Latin America after the Third Wave - By Jean Grugel
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 242-249
ISSN: 0017-257X
154 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 242-249
ISSN: 0017-257X
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 242-249
ISSN: 1477-7053
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 242-249
ISSN: 1477-7053
In: Economy and society, Band 35, Heft 2, S. 209-231
ISSN: 1469-5766
In: Third world quarterly, Band 26, Heft 7, S. 1061-1076
ISSN: 1360-2241
In: Globalizing International Political Economy, S. 193-220
In: Journal of Latin American studies, Band 36, Heft 4, S. 800-801
ISSN: 1469-767X
In: Journal of Latin American studies, Band 36, Heft 4, S. 800
ISSN: 0022-216X
In: The British journal of politics & international relations: BJPIR, Band 5, Heft 2, S. 258-283
ISSN: 1467-856X
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 38, Heft 2, S. 238-264
ISSN: 0017-257X
In: The British journal of politics & international relations, Band 5, Heft 2, S. 258-283
ISSN: 1369-1481
Reviews the literature to consider the scholarly synthesis of "democratization" & "globalization," identifying three approaches that (1) relate different stories about the democratization-globalization link; (2) assess the roles of varying institutions & social forces amid globalization; & (3) stress issues surrounding capitalism, governance, & participation. Concomitantly, three distinct positions have developed: (A) globalization as the politics of democratic disempowerment; (B) globalization as an opportunity for (liberal) democratic global governance; & (C) globalization as the radical remaking of citizenship. Suggesting that such studies demonstrate that global politics is central to democratization, raise intriguing questions regarding democracy's compatibility with globalization, & bridge the fields of politics & international relations, it is argued that globalization offers a sophisticated paradigm for understanding contemporary democratization. However, despite agreement on the need for global as well as state-level change for democratization, no clear consensus exists for understanding the ambiguous trends toward democratization under globalization, with studies strongly divided on the sorts of social forces underpinning globalization & perspectives on the state. 76 References. J. Zendejas
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 38, Heft 2, S. 238-264
ISSN: 1477-7053
AbstractDemocratization studies has tended to understand democracy a pro-Western political regime build around liberal norms and government. This approach provides clarity, but cannot explain the varied political experiences and outcomes within contemporary processes of 'democratization'. At the same time, it fails to capture the range of meanings invested in the term 'democracy'. Starting from the premise that democracy's appeal rests on its emancipatory potential, this article proposes reconceptualzing what is meant by democratization, drawing in ideas from identity politics and citizenship studies while, at the same time, placing the impetus for democratization in the framework of global transformation.
In: Journal of Latin American studies, Band 34, Heft 4, S. 961-995
ISSN: 1469-767X
Las formas contemporáneas de relaciones interregionalistas europeas con países en vías de desarrollo tienen su origen en la década de los setenta. La aparición de lo que se denominó "nuevo interregionalismo" en la década de los noventa en respuesta a la transformación del orden mundial contribuyó, a su vez, a una transformación del interregionalismo. Hanggi (2000) sostiene que, lejos de haber sido sustituidos por el "nuevo interregionalismo", los acuerdos interregionales multicapa deben considerarse corolarios de éste. Con todo, el "nuevo interregionalismo" se ha explorado relativamente poco hasta el momento. Para la Unión Europea (UE), el "nuevo interregionalismo" ofrece la oportunidad de reforzar los lazos políticos y económicos más allá de Europa, a fin de contrarrestar la hegemonía estadounidense y fomentar un modo de gobierno típicamente europeo para el mundo en vías de desarrollo. Las distintas subregiones de América Latina (América Central, los países andinos y el Cono Sur) y algunos de los países de mayor tamaño de este subcontinente, como México, han constituido tradicionalmente un terreno propicio para el interregionalismo europeo, tal y como muestran una serie de importantes iniciativas políticas, diplomáticas, de desarrollo y construcción de la paz. Los documentos Marco abrieron una fase de difíciles negociaciones entre la UE, el MERCOSUR y Chile, y el progreso fue lento. Alcanzar un acuerdo iba a resultar siempre difícil en vista del proteccionismo agrario tan arraigado en la UE. Otro obstáculo era la crisis interna del MERCOSUR provocada por el precipitado colapso económico de Argentina en 2001. Aun así, en el MERCOSUR se generaron expectativas considerables (y de hecho también fuera de él, en el seno de la sociedad civil europea y los grupos de desarrollo) en torno a la Cumbre de Madrid que reuniría a los jefes de gobierno de Europa y Latinoamérica y que estaba programada para finales de la presidencia española de la UE en junio de 2002. Se esperaba que la segunda reunión de este tipo ofreciera la oportunidad de hacer avanzar el acuerdo de forma significativa o incluso de cerrarlo. En vista de los obstáculos evidentes a dicho acuerdo, semejante optimismo requiere una explicación. Mi opinión es que un examen de la naturaleza de las reivindicaciones identitarias, tanto en el Cono Sur como en Europa, puede proporcionarnos al menos parte de dicha explicación. Por ello, en la segunda parte de este documento, discuto la función que la identidad desempeña en las relaciones UE-Cono Sur.
BASE
In: New political economy, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 277-279
ISSN: 1356-3467
Challenges Adrian Leftwich's (2002) claim that constraints imposed by democracy are the primary barriers to equitable development to argue that state capacity is an equally important obstacle. Contrary to Leftwich's implication that democracy can only be understood in the sense of electoral politics & elite consensus, it is contended that democratic systems have the potential to be more than conservative modes of governance due to their capacity to treat development as a project of empowerment, citizenship, & balanced growth. An exploration of the complex reasons democracies that emerged in the 1980s failed to achieve high degrees of popular control & equality in policy making argues that state practices of clientelism & predation constrict the capacity to deliver goods & services. A genuine process of democratization requires the transformation of the state, which is far more difficult than changing the institutions of government. It is concluded that the lack of development in the South is not the fault of democracy but of conservative policies linked with state incapacity. J. Lindroth