Suchergebnisse

This article examines the role played by war, and public violence more generally, in the state-building experiences of Central America. Bellicist theory expects that wars provide a stimulus to extractive efforts, thus enhancing the autonomy and capacity of the state over time, though recent qualitative studies of South America find the opposite. I expand the reach of bellicist theory to Central America through the broader concept of public violence, which captures the long-term impact of external and internal rivals on the state. The quantitative tests demonstrate that Central American interstate and civil wars reduce the extractive ability of states, consistent with the South American evidence. Interstate rivals stimulate extractive efforts among governments, whereas intrastate rivals detract from those efforts. Incorporating the concept of public violence into bellicist theory thus helps to increase our understanding of Central American state building.

Scholars of Latin America have recently begun to apply the bellicist approach to state building to the region, the central claim of which is that wars are a great stimulus to centralizing state power and building institutional capacity. This article argues that current applications of these models of state building are too narrowly specified to be of much use in Latin America or elsewhere in the developing world. Replacing the focus on interstate war with the more general phenomenon of interstate rivalry, alongside the consideration of intrastate rivals, allows us to account for the impact of both external and internal forces on the development of the state. I demonstrate the utility of this approach through several cross‐sectional time‐series analyses that provide evidence that external and internal rivals affect the Latin American state in a manner consistent with the general nature of bellicist theory.

Teachers of international relations and comparative politics spend a considerable amount of time looking for ways to bring the politics of the world outside of the United States into their classroom to enhance student learning experiences through increased relevance or "reality." Simulations are one method to make world politics seem more relevant (e.g., Dougherty 2003; Kille 2002; Shellman 2001; McIntosh 2001; Newmann and Twigg 2000; Kaarbo and Lantis 1997; Smith and Boyer 1996). The use of film is another popular method that enhances the drama and emotion of foreign cultures and politics (e.g., Waalkes 2003; Weber 2001; Kuzma and Haney 2001). Finally, the Internet and web-based technologies (e.g., Cogburn and Levinson 2003; Hauss et al. 2002; Bonham and Seifert 2000) and foreign newspapers (e.g., Schattle 2003) are also employed to connect textbook knowledge to the real world of foreign affairs.

Debates over methodology have long occupied a prominent role in political science and its various empirical sub-fields. Recently, these debates and occasional dialogues seem to have intensified. The Perestroika movement within APSA protested the perceived hegemony of rational choice and quantitative methods in journal publications and graduate training (Kasza 2001). Renewed attention has focused on the types of methodologies employed by studies published in the discipline's leading journals (Garand and Giles 2003; Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford 2003; Braumoeller 2003). The kinds of concerns over methodological diversity that motivate these studies also inform discussions about graduate training (Alvarez 1992; Dyer 1992; Schwartz-Shea 2003; Morrow 2003; Smith 2003).

How well do we prepare our graduate students for the diverse careers they pursue in
teaching, research, and outside of academia? This is the second time Graduate Education has
been a track in the TLC, and this year we have also incorporated topics related to
professional development. Despite the diversity of our presentations, we arrived at a
unifying theme for our track: we must prepare graduate students for the multiple arenas they
will enter into after graduation. We discussed at length how most of our graduate students
seek something other than the traditional, research-oriented model of graduate education
that we experienced. They seek a graduate experience that is civically engaged, prepares
them for teaching in addition to research, and is perhaps more connected to disciplines
outside of political science. Either we provide graduate students a framework of knowledge
consistent with these demands or they will be left to develop these skills through trial and
error alone. In support of this goal, we urge systemic change to our professional
institutions that will value and reward a more holistic approach to graduate education and
professional development. Elements of such change can be found in the variety of
presentations contained in our track.