DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenges to Representative Democracy: Technocracy and Populism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenges to Representative Democracy: Technocracy and Populism Claudia Landwehr Challenges to representative democracy: technocracy and populism Representation is an essential element of what makes mass democracy possible in a pluralist society. However, societal conditions for democratic representation and relationships between representatives and constituents are changing, as are citizens’ understanding and expectations of democracy and representation. The chapter discusses how societal conditions for political representation have changed and assesses the technocratic and populist challenges to representative democracy. I explore to what extent pluralism prevails not only on the substantial, but also on the procedural level, i.e. in citizens understandings and evaluations of democratic decision-making and argue that the plurality of different conceptions of democracy and representation among citizens constitutes both a threat to the procedural consensus democracy rests upon and a resource to renew this consensus through democratic meta-deliberation. 1. Introduction Bernard Manin has argued that every transformation of democracy is accompanied by diagnoses of crisis (Manin, 1997: 193/4). The contemporary diagnoses of a crisis of liberal democracy are also, and perhaps primarily, diagnoses of a crisis of representation. Those concerned about political alienation and non-participation tend to blame misfunctions of representative institutions and their removed, secluded and increasingly technocratic character for citizens’ loss of interest in politics (e.g. Crouch, 2002, Hay, 2007, Mair, 2013). The literature on responsiveness contents that citizens’ unequal influence on political decisions and the frequent divergence of decisions from majority positions constitutes a failure of representatives to adequately represent all societal interests and preferences (e.g. Gilens, 2005, Bartels, 2009, Elsässer, Hense et al., 2018). The rise of populist parties and candidates, which is commonly regarded as the biggest threat to liberalism and democracy, is often explained as a response to the failures of representation: mainstream parties are said to have betrayed the interests of low-income and low-education citizens and to have left a representational gap where preferences for a combination of redistributive with culturally conservative or even authoritarian policies are concerned. Accordingly, it is not surprising that many populist movements and parties challenge not only the policies produced by mainstream parties, but also the representative polity in which these are produced, and demand different, and in particular, more direct forms of democracy. This chapter will, in the next section, reflect on requirements and challenges for political representation under conditions of mass democracies in pluralist societies. Against this background, the third section will discuss two contemporary challenges to representative democracy: First, the tendency towards increasingly technocratic institutions and decision-making processes that are removed from ordinary citizens’ concerns, and secondly, the populist attack on mainstream parties 1 and representative institutions. While representative democracy seems to have come under attack from two sides, I argue that both technocratic and populist forces ultimately share the rejection of institutions and practices of mediation, interest reconciliation and deliberation, which are central to representative democracy. Where established institutions and practices are challenged and the procedural consensus on where, how and by whom political decisions are to be taken is questioned, however, a polity’s capacity to address salient problems adequately as well as its support base in the population are likely to suffer. Section 4 seeks to explore the scope and content of procedural consensus: which competing conceptions of democracy coexist in consolidated democracies and in how far do they overlap? While the existing evidence is far from conclusive, there is certainly reason fear that the procedural consensus may become frail and that the stability of at least some liberal democracies is at risk. I conclude that democracies require ongoing processes of re- constitutionalization that ensure a political systems’ adaptability to societal change and new challenges. Understanding democracy, in Habermasian terms, as a self-correcting learning process, entails the hope that inclusive deliberation can address not only substantial decisions, but also the procedural ‘rules of the game’ and can help to adjust institutions to changed conditions and to renew the procedural consensus. 