Suchergebnisse

Analyzes the empirical validity of cultural differences, ideological, competition, middleman-minority, & political process theories for explaining black-Korean conflict. Data were drawn from newspaper accounts of boycotts & intergroup violence published 1980-1995 in local papers from a cross-geographic sample of 39 major US cities. The search revealed 40 boycotts distributed across 13 cities & 69 reports of black-Korean violence distributed across 16 cities. The results of two regression models, one using boycotts & the other using intergroup violence as the dependent variable, showed that the boycott model gave credence to a political process explanation for the distribution of boycotting, but showed a complete lack of support for cultural differences, middleman-minority, & competition theories. Conversely, the intergroup violence model did not support political process theories. Although it revealed significant coefficients related to cultural-differences, middleman-minority, & competition theories, they were insufficient to indicate support for any of these explanations. It is concluded that sociological dimensions of economic competition may account for violence but boycotts are better explained by the nature of local political systems. The implications are discussed. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 25 References. J. Lindroth

Analyzes the empirical validity of cultural differences, ideological, competition, middleman-minority, & political process theories for explaining black-Korean conflict. Data were drawn from newspaper accounts of boycotts & intergroup violence published 1980-1995 in local papers from a cross-geographic sample of 39 major US cities. The search revealed 40 boycotts distributed across 13 cities & 69 reports of black-Korean violence distributed across 16 cities. The results of two regression models, one using boycotts & the other using intergroup violence as the dependent variable, showed that the boycott model gave credence to a political process explanation for the distribution of boycotting, but showed a complete lack of support for cultural differences, middleman-minority, & competition theories. Conversely, the intergroup violence model did not support political process theories. Although it revealed significant coefficients related to cultural-differences, middleman-minority, & competition theories, they were insufficient to indicate support for any of these explanations. It is concluded that sociological dimensions of economic competition may account for violence but boycotts are better explained by the nature of local political systems. The implications are discussed. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 25 References. J. Lindroth

"Christine Bigdon and Benedikt Korf highlight the role of development assistance in relation to structural aspects of peacebuilding. The article explores both the theoretical assumptions, as well as the practical experiences with empowerment approaches, in the field of development aid, paying particular attention to their potential for conflict transformation. The authors build upon the recent discourse in development policy and they review empowerment approaches within the field of community development. As they further explore the nexus between participation, empowerment and conflict transformation, the authors critically discuss the potential of common participatory approaches at the community level and their impact for conflict transformation on the local level. One of the findings is that development agencies operate within a very narrow space of action and have to face various dilemmas and ambiguities, which might impede their success. Nevertheless empowerment processes can support conflict trans-formation if they contribute to developing local community and to promoting inclusive citizenship." (author's abstract)

"The literature dealing systematically with the connections between change and conflict is hardly extensive, and that directly dealing with precise relationships between change and conflict resolution is even sparser. In a way, this is surprising - for many writers make implicit, and in some cases explicit, connections between some form of change and the formation of conflicts, while others discuss conflict 'dynamics' as well as those changes that are needed before any kind of resolution of a conflict can realistically be sought. A recent and completely unsystematic search of one university's modest library revealed over 420 entries combining the words 'change' and 'conflict' in their title, while a similar search of a data bank of dissertation abstracts produced over 3,500 such citations. Nonetheless, there seem to be few works that focus in general terms on connections between the two concepts, or on the process of conflict resolution as a phenomenon involving change from the relationship of enemies or adversaries into something else. This chapter endeavors to make some contribution to filling this gap in the literature by discussing the relationship between 'change' and 'conflict' in very general terms, rather than focusing on particular changes that have either created conflict between particular communities, societies and countries, or changes that have led towards a resolution of any specific conflict which has protracted and become violent. It can be considered, therefore, as a small contribution to the development of a general theory of change and conflict - or, more particularly, conflict resolution. An understanding of the dynamics of conflict formation and perpetuation should have implications for methods of resolving (or at least coping with) even the most intractable of conflict relationships. As such, the chapter may be a starting point for the development of a set of theories of conflict dynamics as well as a practical set of guidelines concerning modes and timing of 'resolutionary' interventions." (excerpt)

This chapter includes a discussion of leadership decisions and stress. Many leaders are daily exposed to stress when they must make decisions, and there are often social reasons for this. Social standards suggest that a leader must be proactive and make decisions and not flee the situation. Conflict often creates stress in decision-making situations. It is important for leaders to understand that it is not stress in itself that leads to bad decisions, rather, bad decisions may be the result of time pressure in the sense that leaders have not been able to gather enough relevant information. Thus, it is worthwhile for leaders to be able to prioritize properly in order to cope with stressful situations. In some situations, a leader chooses to delegate the decisions to his/her team and then it is important to guard against «groupthink», a phenomenon where members of a team put consensus before anything else as a result of the peer pressure. A number of methods are presented that enable leaders to avoid this phenomenon. Often leaders are involved in decision-making situations where they are forced to navigate between objectives that are in strong conflict with each other. We are talking about "decision dilemmas". These are characterized by the existence of a conflict between the top leadership's desire to control the activities and their wish to give autonomy and independence to the various units. It is important for leaders to be able to strike a balance in different dilemma situations and understand how to best manage conflicts when they arise.

