Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations and Glossary -- 1. The Anglo-American Relationship and the Need for Historical Interpretation -- 2. The Evolution of Transatlantic Aircraft Supply Diplomacy, 1938-40 -- 3. The Diplomacy of Critical Dependency, 1940 -- 4. Lend-Lease and the Politics of Supply, 1941 -- 5. The Limits of Dependency: American Aircraft in Action, 1940-2 -- 6. Heavy Bomber Supply Diplomacy, 1941-2 -- 7. The Problem of Quality: the Fighter Supply Crisis of 1942 -- 8. Collaboration and Interdependency -- Appendix RAF Air Strength by aircraft type on 3 September 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 -- Unpublished Sources Cited in Text -- Bibliography -- Index

This paper proposes a rethinking of 'radicalisation' as a process with no definite beginning or inevitable end-point. Reflecting on empirical research which engaged with radical Islamist and far-right activists and supporters, it argues that we should not focus the concept of radicalisation on the moment in which an individual or group moves from legal to illegal activity, or from non-violent to violent, as this is only one part of a longer journey. Thus, the term radicalisation should encompass any movements towards greater conflict, both commonplace and rare, small and large, driven by a potentially infinite range of motives, encompassing all political outlooks, and made by individuals, groups, societies and states. Using this conceptualisation instead allows us to examine how small conflicts escalate through 'reciprocal radicalisation', and how big radicalisations arise from microradicalisations. This, we argue, provides a more equitable basis for policy and practice that aims to avoid, prevent or combat the most problematic radicalisations, or otherwise resolve political conflict. To achieve this, however, also means not hyping everyday radicalisations into a threat to the existence of the nation state.

There is a lack of empirical research around sub‐national Social Investment programs, and a lack of connectivity with social innovation. This paper addresses these gaps by drawing on twenty individual case study evaluations, conducted across ten EU member states as part of a larger Horizon 2020 project (Innovative Social Investment: Strengthening communities in Europe, grant agreement number: 649189). It does so through a "governance of activation" lens. We find that volunteering was a significant feature of many of the cases we researched, as both a means of funding Social Investment, and a means by which activation (through the development of human and social capital) might be achieved. Yet volunteering is a gap in the theoretical literature around Social Investment, and one that needs to be addressed. We also find that examining Social Investment at the local level provides a much more nuanced and complex picture than nationally focused extant research.