confessions" & "accidental deaths.". 12 References. T. Sevier

The author reviews some of the main currents of theoretical inquiry concerning the dramatic emergence of coercive regimes in Latin America during the last 15 years. Government terror often seems to be completely out of proportion to the opposition threat in Latin American countries. An alternative approach for reexamining the problem of repression is proposed in this paper

Developed states increasingly turned to democracy assistance strategies as the Cold War came to an end. A number of recent studies conclude that such aid positively affected democratization in recipients. But, like foreign aid, democracy assistance allocations are subject to change, sometimes dramatically. In foreign aid, sudden, sizable reductions – or aid shocks (e.g., Nielsen et al. 2011) – can have severe consequences, precipitating conflict in the recipient state. How do democracy aid shocks affect recipient states? This analysis examines the effects of sudden withdrawals of democracy aid – or democracy aid shocks – by the U.S. on recipient regime behavior, specifically, their treatment of citizens and civil society groups. We argue that democracy aid shocks trigger repressive action by recipients resulting in harmful human rights practices by the regime. Examining U.S. democracy aid to the developing world from 1982-2013, we find that, after controlling for other relevant factors likely to affect the human rights practices of a regime, democracy aid shocks are associated with subsequent repression of human rights in the recipient state. Our analysis thus sheds light on an external factor affecting human rights practices within states, as well as an important element of the consequences of democracy aid decisions. We conclude by assessing the implications for democracy promotion strategies and human rights behavior.

Developed states increasingly turned to democracy assistance strategies as the Cold War came to an end. A number of recent studies conclude that such aid positively affected democratization in recipients. But, like foreign aid, democracy assistance allocations are subject to change, sometimes dramatically. In foreign aid, sudden, sizable reductions – or aid shocks (e.g., Nielsen et al. 2011) – can have severe consequences, precipitating conflict in the recipient state. How do democracy aid shocks affect recipient states? This analysis examines the effects of sudden withdrawals of democracy aid – or democracy aid shocks – by the U.S. on recipient regime behavior, specifically, their treatment of citizens and civil society groups. We argue that democracy aid shocks trigger repressive action by recipients resulting in harmful human rights practices by the regime. Examining U.S. democracy aid to the developing world from 1982-2013, we find that, after controlling for other relevant factors likely to affect the human rights practices of a regime, democracy aid shocks are associated with subsequent repression of human rights in the recipient state. Our analysis thus sheds light on an external factor affecting human rights practices within states, as well as an important element of the consequences of democracy aid decisions. We conclude by assessing the implications for democracy promotion strategies and human rights behavior.

This article investigates the impact of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality on political repression. Conditionality refers to the conditions that borrowing countries must implement before they can receive loans from the IMF. An original contribution is made by analyzing this impact using quantitative techniques for samples of developing countries covering 1980 through 1982. A more comprehensive model of political repression, focusing on political leaders' hypothetical reactions to and perceptions of challenges from society and on the constraints on their ability to react to the challenges, is also developed and tested. This comprehensive model receives the strongest support. The results show that political repression tends to be used as a response to threats from society, especially for leaders who have few resources at their disposal, who are constrained by certain IMF conditions, and who assumed power unconstitutionally. However, the overall evidence regarding the impact of IMF conditionality is mixed.