2. Democracy and representation In modern mass democracies, representation seems to constitute a functional requirement for collective decision-making. While directly democratic decisions, initiated by ordinary citizens or organised interests and taken in referenda, can complement representative decision-making, the sheer number of decisions required in highly complex societies seems to make a division of labour between citizens and professional politicians indispensable. More importantly, however, and although representative democracy often continues to be regarded as an inferior substitute for more direct forms of democracy “we need to understand representation as an intrinsic part of what makes democracy possible.” (Urbinati and Warren, 2008: 395) By dividing popular sovereignty from government, representation ensures the self-limitation of majority rule and enables moderation and mediation (Urbinati, 2019: 90-93). The indirect relationship between public opinion and decision- making that is established by representative institutions ensures that majority is understood as a method of decision-making rather than reified as the popular will: “[I]f the people can (and probably will) change, then any appeal to its will is also fallible, temporary, and incomplete.” (Urbinati, 2019: 92) Under conditions of interest and value pluralism, identitarian conceptions of democracy like Rousseau’s must lose appeal: The idea of a pre-political volonté générale that is tracked where every citizen independently and without prior deliberation votes for the option they view as maximising a 2 ‘common good’ becomes problematic where the scope of political decisions reaches far beyond the guarantee of internal and external security, where standards for the evaluation of decisions are contested and where unquestioned norms and values have become few. Among the four principles of representative government identified by Bernard Manin is the principle that in representative democracy, decisions are made after “trial by discussion” (Manin, 1997: 183 pp.). While the principle as such survives transformations of democracy, Manin concedes that the notion of discussion is elusive and highlights the ways in which the institutionalization and dynamics of the ‘trial’ process have changed (ibid. 197/8). Manin’s definition of discussion comes close to the type of political interaction that is now commonly referred to as “deliberation”. Since the 1990ies, democratic theory has put a strong focus on the importance of deliberative processes of opinion and will formation as well as on the uptake of these by representative institutions. The deliberative and representative turns in democratic theory are thus closely related: J.M. Bessettes’ book on deliberative representative government in the United States (Bessette, 1997) highlights deliberation as a desideratum for legitimate representation. Bessette was also the first author use the concept of deliberation, which has since become central in the normative assessment of democratic government, in a political context, locating it within representative institutions (Bessette, 1980). Emphasizing the need to overcome the juxtaposition between direct and representative democracy and rejecting the view of the latter as only an inferior substitute for stronger forms of democracy, Jane Mansbridge points out that “only an elected political elite has both deliberative and decision-making power.” (Mansbridge, 2003: 395) Jon Elster and Jürgen Habermas have presented the deliberative conception of democratic politics as a kind of middle way, or synthesis, between the more extreme liberal- technocratic and direct-participatory positions (Elster, 1997 [1986], Habermas, 1999). While the different accounts of deliberative democracy are now numerous, Jürgen Habermas’ in Between Facts and Norms perhaps remains the one that most explicitly discusses representative democracy as deliberative democracy (Habermas, 1996). As Daniel Gaus points out, Habermas does not only, or not even in the first place, offer a normative theory of democracy that prescribes specific institutions and practices. Instead, he conducts a ‘rational reconstruction’ of a historical learning process that explains the development of a moral and epistemic consciousness on the basis of which the institutions of representative constitutional democracy could be established and maintained (Gaus, 2013). Habermas views representative institutions in their relationship with civil society and the public sphere. Representatives deliberate and decide under a ‘state of siege’ from civil society, which manages the pool of reasons they can draw on to justify decisions. At the same time, representative institutions ensure that arguments are transmitted and translated from citizens to decision-makers and act as a filter for reasons that decisions can be based upon. 3 Although Habermas thus reconstructs democracy as deliberative and representative democracy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept of Kingship