"Thania Paffenholz outlines concepts and experiences for designing and assessing intervention strategies. The article discusses the problems which result from the question of which actor can intervene with which strategies and instruments, and at what time in any particular situation of conflict. Drawing upon her field experience, the author formulates ten issues that need to be addressed in intervention design: 1. the need for vision, goals and commitment; 2. methods of analysing conflicts and actors; 3. strategies and roles of intervening actors; 4. the ongoing search for adequate partners and entry points; 5. timing and exit options of interventions; 6. thinking in processes and building structures; 7. criteria for the recruitment of field staff; 8. co-ordination and co-operation; 9. the inclusion of the goals of sustainability and 10. building learning into the process of interventions. These aspects are examined from the perspective of NGOs' reality in conflict and finally the author raises the difficulties of creating knowledge management mechanisms within organisations and programmes." (author's abstract)

Laffan illuminates the European Union (EU)'s governance by describing its budget-making process & politics. The primary functions of budgets are listed along with the EU's budget amounts, 1973-1998. There is a brief review of the budget of the EU's predecessor, the European Coal & Steel Community, 1952-1969, budgetary crises & conflicts, 1970-1986, & the institutionalization of the budget, 1987-1999. Data on budget creation & management are enriched by information on macronegotiations, the annual budget cycle, 1990's expansion, auditing, the discharge procedure, & means of addressing fraud. Future budgetary planning & conflicts are revealed by details of Agenda 2000, proposal formatting, & negotiations within the EU's councils. Ways in which the budgeting process embodies EU's goals of integration & representation are explored. The need for stabilization, accountability, & flexibility is addressed. 4 Tables, 1 Figure, 2 References. M. C. Leary

Describes how the study of borders & boundaries has shifted from a focus on interstate boundaries to include spatial & administrative divisions that separate people in their everyday lives. Focus is on ethno-territorial divisions & their impact on majority-minority power relations, self-determination & independence, & interethnic conflict. The origins of boundaries & bordering processes in past political & colonial legacies are explored, & the role of ethnoterritorialism & conflicts over boundaries/borders in contemporary identity politics at the local level is discussed. Ways that boundaries are managed & border regimes are created & maintained are also demonstrated & a typology of different types of boundaries & border regimes is created. Illustrative case studies are offered of Cyprus, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine relations, & the Kurdish question in Iraq. Tables, Figures, References. K. Hyatt Stewart

The proceedings of the Weizenbaum Conference 2021 "Democracy in Flux: Order, Dynamics and Voices in Digital Public Spheres" have been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no.: 16DII121, 16DII122, 16DII123, 16DII124, 16DII125, 16DII126, 16DII127,16DII128 – "Deutsches Internet-Institut").

"Conflict transformation does not occur smoothly or at the same pace for all parties in a struggle. One side may move more readily than the other. Some groups within each side may be hesitant and mistrustful, holding out for a better arrangement, while other groups may be eager to move toward mutual accommodation. Furthermore, conflict transformation is always multi-dimensional and occurs in different degrees among all the engaged groups. For all these reasons, transformations often advance and then fall back before advancing again. The shift away from destructive conflict toward constructive transformation may occur at different points in a conflict's course (Kriesberg 2008). It may appear at an early stage of escalation, before the conflict is waged with great destructive violence, and thus prevent further escalation. It may occur alter a crisis or violent episode, from which partisans draw back. Conflict transformation may arise after protracted extreme violence inflicting horrendous casualties. It may even begin after one side has been coercively defeated, but where the adversaries establish a new relationship that is acceptable enough to the opposing sides so that neither resorts again to severe violence in order to change the relationship. In addition to elaborating on the phenomenon of conflict transformation, this chapter considers how people relate to the phenomenon. They do so in two major ways: as observer / analysts and as engaged persons, whether as partisans or as intermediaries. The field of conflict transformation is generally perceived to include studying how destructive conflicts change and become relatively constructive and also how people conduct themselves so as to foster such changes (Kriesberg 2009a). Accordingly, teachers and researchers of conflict transformation and also mediators and partisans who are consciously trying to help transform conflicts are all workers in the field. The field may also be conceived even more broadly: as a set of ideas and practices that are discerned and sometimes implemented. Understood this way, some people may perform tasks that are part of this field without thinking of themselves as doing so. They may include farseeing diplomats, researchers of basic social conflict processes, public intellectuals promoting particular policies, members of social movement organizations opposing government policies, and at times traditional mediators and partisans. Conversely, self-identified conflict resolvers may draw from the experience of these persons and groups to enrich and broaden the field of constructive conflict transformation. There can be tensions between these two conceptions of the field, defined in terms of people who identify themselves as belonging to the field or defined in terms of the particular ideas and practices that are used. However, the two conceptions can complement each other, as discussed in this chapter. The first conception fosters reflection and integration of the ideas and practices of conflict transformation, placing them into a broader context. The second conception fosters the diffusion of the ideas and practices and their implementation in everyday practice. To limit the field to only one of these conceptions would unduly constrict it and constrain its potential growth and value. But to simply merge them can have unwanted consequences. The rest of this chapter is divided into four sections: the field's basic concepts, its achievements, its major issues and challenges, and ways to advance it. These matters are discussed as they apply to both conceptualizations." (excerpt)

