Search results

This article advances the discussion of democratization as a complex process. Much of the democratization story focuses on wealth and how it advances or maintains liberalization. However, in this work, we demonstrate that the route to democracy and the route to wealth lie in the limitations on the state, specifically the rule of law which holds the state accountable as it creates a realm of sovereign space for man. We focus on the rule of law and evaluate how the lack of corruption in government and the enforcement of property rights impact wealth, the formation of civil society, and the corresponding shift of power structures that lead to democratization efforts. We analyze the hypothesized relationships through a nested analysis design, focusing on the developing world, where previous modernization theories have been less applicable, and explain how rule of law has an increasing impact on both development and democratization.

International norms change over time, but we do not fully understand how and why they evolve as they do. In this article, I explore a general model of international norm change. The model builds on two foundations. First, normative systems themselves generate tensions that lead to change. Those tensions are of two major types: (1) conflicts between the generality of rules and the specificity of concrete experience; and (2) conflicts between separate bodies of rules. Second, specific disputes push these normative conflicts to the fore and provoke arguments about the meaning and application of rules. The outcomes of those arguments necessarily modify the rules. The process of normative change is thus a cycle, linking rules to actions to arguments, which in turn reshape the rules. In order to explore the empirical utility of the model, the article assesses the evolution of the rules of war with respect to the plundering of artistic and cultural treasures. Relying on both secondary and archival materials, the analysis focuses on two crucial turns through the cycle of normative change, the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. The empirical account shows that the cycle of normative change depicted in the abstract does correspond to real-world processes.

Societies need rules -- Rules and laws -- Teamwork gets things done -- Who makes rules and laws? -- Life without rules -- Too many rules! -- Different societies, different rules -- The international society -- International rules and laws -- Changing society

In this article, Kadet explains how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act favors foreign-based manufacturers selling through a U.S. sales branch over comparable U.S. manufacturers, and he recommends legislative fixes.

Ten years ago we completed a survey that examined interest group participation in the rule-making process. At the time, it was the first major study to examine the role of interest groups in one of the most important policy-making venues in our democratic system. This article reexamines interest group participation in rule making a decade later. We focus most of the study on comparisons in how organizations access rule-making agencies, what techniques are used to lobby agencies, & the perceived effectiveness of these techniques by the organizations themselves. In addition, given the relatively new phenomenon of e-rule making & the increase of other electronic communication techniques, we open an examination of interest groups use of these forms of communications & their implications. We find that rule making continues to be a primary concern of organizations trying to influence federal public policy, even as they have focused more on campaign & grassroots activities. In some ways, these efforts are more important now than they were ten years ago. 7 Tables, 30 References. Adapted from the source document.

In 2014, to the delight of labor and the consternation of management, the Obama‐era National Labor Relations Board made a number of rule changes that were intended to modernize and streamline the process of holding union elections. The changes often have been collectively referred to as the "ambush" or "quickie" election rules as they effectively speed up the pre‐election period, thereby giving employers less time to campaign against the union. At the same time, there were other union‐friendly rule changes, such as requiring employers to provide the union with employees' cell phone numbers and email addresses if the employer has them.