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship Jacob Douglas Feeley University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, and the Jewish Studies Commons Recommended Citation Feeley, Jacob Douglas, "Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2276. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2276 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2276 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship Abstract Scholars who have discussed Josephus’ political philosophy have largely focused on his concepts of aristokratia or theokratia. In general, they have ignored his concept of kingship. Those that have commented on it tend to dismiss Josephus as anti-monarchical and ascribe this to the biblical anti- monarchical tradition. To date, Josephus’ concept of kingship has not been treated as a significant component of his political philosophy. Through a close reading of Josephus’ longest text, the Jewish Antiquities, a historical work that provides extensive accounts of kings and kingship, I show that Josephus had a fully developed theory of monarchical government that drew on biblical and Greco- Roman models of kingship. Josephus held that ideal kingship was the responsible use of the personal power of one individual to advance the interests of the governed and maintain his and his subjects’ loyalty to Yahweh. The king relied primarily on a standard array of classical virtues to preserve social order in the kingdom, protect it from external threats, maintain his subjects’ quality of life, and provide them with a model for proper moral conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Zechariah, Volume 2
    EXPLORING ZECHARIAH, VOLUME 2 VOLUME ZECHARIAH, EXPLORING is second volume of Mark J. Boda’s two-volume set on Zechariah showcases a series of studies tracing the impact of earlier Hebrew Bible traditions on various passages and sections of the book of Zechariah, including 1:7–6:15; 1:1–6 and 7:1–8:23; and 9:1–14:21. e collection of these slightly revised previously published essays leads readers along the argument that Boda has been developing over the past decade. EXPLORING MARK J. BODA is Professor of Old Testament at McMaster Divinity College. He is the author of ten books, including e Book of Zechariah ZECHARIAH, (Eerdmans) and Haggai and Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey (Deo), and editor of seventeen volumes. VOLUME 2 The Development and Role of Biblical Traditions in Zechariah Ancient Near East Monographs Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Society of Biblical Literature Boda Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA) Electronic open access edition (ISBN 978-0-88414-201-0) available at http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/Books_ANEmonographs.aspx Cover photo: Zev Radovan/BibleLandPictures.com Mark J. Boda Ancient Near East Monographs Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Society of Biblical Literature Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA) EXPLORING ZECHARIAH, VOLUME 2 ANCIENT NEAR EAST MONOGRAPHS Editors Alan Lenzi Juan Manuel Tebes Editorial Board Reinhard Achenbach C. L. Crouch Esther J. Hamori Chistopher B. Hays René Krüger Graciela Gestoso Singer Bruce Wells Number 17 EXPLORING ZECHARIAH, VOLUME 2 The Development and Role of Biblical Traditions in Zechariah by Mark J.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Principles of Public Sector Reforms
    Key Principles of Public Sector Reforms Case Studies and Frameworks Key Principles of Public Sector Reforms Case Studies and Frameworks Advance proof copy. The final edition will be available in December 2016. © Commonwealth Secretariat 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission of the publisher. Views and opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author and should in no way be attributed to the institutions to which they are affiliated or to the Commonwealth Secretariat. Wherever possible, the Commonwealth Secretariat uses paper sourced from responsible forests or from sources that minimise a destructive impact on the environment. Printed and published by the Commonwealth Secretariat. Table of contents Table of contents ........................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... 3 Foreword .................................................................................................. 5 The Key Principles of Public Sector Reform ......................................................... 8 Principle 1. A new pragmatic and results–oriented framework ................................. 12 Case Study 1.1 South Africa. Measuring organisational productivity in the public service: North
    [Show full text]
  • The Structural Origins of Authoritarianism in Pakistan
