Suchergebnisse

This article considers how, in the light of contemporary military transformations, feminist theorizing about women's military participation might be developed to take account of an emergent reality: the inclusion of increasing numbers of women in a range of roles within armed forces. A brief overview of established debates within feminist scholarship on women's military participation is provided, and we explore the trajectory of feminist strategies for change within both militaries and other institutions. The promise and limitations of mainstreaming gender into security institutions, as a consequence of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, are discussed. The article argues that existing feminist critiques often remain deterministic and have too readily dismissed the possibilities for change created by women's military participation, given the context of military transformations. Drawing on the idea of the regendered military, the article presents a conceptual strategy for considering how feminist theorizing about the gender–military nexus can take seriously women's military participation while remaining alert to feminist political goals of gender equality, peace and justice.

This paper considers how, in the light of contemporary military transformations, feminist theorizing about women's military participation might be developed to take account of an emergent reality of the inclusion of increasing numbers of women in a range of roles within armed forces. A brief overview of established debates within feminist international relations is provided, and we explore the trajectory of feminist strategies for change based on the displacing of gendered binaries. The promise, and ultimately limitations, of UNSCR 1325 are discussed. The paper argues that existing feminist critiques often remain deterministic, and have ignored the possibilities for change within military institutions themselves. Drawing on the idea of the regendered military, the paper presents a conceptual strategy for considering how feminist theorizing about the gender-military nexus can both account for women's military participation whilst remaining alert to feminist political goals of gender equality, peace and justice.

Rent seeking is an attempt to distort prices in order to achieve a contrived transfer. Where rent seeking is on the rampage, there is a serious distortion of incentives. Investing resources in distributional struggles and political conflict looks rewarding, whereas increasing or improving output looks less attractive. Moreover, price distortions interfere with an efficient allocation of resources. That is why we should expect rent seeking and resulting price distortions to be negatively correlated with economic growth. Because there is no reason to assume that the less-privileged strata are likely to win distributional struggles, rent seeking does not contribute to the equalization of the size distribution of income. Ironically, serious international rivalries and threats to national security may result in better economic performance. Foreign threats often produce large armies and high military participation ratios. Because the military teaches discipline and some other useful skills, it does contribute to human capital formation and ultimately to economic growth. As mass armies affect the balance of power between social classes for the benefit of the less-privileged ones, high military participation ratios contribute to income equalization. These propositions have been tested and supported by cross-national regression analysis of data for the 1970s and 31 LDCs.

How does the presence of military officers in national government affect a state's likelihood of international conflict? We know a great deal about how overall regime type affects international conflict, but there is substantial variation within regime types in the participation of military officers in the government. We know little about how this variation affects a state's conflict propensity. In this Research Note, I examine three competing arguments for the effect of military participation in government on conflict initiation: Military Aggression, Military Conservatism, and Civil–Military Competition. Military Aggression suggests that military involvement in government will tend to guide the state toward conflict, given a military predisposition to favor the use of force. In contrast, Military Conservatism argues that military officers in government will lead the state to less conflict, given their personal familiarity with its costs. Civil–Military Competition holds that when military officers and civilians share political power, a variety of pathologies in national security deliberation and decision-making emerge, increasing conflict propensity. I test these three propositions cross-nationally using data on the number and type of positions held by military officers in cabinets and state councils and international conflict and find the strongest support for Civil–Military Competition.