Suchergebnisse

To understand whether ideas matter in international politics and if they can be agents of systemic transformation, one must examine the debate about the "benevolent" hegemony of the United States. Supporters of moral American hegemony claim that the spread of its moral values worldwide will bring about an international transformation. In short, hegemony serves a universal good. A similar claim has been made about the ancient international system of South Asia. The claim here is that the rule of Asoka—the Indian ruler credited with spreading Buddhism and nonviolence to the rest of the world—was committed to the collective good and to the propagation of an ethical code of conduct— dhamma. On this view, Asokan moral hegemony produced a peaceful South Asia. Against this view, this article shows how ideational variables such as dhamma were bound up with material interests to serve the strategic goals of Asokan hegemony in the international system of South Asia. It lends support to the realist conception of the world where strategic deployment of ideational variables and material interests enhance state power, thereby offering the best explanation of seemingly moral behavior.

Why do the natives of Sabah oppose the internal migration of natives from the rest of Malaysia? Why is being "native" not enough? The hostility is in direct contrast to what most scholars know about Malaysia: a multiethnic country with successful preferential policies for its natives-the "sons of the soil." In a plural state like Malaysia, there are competing native claims on citizenship. Here, regional natives (Kadazandusun from Sabah) contest claims by federal natives (Malays). The conflicts over culture, economy, and political power fracture a national citizenship into its regional and federal parts, pitting native against native. In particular, regional natives empower the notion of a regional citizenship by supporting restrictions on the internal migration of fellow citizens. As a consequence, Malaysia's goal of a "national" citizenry fashioned on native Malay norms is undermined. Malaysia offers important insight into the enduring dilemma of modern plural states: how to create a common national citizenship. (Asian Perspect/GIGA)

Abstract
How does labor emigration affect state–society relations across postcolonial states? We argue that the opportunity to pursue employment abroad alters a fundamental component of postcolonial states—the post-independence social contract. Such states' inability to sustain post-independence levels of welfare provision first leads to the development of "emigration management institutions," which seek to encourage and regulate citizens' labor emigration, and second, to the widening of the "remittance-welfare gap," where labor emigration and remittances outpace state-sponsored welfare provision. These mark the emergence of a "transnational social contract," as states leverage access to employment abroad in exchange for social and political acquiescence. This de-territorialization of the postcolonial social contract leads to de jure and de facto forms of state coercion toward its citizens/migrants, who are commodified by the market-based logic of transnational neo-patrimonialism. We test this argument through a paired comparison and within-case analysis across two postcolonial states in South Asia and the Middle East: Nepal and Jordan. We offer an interregional, South–South migration analysis and a novel framework of understanding the politics of mobility across non-Western states as "migration from below," which acts as a corrective to the dominance of South–North migration research in international studies.

How does labor emigration affect state–society relations across postcolonial states? We argue that the opportunity to pursue employment abroad alters a fundamental component of postcolonial states - the post-independence social contract. Such states' inability to sustain post-independence levels of welfare provision first leads to the development of "emigration management institutions," which seek to encourage and regulate citizens' labor emigration, and second, to the widening of the "remittance-welfare gap," where labor emigration and remittances outpace state-sponsored welfare provision. These mark the emergence of a "transnational social contract," as states leverage access to employment abroad in exchange for social and political acquiescence. This de-territorialization of the postcolonial social contract leads to de jure and de facto forms of state coercion toward its citizens/migrants, who are commodified by the market-based logic of transnational neo-patrimonialism. We test this argument through a paired comparison and within-case analysis across two postcolonial states in South Asia and the Middle East: Nepal and Jordan. We offer an interregional, South–South migration analysis and a novel framework of understanding the politics of mobility across non-Western states as "migration from below," which acts as a corrective to the dominance of South–North migration research in international studies.

The evolution of migration policymaking across the Global South is of growing interest to International Relations. Yet, the impact of colonial and imperial legacies on states' migration management regimes outside Europe and North America remains under-theorised. How does postcolonial state formation shape policies of cross-border mobility management in the Global South? By bringing James F. Hollifield's framework of the contemporary 'migration state' in conversation with critical scholarship on postcolonialism, we identify the existence of a 'postcolonial paradox,' namely two sets of tensions faced by newly independent states of the Global South: first, the need to construct a modern sovereign nation-state with a well-defined national identity contrasts with weak institutional capacity to do so; second, territorial realities of sovereignty conflict with the imperatives of nation-building seeking to establish exclusive citizenship norms towards populations residing both inside and outside the boundaries of the postcolonial state. We argue that the use of cross-border mobility control policies to reconcile such tensions transforms the 'postcolonial state' into the 'postcolonial migration state,' which shows distinct continuities with pre-independence practices. In fact, postcolonial migration states reproduce colonial-era tropes via the surveillance and control of segmented migration streams that redistribute labour for the global economy. We demonstrate this via a comparative study of post-independence migration management in India and Egypt, which also aims to merge a problematic regional divide between scholarship on the Middle East and South Asia. We urge further critical interventions on the international politics of migration that prioritise interregional perspectives from the broader Global South.