    CDDRL Number 116 WORKING PAPERS October 2009 The Origins of Authoritarianism in Pakistan Sumit Ganguly Indiana University, Bloomington Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Additional working papers appear on CDDRL’s website: http://cddrl.stanford.edu. Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Stanford University Encina Hall Stanford, CA 94305 Phone: 650-724-7197 Fax: 650-724-2996 http://cddrl.stanford.edu/ About the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) CDDRL was founded by a generous grant from the Bill and Flora Hewlett Foundation in October in 2002 as part of the Stanford Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. The Center supports analytic studies, policy relevant research, training and outreach activities to assist developing countries in the design and implementation of policies to foster growth, democracy, and the rule of law. TTThhheee OOOrrriiigggiiinnnsss ooofff AAAuuuttthhhooorrriiitttaaarrriiiaaannniiisssmmm iiinn PPPaaakkkiiissstttaaannn Sumit Ganguly Introduction What ails the Pakistani polity? Since its emergence from the detritus of the British Indian Empire in 1947, it has witnessed four military coups (1958, 1969, 1978 and 1999), long periods of political instability and a persistent inability to consolidate democratic institutions. It also witnessed the loss of a significant portion of its territory (East Pakistan) in 1971 following the brutal suppression of an indigenous uprising in the aftermath of which some ten million individuals sough refuge in India. The flight of the refugees to India and the failure to reach a political resolution to the crisis precipitated Indian military intervention and culminated in the creation of the new state of Bangladesh.i Pakistan’s inability to sustain a transition to democracy is especially puzzling given that India too emerged from the collapse of British rule in South Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Forms of Traditional States and Their Historical
    Abstract: The article investigates traditional states in the FORMS OF TRADITIONAL STATES AND context of their historical origin. The work substantiates that in the traditional legal order, land ownership THEIR HISTORICAL SPECIFICITY generates political power distributed among several carriers, representing the community, and the other, the State itself. To describe the state’s traditional form, the FORMAS DOS ESTADOS TRADICIONAIS E authors propose to use the concept of “diarchy”, which differs significantly from both the monarchical and the SUA ESPECIFICIDADES HISTÓRICAS republican forms of the state. The authors show that the latter has not been adequately covered in the history of political and legal doctrines. However, it serves as the basis to develop monarchical and republican forms of government. In this respect, it is substantiated that in the era of traditional states, diarchy was a typical form of state organization, the essence of which was the division of power prerogatives between the supreme ruler, who Valentin Ya. Liubashits 1 concentrated priestly functions, and the “vice-king”, Nikolai V. Razuvaev 2 exercising the full military and administrative power. Alexey Yu. Mamychev 3 Keywords: power; diarchy; monarchy; republic; a form Volodymyr A. Trofymenko 4 of state. Vadim O. Danilyan 5 Resumo: O artigo investiga os estados tradicionais no contexto de sua origem histórica. O trabalho comprova que, no ordenamento jurídico tradicional, a propriedade da terra gera poder político distribuído entre diversos portadores, representando a comunidade, e outro, o próprio Estado. Para descrever a forma tradicional do estado, os autores propõem-se a utilizar o conceito de “diarquia”, que difere significativamente tanto da forma monárquica quanto da republicana de estado.
    [Show full text]
  • Positing an Ideal Form of Monarchy in Herodotus' Histories
    Positing an Ideal Form of Monarchy in Herodotus’ Histories Almost every society described in Herodotus’ Histories has experienced one-man rule. Under one-man rule, an individual is the sole possessor of political authority, which is attained and exercised either legitimately or illegitimately. Legitimate one-man rule (monarchy) is usually inherited or obtained by a community-sanctioned process. Illegitimate one-man rule (tyranny) is attained through non-traditional means that are often violent. Even tyrannies, however, can be passed on through hereditary channels – the Peisistratidae and the Mermnadae are examples. Some argue that the distinction between monarchs and tyrants in the Histories is constructed by scholars (Morgan, 2003). Munson (2003) suggests that access to the monarchy through cleverness or luck reveals its essential illegitimacy and hence falsifies the distinction. Other scholars assert that it is valid to distinguish between monarchy and tyranny because Herodotus presents some manifestations of one-man rule as acceptable constitutional forms (Davie 1979; Flory 1987). The potential for illegitimacy in monarchy has created an intense focus on tyrants and the nature of autocratic rule in the Histories. Dewald (2003) argues for a “despotic template:” an ideal form of tyranny in which all one-man rules partake at least in part. She asserts that the institution of tyranny exerts an influence on the individuals who fill the role, and that this influence can be observed in almost all individual instances of one-man rule. In this paper, I suggest a parallel “monarchical template:” the ideal form of monarchy that may also exert an institutional pull on those same individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Dyarchy: Democracy, Autocracy and the Scalar Sovereignty of Interwar India