The author asks why the design and establishment of political institutions can sometimes contribute to the collapse of peace agreements and power sharing regimes, and further the development of centralized institutional arrangements. Focusing on institutional design after civil war, the author suggests that peace implementation should be viewed as a two phase process. The short term phase centers around confidence building phase, while the long term phase is focuses on security building. The challenges facing rival parties in the both phases are addressed, followed by a discussion of the way these challenges create strain and affect the commitments made to support an agreement. Finally, the author takes the long view, examining how the two step processes affects long term institutional design.

Cram attempts to clarify the integration that is central to the European Union (EU). Scholarship by Spinelli, Deutsch, & Haas is cited, with the author leaning toward the last's view of integration as an organic, ongoing, & formative experience for participating nations. There is consideration of integration as the creation of a supranational political union that might outstrip & end in conflict with the momentum of individual nations. Haas's "spillover" theory is delineated. Examination of the issue of control of integration involves review of neofunctionalism & its critics, including Hoffmann. The shift of politics from between member states to within the EU has led to specialized zones of "high politics." It is suggested that the goal of determining the EU's identity may be partially satisfied by comparing it with nations or federal states. A look at the EU policy process further aids dissection, with the author focusing on the evolution of formal rules, informal aspects of policy, an outline of the policy process, examples of agenda-setting, the decision-making role of the Council of Ministers, & factors involved in implementation, enforcement, & specific policy areas. Majone's interpretation of the EU as a regulatory state is included. 20 References. M. C. Leary

"Kevin Clements deals in greater detail with the challenges of linking theory, research and practice, and offers strategies to implement these approaches in all relevant areas of social change. The chapter illustrates some lessons learned from interventions in Africa, the Caucasus and Asia. The author argues that the structural sources of conflict - political and economic in particular - have been relatively underdeveloped in conflict analysis and in the design of intervention processes. This has meant that many track II interventions in conflict have been oriented towards attitudinal and behavioural change rather than situational or structural change. Until this situation is reversed and more attention is paid to the transformation of institutions and processes, it will be difficult to generate stable peaceful relationships." (author's abstract)

"The editor argues that the convergence claim characterising classic modernization theory is not tenable anymore unless it is lifted onto a discursive level. It can be rescued for contemporary modernization theory only if it is linked to the development of practices of critical examination of the modernization project itself. Rather than the emergence of certain structural patterns or interpretive templates and attitudes, modernization theory can take as its point of departure the general tendency toward the development of immanent criticism of society that characterises modernising and modernised societies. Recent theoretical work highlights the inescapability of conflicts in modern societies. Thereby it is not so much the differences between different types of societal modernization patterns that cause conflicts in the contemporary world, but instead the different claims and attitudes within modernised and modernising societies that are increasingly confronting each other. What therefore generates conflicts is not so much the factual (non-)convergence of societal processes but rather a 'sense of involvement in the project of universalism' (J. Alexander) the consequences of which are open to dispute. The emergence of a critical potential within society that turns the various modernization projects into reflexivity and confronts them with their own aims and means is therefore common to all processes of societal modernization. The commonality of 'different' modernities is the acceleration of fundamental politicisation that brings about immanent criticism of the modernization project itself. This approach contests the following shortcomings of modernization theory so far: its latent Eurocentric bias due to which some societies are 'more modern' than others; the 'container metaphor' which tends to treat societies as self-sufficient systems; the teleological and/ or evolutionary tendency that explicitly or implicitly characterises most approaches toward societal modernization: at the moment that the 'critical stage' is achieved evolutionary constructions of social change become themselves a field of political contestation." (author's abstract)