    Dyarchy: Democracy, Autocracy and the Scalar Sovereignty of Interwar India Stephen Legg School of Geography University of Nottingham Nottingham NG72RD [email protected] Abstract The 1919 Government of India Act instituted sweeping constitutional reforms that were inspired by the concept of “dyarchy”. This innovation in constitutional history devolved powers to the provinces and then divided these roles of government into reserved and transferred subjects, the latter of which would be administered by elected Indian ministers. Recent scholarship has been reassessing the local biopolitical potential unleashed by the 1919 Act. In this paper I revisit dyarchy at the national scale to show how this “All-India” re- visioning of Indian sovereignty was actually negotiated in relation to its imperial and international outsides and the exigencies of retaining governmental control inside the provinces. This paper will propose a constitutional historical geography of dyarchy, focusing on three scales and the forms of comparison they allow. First, Lionel Curtis’s political geometries and the international genealogies of his federalist aspirations are explored. Secondly, the partially democratic level of the province is shown to have been rigorously penetrated by, and categorically subordinated to, the central tier of colonial autocracy, which orchestrated a political geography of exclusion and exception. Finally, rival conceptions of time and sequentiality will be used to examine the basis for nationalist criticisms and exploitations of dyarchy’s reconfigurations of democracy, biopolitics, and the vital mass of the people. 1 Dyarchy: Democracy, Autocracy and the Scalar Sovereignty of Interwar India1 “The myriad problems of India must be and can be solved only by the Indians in India.
    [Show full text]
  • Debating Representative Democracy
    Critical Exchange Debating representative democracy Nadia Urbinati, Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Contemporary Political Theory advance online publication, 8 December 2015; doi:10.1057/cpt.2015.57 Nadia Urbinati’s book Democracy Disfigured has two main goals. The first is to defend a ‘diarchic’ conception of democracy, based on the interplay between popular will and opinion. The second is to describe three possible disfigurations of this conception of democracy – the epistemic, the populist and the plebiscitarian – all of which alter the balance between will and opinion, undermining the ultimate goal of democracy, which is assumed to consist in laying the conditions for civil and political freedom. The two constitutive poles of Urbinati’s conception of democracy are therefore what she calls ‘will’ and ‘opinion’ (Urbinati, 2014, p. 17). The first is assumed to correspond to the formal rules and procedures through which collectively binding decisions are taken in a free and fair way; that is essentially, voting and majority rule as ways of structuring political representation. Opinion, on the other hand, is assumed to correspond to the multiple processes through which citizens influence collective decisions in an informal and indirect way, beyond the selection of their representatives; that is essentially, participation in the public sphere, political demonstration and other forms of direct action. As Urbinati stresses, opinion is therefore a ‘power that is meant to give voice to citizens’ claims, monitor institutions and devise alternative political agendas’ (Urbinati, 2014, pp. 7–8). The notion of ‘diarchy’ is meant to capture the relation between will and opinion in the context of a system in which the two ‘are different and should remain distinct, although in need of constant communication’ (Urbinati, 2014, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Regency in the Seleucid Empire
    Interregnum: Queen Regency in the Seleucid Empire by Stacy Reda A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Ancient Mediterranean Cultures Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2014 © Stacy Reda 2014 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract An examination of the ancient sources indicates that there were possibly seven Queens Regent throughout the course of the Seleucid Dynasty: Apama, Laodice I, Berenice Syra, Laodice III, Laodice IV, Cleopatra I Thea, and Cleopatra II Selene. This thesis examines the institution of Queen Regency in the Seleucid Dynasty, the power and duties held by the Queen Regent, and the relationship between the Queen and her son—the royal heir. This thesis concludes that Queen Regency was not a set office and that there were multiple reasons and functions that could define a queen as a regent. iii Acknowledgements I give my utmost thanks and appreciation to the University of Waterloo’s Department of Classical Studies. The support that I have received from all members of the faculty during my studies has made a great impact on my life for which I will always be grateful. Special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Sheila Ager, for mentoring me through this process, and Dr. Maria Liston (Anthropology) for her support and guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • 10731605.Pdf
    1 SOME ASPECTS OF TEE RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF INDIA AND PAKISTANi WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PERIOD 1919-1956 by Berm Prasad Barua Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies January, 1967 ProQuest Number: 10731605 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731605 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT This thesis is a study of those political and constitutional theories which mainly since 1919 had their impact on the constitutional evolution of India and Pakistan. The introductory chapter Begins with a brief account of the constitutional and political background. An attempt has been made to make a comparative analysis of the constitution- making processes of four countries: the U.S.A. and Prance, representing the democracies in the West; and Turkey and Japan, representing Asia. The second chapter is devoted to the constitutional discussions in India during the period 1919-1935. The third and fourth chapters analyse the constitutional and political ideas put forth by Hindu and Muslim thinkers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Defence Diarchy: a Case Study on Its Abolition in New Zealand
    S D S C Strategic & Strategic and Defence Studies Centre Working Paper Defence Studies Centre Working Paper No. 402 The Defence Diarchy: A Case Study on its Abolition in New Zealand Derek Quigley April 2007 Derek Quigley, QSO, is a former New Zealand Cabinet Minister. He chaired the Strategos Resourced Management Review of New Zealand Defence 1988 and, in 2000, reviewed the contract to purchase F-16 fighter aircraft from the United States Government. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. He is the author of the recently published monograph The War Against Defence Restructuring: A Case Study on Changes Leading to the Current Structure of New Zealand Defence, SDSC Canberra Paper No. 166. Published by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at The Australian National University, Canberra National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Quigley, Derek, 1932– The Defence Diarchy: A Case Study on its Abolition in New Zealand ISBN 978 0 7315 5478 2 1. Military planning – New Zealand. 2. New Zealand - Military Policy. 3. New Zealand – Armed Forces – Reorganisation. I. Australian National University. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. II. Title. (Series: Working Paper (The Australian National University. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre); no. 402). 355.033093 Copyright This book is copyrighted to The Australian National University. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be made to the publisher. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre’s Publication Program Established in 1966, the SDSC is located within the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, College of Asia and the Pacific, at The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics Global and Regional Perspectives T
    Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics Global and Regional Perspectives T. Volgy; R. Corbetta; K. Grant; R. Baird ISBN: 9780230119314 DOI: 10.1057/9780230119314 Palgrave Macmillan Please respect intellectual property rights This material is copyright and its use is restricted by our standard site license terms and conditions (see palgraveconnect.com/pc/info/terms_conditions.html). If you plan to copy, distribute or share in any format, including, for the avoidance of doubt, posting on websites, you need the express prior permission of Palgrave Macmillan. To request permission please contact [email protected]. Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to University of Groningen - PalgraveConnect - 2011-08-16 - PalgraveConnect of Groningen - licensed to University www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 10.1057/9780230119314 - Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, Edited by Thomas J. Volgy, Renato Corbetta, Keith A. Grant and Ryan G. Baird 99780230104648_01_prexiv.indd780230104648_01_prexiv.indd i 44/4/2011/4/2011 44:50:58:50:58 PPMM Evolutionary Processes in World Politics Edited by William R. Thompson, Indiana University Published by Palgrave Macmillan: The Historical Evolution of World-Systems Edited by Christopher Chase-Dunn and E. N. Anderson (2005) Puzzles of the Democratic Peace: Theory, Geopolitics and the Transformation of World Politics By Karen Rasler and William R. Thompson (2005) The Making of a Digital World: The Evolution of Technological Change and How It Shaped Our World By Joachim K. Rennstich (2008) Systemic Transitions: Past, Present, and Future Edited by William R.
    [Show full text]